Sitting of 21 May 1997

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Adjournment of the House
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
9.34 am
Mr. Ross Cranston: Madam Speaker, I congratulate you on your election.
In this my maiden speech, I pay a warm tribute to my predecessor, Dr. John Gilbert, who represented the Dudley, East seat for 27 years. He represented the people of Dudley conscientiously and, when I was campaigning, he was often mentioned by people who came up to me in the street and commended him for the help that he had given them. I congratulate him on his recent appointment as Minister of State and on his imminent appointment as a life peer.
I now also represent two wards that were represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson)—indeed my friend as well—and I pay tribute to him. At a national level, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. This country is fortunate in having such a bold, dynamic and visionary leader, and the extent of my party's victory turned on his leadership. It also turned on the efforts of many others, including my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, with his robust good sense, his background in the Labour movement and his energy, and many ordinary members, including the members of the Labour party in my constituency. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons on her appointment. The House is fortunate that the initiative for its reform is in such good hands.
I have the honour to represent Dudley, North. It is a tremendous privilege to have been elected to serve the people of that part of the black country. The region is replete with history, which dates back to prehistoric times. Castle Hill and Wren's Nest contain a unique collection of prehistoric fossils and an application has been made for world heritage listing on that basis.
As you well know, Madam Speaker, the name "the black country" derives from the time of the industrial revolution. In the 19th century, the region was a powerhouse of economic activity. It is a history of a great people who take pride in their contribution to this country's modern development. Much of that 19th-century industry has gone, but my constituency can look forward to the new millennium with confidence under a Labour Government, who are prepared to provide support for local initiatives. The Castle Gate project is just one example. The site, designed for high-tech industries of the 21st century, will now go ahead.
630
We should not forget that the past 18 years have not been kind to many of my constituents. Older people have suffered in particular and unemployment, especially among young people, is far too high. I therefore welcome the Government's commitments to improve public services, the national health service and social housing, and, in particular, their undertakings on the training and employment of young people. The Labour party believes that services provided publicly, by the community, are a way of ameliorating inequality, which has been so accentuated in the past 18 years.
Before the House adjourns, I should like it to consider a number of matters. The first relates to the Government's policies to address crime. When I was campaigning during the election, I found that youth crime was of particular concern to many ordinary people. In some cases, they may misperceive the problem, but crime is an objective reality. In his recent pronouncements, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has built on the well-accepted criminological truism that certainty is as important as severity in deterring crime. That is why fast-track punishment is important. Offenders have to be sure that they will be caught and punished quickly—it is as important as what happens afterwards.
Several years ago, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister coined the phrase "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime". The causes are many. Government policies on employment generation for young people are linked to our crime prevention policies. People without hope, or a future, or who are alienated from society, are more likely to commit crime.
A number of points have struck me as I have sat in the Crown court as an assistant recorder, and now a recorder, for the past six years, although I hasten to add that my experience is limited. The first is the complexity of matters. The former Home Secretary traded in simplicities. He also rejected the findings of research, even research from his own Department. It is no wonder that those at the coal face of the criminal justice system—the judiciary, including the higher judiciary—have resoundingly rejected his approach.
Secondly, I was struck by the fact that so much crime is drug and alcohol related. A number of hon. Members have said the same and mentioned the irresponsibility of some parts of the drinks industry. I agree that something must be done.
A third point that has struck me is that many people who appear before me in the Crown court have not had a decent start in life. We see that in the pre-sentence reports. That certainly does not absolve them from responsibility for their acts but it means, as the Prime Minister has said, that we must tackle the causes as well as the manifestations of crime.
Before the House adjourns, I should also like it to consider the recent pronouncements of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. One announcement concerned the operational independence of the Bank of England. The main Opposition party has taken issue with that on the basis that the decision was taken without parliamentary debate or statement, but it is in the nature of such things that events move quickly. In fact, it was an astute move. It back-footed the markets and richly deserves the praise that it has won. It is consistent with international developments in the operation of monetary policy and it also puts us in a position to comply

631
with the Maastricht treaty should we decide to be part of the European single currency. There will still be accountability through the Monetary Policy Committee and a more representative Court at the Bank. More important, the Government will continue to set the inflation target.
I was gratified to hear the Governor of the Bank of England say last week:
"What we are about is growth and employment, but we are about that in the medium and longer term. Low inflation with steady growth is what we are on about. An inflation target is not an end in itself but very much a means to an end."
I welcome that statement; it is precisely what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is seeking to achieve.
I have been fortunate to serve on several International Monetary Fund missions to central banks in Asia and eastern European countries. I have to confess that sometimes the Governor's realistic appraisal of goals was rather lost in the concern for price stability. In countries with rampant inflation, price stability must be an overriding factor but, as the Governor has rightly said, and as the Chancellor has also made clear, the central goals must be growth and employment with stability, as the Chancellor has said, a platform to those ends.
I hope that before the House adjourns it will take into account the various matters that I have mentioned.
9.43 am
Dr. Evan Harris: It is a pleasure and an honour to follow the eloquent and detailed maiden speech made by the hon. Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Cranston). I hope that my contribution will match his in eloquence and content.
It is a privilege to represent the beautiful constituency of Oxford, West and Abingdon. I am the first Liberal to sit for Oxford since a certain Mr. Frank Grey, who won in 1922 and 1923. On both occasions there was a two-party contest between the Liberals and Conservatives—a luxury that we can no longer enjoy. Unfortunately, Mr. Grey was unseated after an election petition, the charge—or at least the allegation—being that he tampered with the signals on the railway to prevent a train carrying Conservative voters from arriving from Oxford and disgorging its contents. It seems that 70 years later, the previous Government found an even more effective way to stop people going about their business on the railways through their privatisation programme.
In representing Oxford, I am also following the late Evan Luard who was latterly a member of the Social Democratic party, which I also joined. We therefore share not only a relatively rare first name, shared as far as I know in political circles only by the son of the new Prime Minister, but our political beliefs. He was followed by my immediate predecessor, the right hon. John Patten.
John Patten was considered a controversial Member of Parliament, yet he was and is well respected in the constituency for his courtesy to his political opponents and his constituents and for the effective and prompt way in which he dealt with constituency matters. Although I might not agree with much of what he said during the years that he served the constituency, I pay full tribute to his record as a constituency Member of Parliament and his record of standing up for what he believed in,
632
even though it might court controversy. I hope that in also making a stand on things that matter to me, I can follow in his footsteps.
Oxford, West and Abingdon has many claims to fame. Because of its old and beautiful university, it has perhaps more libraries than any other constituency, more chapels and, of course, more bars and pubs. Indeed, I served my political apprenticeship 10 years ago among those chapels, libraries and bars. That allows me to note now the colleges of Balliol, Brasenose, Corpus Christi, Christ Church, Exeter, Hertford, Jesus, Keble, Kellog, Lincoln, Linacre, Lady Margaret Hall, Mansfield, Magdalen, Manchester, Merton, New college, Oriel, the Queen's college, Regent's Park, St. Anne's, St. Antony's, St. Catherine's, St. Edmund Hall, St. Hilda's, St. Hugh's, St. John's, St. Peter's, Trinity, University, Wadham, which is my own fondly remembered alma mater, Wolfson and Worcester.
The risk in that recitation of the oft-travelled canvass trips is that I may have missed some out, but I must pay due respect to the voters of those colleges—first-time voters at that—who, in large numbers, decided to return a Liberal Democrat. Partly it was because they recognised the importance for the future of this country of investment in education, not only in school education from which many of them benefited in the state sector, as I did in Liverpool, but in higher education.
Before the House adjourns, it is important that we consider the future of higher education. The university sector is under great pressure with the unit of funding having been reduced serially since the expansion of numbers, which was welcomed by all, but which was significantly underfunded. The threat of the end of free education for a first degree, for young as well as adult learners, should be treated with grave concern.
Access to higher education is already restricted to those well enough off to ensure that they can get through their university days without descending into poverty or those perhaps able to take out loans contingent on the fact that they are entering professions for which the remuneration will be sufficient to pay off those loans. The concern is that we not only damage access for people from lower socio-economic backgrounds, such as people who went to my own comprehensive school in Liverpool, some of whom I know had to drop out of university education because of the cost, but close off access to higher education for those pursuing careers that are less well paid. In many cases, young graduates find that they cannot consider entering a career in the caring professions or in public service.
Hon. Members have expressed great concern about the recruitment levels of those entering the teaching or nursing profession, entry to which now usually requires a degree. Labour Members will be interested to know that, in my own profession, the starting salary for junior hospital doctors for out-of-hours work is around £3.50 an hour. They should be concerned that those who are treating, out of normal working hours, the sick and the most vulnerable in society are among the lowest-paid in the country.
I was proud to represent junior doctors in my trade union—the British Medical Association—not only in Oxford, West and Abingdon, but across the south-east. The BMA has pressed for due consideration of not only terms and conditions of employment but the work load

633
that has fallen upon those who are working in the acute hospital sector. I include in that sector the legion of managers who now work in the health service. When I started on the wards, one would never see a manager beyond the normal working day on the wards of my local hospitals, the Radcliffe infirmary or the Oxford Radcliffe hospital. Even managers, however, are now pressed into action, when patient waiting times become too great. Managers, rather than junior doctors, are working hard to find beds—which are often in short supply—in which to place patients until an appropriate management plan can be made.
Before the House adjourns, I hope that we resolve to tackle the problems of the acute hospital sector, for the benefit not only of patients—who are feeling the effects of the excess work load placed on those working in the profession and of shortened hospital stays—but of those working in the hospital sector, on whom the national health service, which is under great pressure, must rely. Those people are doing ever more overtime and working ever harder, for seemingly less and less reward.
It is a pleasure for me to represent not only my fellow trade unionists within the medical profession but all my constituents in Oxford, West and Abingdon. People in my constituency have an outlook that extends not only to their own city and country. My constituency is the home of the Oxfam charity, and its university is the home of several third-world organisations. They look beyond our shores to think of people who are less well off than ourselves.
During the general election campaign, I made a pledge—which I hope to implement—to ensure that, when considering how to redistribute our country's resources, we not only think of the people of these islands, but consider how we can ensure that the world in which we live can be a fitter place, in which resources are shared more fairly between the first world and those in less developed countries. If I have a part to play in achieving that goal, I shall have served my constituents proud.
It is an honour to have been elected to the House, and I hope to be able to raise all these issues in this Parliament.
9.52 am
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I congratulate both you, Madam Speaker, and the President of the Council. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Cranston) and the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on their maiden speeches. I hope that I can follow in the same, successful vein.
I pay tribute to Den Dover, the former hon. Member for Chorley, who represented the constituency for the past 18 years. He worked hard in the general election campaign, and one must always remember that he was a dedicated Member of Parliament. Before him, George Rodgers—a Labour Member—served Chorley well. From 1945 to 1969, Clifford Kenyon—a renowned name in the Chamber—served Chorley as one of the greatest ever Members of Parliament. His knowledge of farming was unquestionably renowned.
I should also like to thank my father, Doug Hoyle. He was a Member from 1974 to 1979, representing the old Nelson and Colne constituency. He then went on to serve, from 1981 to 1987, as the hon. Member for Warrington, North, where my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) represented the adjoining constituency.
634
My father has since been elevated to the House of Lords. I wish him well, and I thank him for all the support that he has given me.
It is a privilege to represent Chorley, the town of my birth. Perhaps uniquely among hon. Members, I was born in my constituency, and I have always lived and worked in it. I am therefore very proud to have been elected to the House to represent my home town.
Chorley is an historical market town. It comprises more than 50,000 acres—from lowland, near Southport, to the west Pennine moors—and 23 parishes, and it has a population, which is rising, of 96,000. We had much manufacturing, from textiles to such famous companies as Leyland, Royal Ordnance and Horwich Locomotive Works. Although the latter was in Bolton, West, it still employed thousands of people from all over the area, including Chorley. Almost all those companies have now gone.
Royal Ordnance was most recently in the news as a dumping site for bovine spongiform encephalopathy infected animal offal, thereby serving as a double symbol of Tory failure. The borough unemployment rate now averages 4 per cent.—which is very low—but it is low only because more than 50 per cent. of the working population travels outside Chorley to work, as most of our manufacturing has been destroyed.
Other areas have severe unemployment, which is sometimes 12 per cent. or higher. Recent job losses have included those at NORWEB, GPT, Perrite and John Willman. Well-known companies across the country are still shedding jobs, and that is the danger. I am confident that the Government will deal with the danger.
A recent survey in Chorley showed that more than half the job offers in our jobcentre were for part-time employment. The average weekly wage for those jobs was £103, and one job was advertised at £1 per hour. Such a situation is disgusting and unacceptable in a modern society. We will be a modern society, and we will redress that imbalance. A minimum wage is crucial to achieving our goals.
How personal and national economic security can be obtained under current economic circumstances is inconceivable, and I await the Government's establishment of a commission to examine a minimum wage. Some private utilities earn in a few seconds as much as some people earn in a lifetime, yet they refuse to contribute—as detailed in the Government's finance plans—to the effort to put young people back in work. Our Government have a mandate to achieve that goal.
I was chairman of Chorley borough council's economic development and tourism committee, and I helped to bring investment to Chorley, by working with businesses and showing them the attractions and benefits of what we have to offer.
The Royal Ordnance site, which is now essentially derelict, once employed 30,000 people. Now it offers a few dozen jobs. By maximising the site's potential, we are finally returning investment to our area. We are delighted that the Computer Science Corporation has chosen a redundant building on the site as its base, thereby creating 400—mainly highly skilled—jobs. Over the next four years, Latham, Crossley and Davies, a major Chorley accounting firm, plans to expand, thereby creating 200 new jobs. An extension is also planned to Ackhurst business park, which should create another 130 new jobs.

635
Those developments were aided by the economic development unit, which plays an active, interventionist role in Chorley business. It does not tell business how to run itself—it works with business to create the economic conditions that business requires. Every week, we visited firms to talk and listen to them and to provide them with contacts with councillors and officers, with whom they could deal directly in the council. As the hon. Member for Chorley, I shall maintain those links and work hard for business and for the local authority. For many years, it has been a revelation in Chorley to have a public-private partnership—which is one basis of the Government's industrial strategy—instead of pitting one sector against another.
I also helped to found the Chorley partnership, to join businesses and community leaders in working together for the town's social and economic development.
Chorley has lacked support from central Government. To have a progressive Government who share our aims will give a major boost to my area. The creation of regional development agencies will be a massive improvement. Chorley's economic development unit dealt with 442 inquiries last year. Most people were seeking advice on sites, on property available in the locality and on potential sources of financial assistance. Little assistance has been available, however, because the previous Government did not believe in it. It is a crying shame that the previous Member of Parliament thought that assisted area status would do nothing for Chorley. I hope that we can redress the balance and put Chorley on a level playing field with neighbouring areas so that we can improve it for the benefit of the people who live there. My experience of Chorley's economic development unit has shown me that development support is exactly what business wants and needs. The creation of a regional development agency will meet that objective.
It is appropriate that Europe should be dealt with at the same time as the economy; they are inextricably linked—one cannot have one without the other. The previous Government did not believe in Europe, so we profited little from the support available while every other country in the European Union did. KONVER is available to areas such as Chorley, which has seen a rundown in its defence industry, yet because of the previous Government's lack of belief and interest, we received hardly any aid to which we were entitled.
What was more shocking was the fact that the rules that applied to parts of the midlands and the south-east were different from those applied to the north-west. There could be 50 per cent. funding in the south-east, but only 35 per cent. in the north-west. There is something tragically wrong about being able to divide the country so easily. If one was cynical, one would assume that it was a political decision.
KONVER money has always been important to us. In 1996, we put in for a £3 million grant from KONVER II—which was a continuation of the old peripheral areas programme—under the auspices of the Chorley business technology centre, to assist with an £8 million development scheme for part of a 1,000 acre site in Chorley which is contaminated, but which can be used for business. We received little support from the Government. The bid was scaled down to £1 million and then to
636
£500,000, concentrating exclusively on managed workshop facilities at the Chorley business technology centre. It will do little to regenerate the massive Royal Ordnance site, but if we get the money, we shall at least have some start-up units for new businesses.
It is pointless to be a member of the EU when so much of what is available from membership is going begging because the previous Government's ideology was opposed to its positive aspects. By maximising our return from the EU in terms of grants such as KONVER, we can invest in sites, such as the Royal Ordnance site, which have massive potential. Those sites are existing industrial areas that can be developed without damaging the environment or contributing to urban sprawl. That must be of benefit to everyone.
I am delighted that we now have a Government who are committed to getting the most out of the EU by working with their partners and taking all to which we are entitled. I shall lobby Ministers hard to ensure that Chorley's case is heard and to support the early creation of regional development agencies, which will do so much to improve the economic success of regions such as the north-west.
I hope that the Royal Ordnance site will become a flagship for the whole of the north-west. It must be one of the biggest brown-field sites in the UK. It will benefit the whole of the north-west, it is well placed between two major motorways and it has a railway line running through its centre. We have a great opportunity to save green fields and to create new jobs for the north-west as a whole.
10.3 am
Mr. David Amess: It is a great honour to follow three splendid maiden speeches. Together with my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) and for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), I find myself having to respond to all the maiden speeches although I am not able to speak twice on this occasion. I will, however, deal with the three maiden speeches that we have heard so far.
These occasions should be special for hon. Members who are speaking for the first time. As the House knows, maiden speeches are the only occasions on which Members are listened to without any interruptions. It is a great occasion when people who have worked hard to be returned to the House speak for the first time.
I greatly enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Cranston). It is clear that he feels passionately about issues in his constituency and I am sure that his constituents will not be disappointed by his plans to raise matters on their behalf in the years ahead. I am sure that he and his supporters are proud of his efforts today.
We then heard the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). It was a most fluent speech and it is clear that the hon. Gentleman has great knowledge of many issues. I know that the whole House will look forward to hearing from him in the future.
I, too, pay tribute to the former Member of Parliament for Oxford, West and Abingdon—John Patten—and my hon. Friends and I greatly appreciated the tribute paid to him by the new hon. Member for that constituency.

637
The hon. Gentleman referred to John Patten as "controversial" although I am not sure what that means these days. I believe that John Patten came to the House because he believed in things: he was a conviction politician. Every Member of Parliament is entitled to express his or her views. John Patten is a great loss to this House. He added something to all our debates—[Interruption.] Some hon. Members may disagree, but I believe that he is a great loss to this House and I am delighted that he will still serve in the Palace, albeit in the other Chamber.
With regard to the splendid speech by the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), the hon. Gentleman's father had not alerted me to the fact that his son would be following him to the House. I knew the hon. Gentleman's late mother, who would have been proud of him, and I am sure that his father is proud of his speech today. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman cares passionately about the area that he now represents. My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey and I also greatly appreciated his tribute to our defeated colleague, Den Dover. Den was a friend of mine and in the 14 years during which we were together in the House I saw that he worked very hard on behalf of his constituents. He raised constituency issues on every possible occasion and I believe that he is a great loss to this House.
I praise the three splendid maiden speeches this morning. The Leader of the House may smile, but the tradition is that maiden speeches should be uncontroversial. I normally do not have a good word to say about either the Labour party or the Liberal Democrats, but on this occasion I will honour the tradition and will not comment in any shape or form on the points made in those maiden speeches. I wish the three hon. Members well and I wish every success to those who have still to make their maiden speeches.
I wish to raise a number of points. The first concerns all the nonsense about Myra Hindley. I hope that the media will not waste days on end arguing the merits of whether she should eventually be released into society. There are many more important issues about which our constituents are concerned. I hope that this issue will pass in a day because I would regret our spending a great deal of time on it.
Secondly, there was an impression that the Labour party campaign was to a certain extent financed by the trade unions. In the course of this Parliament we shall find out the truth of the matter. I am, however, very concerned about a newspaper that is being distributed. I shall not name the source of my information or the name of the company concerned, but within two weeks of the election a newspaper has been distributed among workers in a company which is a very large employer. The newspaper talks about "the workers' fight" and says that big business is backing Downing street. It refers to Labour's drive against the poor and goes on and on about how the Labour party has already sold the workers out. We can argue about the merits of that later, but it would be a great mistake for individuals in the work forces of some of our large employers to stir up trouble within two weeks of the election—they should compare the state of the British economy in 1997 with how it was in 1979—so I hope that we shall hear no more of that nonsense.
My third point concerns my constituency. I pay a warm tribute to the former Member of Parliament, now Lord Channon, who represented the constituency for nearly
638
four decades. I know him very well. Whatever anyone says about him, I discovered during the election campaign that even if he did not court great publicity he was highly regarded by his constituents. Like people in every other constituency, the people of Southend, West have every right to be represented by the Member of Parliament whom they choose. He was a splendid Member of Parliament and I am delighted that he will still be serving the country in the other House.
I want to raise some brief issues concerning the constituency. The first relates to houses in multiple occupation. In parts of Southend, West, particularly Westborough and Chalkwell, many large properties have been turned into houses in multiple occupation. Last year I served on the Standing Committee considering the Housing Bill, which gave local authorities the power to set up proper registers and to deal with matters relating to houses in multiple occupation sensibly so that licences are no longer handed out in the cavalier fashion in which they had been given in the past. During the election campaign, I found that some properties were not fit to be determined houses in multiple occupation. The situation has caused great upset to many neighbours.
Southend council has 18 Conservatives, 14 Liberal Democrats and seven Labour members. At least in the local elections there was a swing to the Conservative party. At first we were told that the Labour and Liberal Democrat members would work together, but the latest news is that the Labour party has apparently decided to pull out of the arrangement and will determine its stance on each matter as it comes up. Whoever is prepared to run Southend council, I hope that the Housing Act 1996 will be honoured and that there will be careful determination on houses in multiple occupation.
The next issue that I wish to raise relates to the cockle industry. I am honoured to represent Leigh-on-Sea and the cockle industry is important to my constituency. The fishermen played their part in the second world war, using their vessels to defend their country, and they are an important influence in the local community. The Leader of the House will not have time to deal with the matter in this debate, but I hope that she will ask her officials to find out what is going on.
Before the general election I met the then Minister with responsibility for fisheries, and we are particularly concerned about the Thames Estuary Cockle Fishery Order 1994. I am told that the Kent and Essex Sea Fisheries Committee is implementing the order, but honouring that legislation is causing great distress. The Leigh-on-Sea Shellfish Merchants Association has always recognised that the local fleet is more than capable of outfishing cockle stocks and it has always tried to co-operate with the KESFC on sensible measures to preserve the fishery. Since the order came into effect, however, the KESFC has increased the number of licence holders by granting licences to applicants with dubious track records—or even no track record at all—and the business of law-abiding cockle fishermen is being damaged. I hope that the Leader of the House will find time to get her officials to investigate that.
The penultimate issue that I wish to raise concerns schools. I do not want to start a row in the Chamber about education—I shall save that for another occasion—but in my area we have many grant-maintained schools and selective schools. As I understand it, the Labour party fought the election campaign on the express promise that

639
if local residents wished to continue to have selective schools, their wish would be honoured. I also understood that the new Government would do nothing to damage grant-maintained schools or, more importantly, the education of children. I have already had one or two letters from head teachers. They do not wish to argue, but simply ask for clarification—I do not believe that we have yet had a debate on education—about what will happen to grant-maintained and selective schools in Essex.
My final point concerns private care homes. You are a fellow Essex Member of Parliament, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My constituency has nearly 100 private care homes. We can argue with the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats about the whys and wherefores of private care homes, but we have a crisis at the moment in Essex. I hope that the Leader of the House, through her officials, will be able to tell us what is happening about that issue.
We have a crisis of bed blocking and rapidly increasing numbers of elderly people. There are many people in local hospitals who should not be blocking beds there, and there are many empty beds in private care homes which would cost less than caring for those people in the public sector. More than 80 beds are blocked in Southend hospital. Essex county council is controlled not by the Conservative party, but by a Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition. We have a Labour Government as well, so for goodness' sake let us sort the matter out. Some 90 per cent. of those people in hospital are awaiting social services funding for long-term care or community care packages. Half of the surgical wards are blocked with medically fit people awaiting discharge.
Whatever the arguments about the whys and wherefores, the situation is not good enough for the relatives who love those people who are in hospital at the moment. This is not the time to argue about the political merits of the matter. Those people may not be with us for much longer. I am simply asking that the new Government get in touch with the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties on Essex county council and do their best to sort the matter out, because there is a crisis. When relatives get around to finding out what the doctor recommends, they eventually get what they want, but it is taking an awfully long time. Many have already come to my surgery saying, "Our relatives are getting on in years and may not have much longer; we want to ensure that they are treated properly." The problem of bed blocking should be addressed urgently.
Finally, I congratulate all those who have made maiden speeches today or whose maiden speeches we shall hear shortly.
10.18 am
Liz Blackman: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Cranston), the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on their fine maiden speeches—they have made my job all the more difficult. I also thank the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) for his kind remarks.
It is a great privilege to make my maiden speech at this early stage and I am delighted to be here as the first Labour Member of Parliament for Erewash. I hope that the electorate's new practice of returning Labour Members will continue for many years to come.
640
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor, Angela Knight, who represented Erewash from 1992 until this year. She was an extremely doughty campaigner who worked with commitment and enthusiasm to serve local people. During her last two years in the House she was a Treasury Minister. I wish her well.
In the short time that I have been attending Parliament, the two most frequent questions that I have been asked are, "What constituency do you represent?" and, when I reply, "Erewash," the inevitable supplementary is, "And where exactly is that?"
Erewash is in south-east Derbyshire. It lies between the cities of Derby and Nottingham. At either end of the constituency are the principal towns of Long Eaton and Ilkeston. In between, there are several villages and some very pretty countryside. The economic base of the area was founded on traditional industries—notably mining, heavy engineering and lace-making. Those industries have contracted over the years and the necklace of 12 coal pits which surrounded Ilkeston is no more.
Erewash was therefore a suitable case for widespread industrial inertia, but people have not permitted that to happen and there is extraordinary diversity in the local economy. Light engineering and textiles—including lace—are still major industries, but they operate at the cutting edge of modern technology. Furniture-making, information technology, service and distribution industries are all to be found there.
Stanton Ironworks is an excellent example of an industry that has moved with the times. It has a proud heritage going back more than 200 years, yet today it is Britain's largest manufacturer of ductile iron pipelines. I understand that Yorkshire Water placed a bulk order with the company last summer and I suspect that several other water companies will become familiar with its range of products in the coming months.
The wider site has been subject to reclamation and offers considerable potential, with improved rail and motorway access—a development that I support.
Many successful local firms export widely in Europe and welcome the Government's intention to complete the single market and to be at the heart of Europe arguing in the best interests of British jobs and business. They agree with Adair Turner that our constructive membership of the European Union is vital to their well-being.
I pay tribute to the local partnership, which is an exceptional example of its kind. It has co-ordinated many effective initiatives by pulling together the public, private and voluntary sectors and maximising local resources. Its current project—Erewash learning community—puts learning at the heart of local economic development policy. Recently, it came close to winning the prestigious Local Government Chronicle award for the business partnership of the year.
There are, however, factors in play which have not supported local prosperity. They include the boom-bust climate of the past few years, red tape, late payment, lack of investment, poor work standards, low pay and skills, and long-term youth unemployment. I am pleased to support a Government who find those problems unacceptable and are committed to their improvement through forthcoming domestic legislation and by signing up to the social chapter.
I particularly welcome the commitment in the Gracious Speech to education as the Government's first priority. Having taught for nigh on 25 years, I know that education,

641
like no other process, develops high self-esteem and a sense of empowerment that allows the learner to play a full part in society. I applaud the raft of Government proposals to raise the quality of education for all our children and stress the importance of consultation in that process. Teachers are desperate for a constructive dialogue and I take the view that to listen first is a strength and not a weakness and leads to better decisions.
An increasing number of disaffected pupils attend our schools and I had the responsibility for working with some of them. Teachers need support to meet that challenge, not only for the sake of those children, but for those who are more predisposed to learning and for society at large. I also pay tribute to the many excellent schools and teachers in my constituency who do well by their pupils despite grappling with large class sizes and crumbling surroundings.
When I was on a public platform during the recent election campaign, I was asked by a local councillor to define poverty. He had written down the figure that he wanted to use to challenge my anticipated response. In my definition, I talked about the inability to take advantage of opportunities to make progress and a sense of hopelessness. His face went blank as it became apparent that those concepts were completely beyond his understanding.
Good skills, a decent job and the ability to plan for the future are shared goals. They allow people to feel part of society and play a part in it. Achieving sustained economic prosperity built on the proposals outlined in the Gracious Speech will sow the seedcorn for an inclusive society. I support the Government's proposals because they will allow our country and its people to prosper in the widest sense of the word and I look forward to playing a small part in delivering a programme that I know will benefit the people of Erewash.
10.25 am
Mr. Andrew Stunell: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today. It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman). I understand her difficulty in constantly having to explain where her constituency is. When I explain that Hazel Grove is in Stockport, people say, "Yes, I went there once for a holiday, but the sea is rather a long way away, isn't it?" I then have to explain that it is not in Southport but in Stockport, so I share the hon. Lady's problem.
It is a privilege to represent the constituency of Hazel Grove, which stretches from the centre of Stockport to the boundary of the Peak District national park. It has a number of small communities which were founded on water power and then on coal power. Some people are surprised to learn that until recently it also had a major steel works. The area has had to undergo a sometimes painful transformation from a series of small industrial towns to a commuter district for Greater Manchester.
Paradoxically, although my constituency includes a number of small towns and is called Hazel Grove, it does not include half of Hazel Grove. It contains Marple, Marple Bridge, Romiley, Woodley, Bredbury and part of Offerton, but only a small part of Hazel Grove, including the railway station. I therefore have the problem that not only do people outside the constituency not know where the Hazel Grove constituency is, but people in Hazel Grove do not know where it is either. They are all united, however, by their support for high-quality education.
642
Stockport borough council, on which I am privileged to serve, has a deservedly high reputation and is high in the league table of examination results at primary and secondary school level. One of the issues that I shall be putting to the House is that Stockport should receive extra funding for education and be the subject of a review by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in due course.
Hazel Grove is a commuter area, so a great deal of attention is focused on the problems of travel, public transport, road transport and rail links. Some of us have been campaigning for additional rail links to complete the rail network. I intend to focus on road schemes, the problems of public transport and the need to balance more effectively central Government investment in transport. Commuter areas also face environmental problems caused by air pollution, vibration and traffic noise. My constituency has one of the first fully automated air quality monitoring systems in the United Kingdom on the busy urban A6 that passes through Hazel Grove. The results of that monitoring, which have now been available for some six months, show scientifically what my constituents have known intuitively for some time—that air quality in the area is well below the standards set both by the United Kingdom and by the European Union.
My constituents also have concerns about the national health service. We have problems with the dermatology unit, on which I have been able to work with the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey). There is a shortage of intensive care beds. Hon. Members may remember the tragic case of Nick Geldard, a young boy for whom an intensive care bed could not be found in the whole of Greater Manchester. He was driven by ambulance to Leeds, some 52 miles away, where he was declared dead on arrival.
I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) had to say about blocked hospital beds. I am happy to report that the issue does not face us in Stockport at the moment. However, we should bear it in mind that our social services department has had to take cuts of £4 million in this financial year and that one of the predicted outcomes of that was an increase in bed blocking simply because assessment procedures could not be carried out in time. Those cuts were brought about not because of the Liberal Democrat-led administration, nor as a result of the votes of the Labour opposition, and certainly not because of the votes of the two remaining Conservative councillors, but due to the reduction in central Government funding for social services in Stockport—a matter that I shall certainly wish to bring before the House in due course.
In making his maiden speech, the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) referred to development agencies and opportunities to boost employment. That is certainly a concern, and one that I shall wish to see supported. It is a matter of regret to me, however, that we have only a development agency and that there has not been a real transfer of power and decision making to democratically elected representatives in the north-west, which is what we believe is necessary.
I have outlined briefly some of the key concerns of the constituents who have sent me to the House to represent them: education, the problems of the NHS, and issues relating to public transport and employment. I hope that the House will not mind my mentioning briefly—so that the Leader of the House can hear—one of my concerns.

643
Having entered the House as one of a greatly enlarged number of Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament—in fact, more than 50 per cent. of the Liberal Democrat Members are new to the House in this Session—I should like to mention briefly one or two of the difficulties encountered by new hon. Members on both sides of the House in seeking to represent our constituents effectively.
I am happy to report that I now have a desk and an office, but I am not so happy to report that I cannot have a telephone for another week or 10 days. That is just one aspect of the way in which, in considering not just the impact of a new Government and a new Parliament but the effectiveness of democratically elected representatives entering the House, we can in future take more care and put in more preparation to ensure that Members are able to take up their duties promptly and effectively.
In representing Hazel Grove, I have the privilege of following two very distinguished predecessors. Dr. Michael Winstanley, a Liberal, represented the constituency briefly in 1974. He later became Lord Winstanley, and sadly died last year. From October 1974 onwards, the constituency was represented by Sir Tom Arnold, who gave twenty-two and a half years' service to the House. Courtesy of the Library, I discovered what he said in his maiden speech during a debate on the European Community in April 1975. He made a very strongly pro-European speech. Those who remember his later days, supporting an alternative Conservative leadership bid last summer, may be a little surprised to hear that. Things change—the teller for the Ayes at the end of that debate was Madam Speaker herself, while one of the more prominent Noes going through the Lobby was the present Deputy Prime Minister. We must therefore recognise that, in politics, things change over time.
Sadly, Sir Tom has been very seriously unwell over the past year and had to stand down before the election. It is a privilege to represent Hazel Grove. I hope very much to follow in the tracks of my two distinguished predecessors. I hope that I can show the care, compassion and persistence of Michael Winstanley and repeat the tenacity and length of service of Sir Tom.
10.35 am
Mr. Harry Barnes: It is a pleasure to speak in a debate during which there have been so many impressive maiden speeches. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) has already dealt with the maiden speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Dudley, North (Mr. Cranston) and for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) and of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). I associate myself with the remarks that he made about those speeches, which were all very impressive. I should like to refer to the two fine maiden speeches made subsequently.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) represents an area not too far away from North-East Derbyshire. He mentioned that the Peak district is on the boundaries of his constituency. The Peak district extends a short distance into north-east Derbyshire, too. It is a beautiful area in which we both have considerable interest. He stressed environmental concerns. The environment in the area is very attractive, yet he identified environmental problems in his constituency, as I certainly
644
do in mine. Although I was politically active in my constituency when I was first a candidate and then its Member of Parliament, I was surprised to discover the depth of environmental problems that were impressed on me. I have always played a very active role in such matters, so the hon. Gentleman and I may well find ourselves with various common interests.
The House always takes well to kind remarks made about predecessors such as the immediate predecessor of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, Sir Tom Arnold, especially when hon. Members realise that the remarks are genuine and not merely a form of words.
I must also compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) on her maiden speech. It is quite appropriate for me to compliment her since I am a fellow Derbyshire Member of Parliament. The kind words that she said about Angela Knight are appreciated. No one more than myself would argue and dispute many of the positions and lines that Angela Knight took. We all recognise that Angela Knight was a serious hon. Member representing serious interests on behalf of her constituents.
The interests of my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash and I directly linked on environmental matters when she referred to Stanton plc. I have a Stanton plc unit in my constituency. We have had problems with dioxin in the area, which was traced to the Stanton unit. Investigations in the Erewash area revealed similar problems. The problems were tackled, which shows that serious investigations into environmental matters enable us to discover what action is needed to correct such problems. They were corrected in both cases.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash also mentioned her experience in education. We have serious concerns about education in Derbyshire. In North-East Derbyshire, we have 45 primary schools, 41 of which—four small village schools apart—have a problem with class sizes. Those schools have classes of more than 30 pupils, and some have 40, 42 and 44. Therefore, Labour's commitment to tackling class sizes is very important. The other key to tackling education problems in Derbyshire is the future of the standard spending assessment and its calculation. Both my hon. Friend and myself are greatly concerned about that, and I am sure that we will unite to press the Government to correct the formula for Derbyshire.
All the maiden speeches have been fine speeches. In debates with short speeches, most hon. Members do not usually pay attention to what others are saying because they are waiting to say their own bit and get away. On this occasion, some fine maiden speeches have grabbed the attention of established hon. Members. Many of us feel that we need to look to our laurels with so much talent around and displayed in those speeches.
I wish to speak on a matter that I raised at the end of the previous Parliament, and I wish to continue to press the issue. Electoral registration involves a massive shortfall and we need a new, up-to-date system. On that issue, I am a Labour party moderniser, although some might dispute that title in connection with some of my other ideas. If we had had a modern electoral registration system for the election, many of those enfranchised would have been more likely to vote for Labour than for the previous Government. Our victory at the election would have been even more astounding if we had had an effective electoral register.

645
I was disappointed that it took so long to get hold of the figures for the numbers registered in each constituency at the end of the last Parliament. That information was provided only the day before the Parliament ended and I sought an emergency debate under Standing Order No. 20, because the figures were as bad as in previous years. The problems that I had highlighted in the House on many occasions still existed.
People may think that the urgency has gone from the issue because the election has passed, but it is still important, not least because of the debate that we will have this afternoon. If we are to have referendums for Scotland and Wales, we should ensure full registration. If, as some people suggest, thresholds are to apply to the referendums, the percentages should take account of the fact that the registers contain many redundant names.
The new Government need to clarify their position. The 1993 Plant report, which was presented to the Labour party, argued for a modern, rolling electoral register. I have explained the principle behind a rolling register to the House on previous occasions and, when we were in opposition, my colleagues on the Front Bench made some commitments to that idea. However, the rolling register and modern electoral registration techniques were not part of the "Road to the Manifesto" and were not in our actual manifesto. I was disappointed that those ideas were not discussed in the constitutional talks that were held with the Liberal Democract party before the election. I was also disappointed that the Liberal Democract party did not press the issue, because it had given solid support to my proposals for a rolling register.
I hope that we can now begin to prepare the ground for a new electoral registration system. I have often argued that 3 million to 4 million people are missing from the electoral register. We now need some investigation and research to check out that claim. I hope that the Home Office will undertake a thorough investigation of the arrangements for the general election, including registration. I would like the Home Affairs Select Committee, when it is appointed, to instigate a report to investigate the issue.
In 1991, the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys produced a report which has been very useful to me in my arguments about the numbers missing from registers. I hope that the Office for National Statistics will now update the work that was done in 1991.
I have asked Members, through The House Magazine, for any information that they have from canvassing returns that shows how many people on the registers have died or moved, how many are not registered and whether any other problems were discovered. I will deal with the information in confidence if necessary because I am interested only in the global figures. That evidence could form part of the investigations by the Home Office and the Home Affairs Select Committee.
I am convinced that the evidence will show the need for a rolling electoral register that puts people on the register when they move into an area and deletes their names when they are no longer there. It is nonsense that people who have died are left on electoral registers. Unless we take great care, we send electoral communications—even special postal shots on specific issues—to people who have died. However, councils receive regular weekly information from the registrars of births, deaths and marriages so that people can be
646
excluded from council tax and housing benefit. The changes could also be made to electoral registers, if we kept rolling registers.
We also need to begin to register homeless people. The legal definition of who can be included on a register is a problem because people must be residents. Residents have to have a residence and, by definition, a homeless person does not have a residence. Homeless people should be included on registers even if they have to use accommodation addresses, hostels, benefit offices or other places as their residence. The Home Office could make a difference by issuing an early circular to returning officers to make a liberal interpretation of the current law, but the wording of the law will need changing in the future.
Mr. Ken Purchase: My hon. Friend intends to increase opportunities to register, but does he agree with the proposition that no one should be forced to register? If he does, we have a problem in defining how many people are missing from the register. Those who do not wish to be registered are still counted in the some 4 million who are unregistered. Is there any way to distinguish between those who are not on the register through lack of opportunity or being thwarted by the system and those who do not wish to register?
Mr. Barnes: I want to do everything possible to give people the opportunity to register. Information about people moving could be made available to returning officers and requests to be registered could be fulfilled. As the law stands, a person can be fined £1,000 for failing to register. The offence is dealt with fairly leniently; I do not remember the last case in which a charge was brought—and I would not encourage that to happen. On the other hand, the fact that the provision remains may provide an extra pressure towards ensuring that people register.
Certainly there should be plenty of imaginative publicity about the need to register, and the importance of registration. People cannot even exercise an abstention, or show their abhorrence of politics in general, if they do not register, so as to show that they are among the genuine people who have not voted on a particular occasion.
The other electoral matter that needs tackling is access to polling stations for disabled people. I hope that that, too, will be taken up during the investigations. Scope and other bodies have produced valuable information about that problem. When I raised the subject during business questions, the Leader of the House pointed out some problems caused by the size of the ballot paper. In North-East Derbyshire the names on the ballot paper for the parliamentary election were in very small print, and it would have been problematic for a partially sighted person to read them.
Action must be taken. I have presented to the House many measures, such as ten-minute Bills and other private Members' Bills, both on the rolling register and on access to polling stations, although not yet on provisions for the homeless. I hope that the Government will give such matters serious consideration, so that by the next general election all the problems will have been resolved.
10.52 am
Mr. David Heath: It is a great honour and privilege to be making my maiden speech, and to be following a parliamentarian of such distinction

647
as the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). He invited the Liberal Democrat party to support his views on registration, and although it would probably be inappropriate for me, as a new Member, to commit my party to that view, personally I saw a great deal of sense in what he said. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will consider carefully the points that the hon. Gentleman made, and will wish to pursue them.
I represent the people of Somerton and Frome, a constituency that forms a large part of Somerset, stretching from the northernmost tip, at Norton St. Philip, just outside Bath, to Beercrocombe, just outside Taunton, at the other end. I pay tribute to my predecessor, Mark Robinson, who served his constituents as an assiduous Member of Parliament, supporting them in dealing with their personal problems and doing all that he could to help them.
Mark Robinson also demonstrated over many years a genuine commitment to overseas development. He was parliamentary private secretary to Lady Chalker for many years, and although his commitment to the cause was not always reciprocated by his Front-Bench colleagues, it was notable and praiseworthy.
I also offer my sympathy to my predecessor and his wife in that we had such a tight vote in my constituency; the majority was 130. No human being should have to go through three counts. Whether one wins or loses, it is a tiresome occasion, and one is pleased to come out at the other end.
Historically, Somerset is a radical county. Some have described it as a county of revolting peasants, but that is a calumny. None the less, we have a tradition of independent thought and nonconformity, and of questioning the establishment wherever that may be, especially when it resides in the home counties.
We demonstrated those characteristics in no small degree in 1685, in Monmouth's rebellion, the last major rebellion on English soil. Many people in Somerset, myself included, are the direct descendants of rebels who took part in that rising.
Nowadays Somerset is a rather more peaceful place. Somebody once described it as characterised by cheese and churches, cider and smugness. I do not disavow the first three, but as for smugness, if we are smug it is simply because we have so much to be smug about in the beauty of the western counties.
I could indulge in a travelogue about the constituency, but that would take a long time because it is so large. Moreover, the names of many of the villages that I would encompass would be unintelligible to the Hansard reporters. Kingsbury Episcopi, Isle Abbotts, Charlton Horethorne and Wyke Champflower are all lovely villages, and I could go on at length about their merits.
However, suffice it to say that the constituency that I represent has an interesting history, because of the many events that have taken place there. It also has an industrial history. For instance, it is a coal-mining constituency. Labour Members may not readily recognise that fact, but Somerton and Frome was a coal-mining constituency until 30 or 40 years ago, when the mines were closed.
Frome, the major town in the constituency, was a wool town, much despised by a former parliamentarian, William Cobbett, as the "Manchester of the south". Wool was a significant trade there in its time.
648
My constituency also once contained many islands, although now the levels have largely been drained, and one can get from island to island while staying relatively dry. However, once one had to take a boat, and there are still times when the Somerset levels revert to their previous condition and become the great mere of Somerset again.
Current industries range from quarrying—something that we have in common with the Derbyshire Members who have spoken this morning—to agriculture, and to the high-tech defence-related industries in some parts of the constituency. There is an enormous diversity of approach across the area.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) made his maiden speech the other day, he told us much about the merits of the city of Colchester, but as he sat down he said, sotto voce, that he had omitted to mention Queen Boadicea. Let me mention her now, because hon. Members will know that there is a statue of Boadicea, or Boudicca, on Westminster bridge. That statue was cast in Frome, and is a lasting mark here in Westminster of my constituency.
Over the centuries there has been a Liberal tradition in my part of Somerset. I am certainly not the first Liberal to represent at least part of the present constituency of Somerton and Frome. Indeed, there was a famous by-election victory in 1910, when Lloyd George spoke in the Wesley chapel in support of the candidate, who went on to win and take part in the great reforming Government of the early years of this century. Let us hope that that Government, and the 1946 Government, which many will remember, will not be the last reforming Governments in this century.
Thomas Hughes was once the Liberal Member of Parliament for Frome. He is famous for having written "Tom Brown's Schooldays", but he went on to become one of the founding members of the Co-operative movement, and so forms part of that radical tradition that informs west country politics.
New Members will all have listened with great interest to the debate on the Gracious Speech. As we demonstrated during that debate, there is much in the speech that Liberal Democrats can commend. But there are also gaps, which we shall seek to fill as the Parliament continues. For my constituents, one of the great tests will be not the intention—the intention is demonstrably good—but the outcome. We want to see whether the measures will actually make a difference for the people whom we represent.
Let me illustrate a few of the areas in which we shall make that test. The first, which has already been mentioned many times, is education. I am a former chairman of the Somerset education committee, and I do not believe that Somerset schoolchildren have been given a fair deal over recent years. This year's county council budget8—set a few months ago—is the first for eight years without a real-terms cut in school funding. The reason for that is that Somerset was one of those rare authorities that felt unable to meet the demands of the capping regime of the previous Government. Here is an early test of the new Government's commitment to education. Will they impose a Conservative cap that will result in 90 teachers being sacked in Somerset?
Somerset is not an extravagant authority—historically, it is a low-spending authority—and it can demonstrate beyond peradventure the efficiency and effectiveness of

649
its education service. Its education service boasts the lowest administrative costs of any authority in the country, and it delegates more money to its schools than practically any other authority. It has the lowest number of surplus places in its primary schools of any county in England, and it tops up the Government's standard spending assessment by taking money from other areas in the council's work—for example, road repairs, some of which are badly needed—to a greater extent than any other county authority. That will be a test of whether the Government are committed to "education, education and education" and whether the money that they intend to release from the assisted places scheme will make any difference in a county such as Somerset, which is already so near the bone as far as education expenditure is concerned.
We will be looking for capital expenditure. Somerset maintains 267 schools, but last year was permitted to spend only £2 million on their upkeep. What commercial business would dream of running an estate of that size with that amount of capital reinvestment? It is a nonsense in education and business terms.
Let me move to the police. I served for a time as chairman of the Avon and Somerset police authority, and I remember regular visits to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) when he was Home Secretary. I do not know whether he was engaged in "semantic prestidigitation" at the time, but whenever we asked for 100 extra officers—the minimum the chief constable required to police the rural areas of Somerset properly—the answer was no one year, the next year and the third year. Again, this will be a test for the new Government. Will there be more police officers on the streets of Somerset as a result of the change in Government, or will their rhetoric mean nothing?
The third test will be the environment, which was strangely absent from the Gracious Speech. Why was that? Is it no longer to be a priority? If so, we Liberal Democrats will have a great deal to say about that. One environmental test will be the Government's housing allocations and whether they wish to see the continuation of the proposed suburbanisation of Somerset. I have the greatest regard for my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and his constituency, but Surbiton and Somerset are different places and we do not want to see Surbiton replicated in our rural county.
Finally, I refer to the health service. We shall be looking for an NHS dentistry service. There is no longer such a service in Frome, as we have lost the last dentist offering NHS treatment. Will the service be restored? I am an optician by training, although I am not practising. Will free eye tests—a single preventive measure that would make a real difference to the health of a great number of people—return? Incidentally, free eye tests would save the health service a great deal of money in the long term by preventing diseases such as glaucoma by catching them early, rather than in their operative stages. Will we see a commitment to local hospitals—such as those in Wincanton which are currently under threat—and to acute services?
In a maiden speech, it is nice to be able to range over a wider area than is normal. My right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown)—my constituency neighbour—has, for my sins, asked me to speak on Europe in the next few months. When I do so, I shall be arguing for a radical reform of the common agricultural
650
policy and the common fisheries policy, and for the informed consent of the peoples of Europe to any changes resulting from the Amsterdam summit. I shall argue for a genuine commitment to subsidiarity at all levels—European, national and local—and for greater accountability within the structures of Europe, but that will wait for another day.
Suffice it to say today that I am proud to represent my constituents in Somerset. I am a Somerset man, and I will unashamedly support the interests of the people of Somerset in this House. I look forward to an interesting time over the next few years in the hope that the great expectations raised by the election are not disappointed by the performance of the Government in attempting to realise their intentions.
11.5 am
Lorna Fitzsimons: May I start by paying tribute to the eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who reminded me of a previous Liberal Member of this House, Clement Freud? We could perhaps adopt the hon. Gentleman as a Lancashire man because of the similarities between his constituency and mine. I did not know about those similarities before he made his maiden speech, but they are amazing—the Co-operative movement, wool and cotton provide a bond between us, although not a party political one.
I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who referred to electoral registration and access for disabled people to democracy. Those two issues came up time and again during the general election campaign and, as a new hon. Member, I will be looking forward to the Government taking a keen interest in them. Although we had a wonderful turnout in Rochdale among young people and first-time voters, it is clear that much work has still to be done on the issue of electoral registration.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire also referred to the sincerity of tributes. I should like to talk about three previous Members for my constituency, as they are the three who have represented me since I was born and brought up in the Rochdale constituency—Liz Lynne, Sir Cyril Smith and Jack McCann. First, I should like to pay a sincere tribute to Liz Lynne. Although she was not Rochdale born and bred, she showed in her five years as our Member of Parliament that one could have an impact nationally and locally as a new Member of Parliament. Liz did a lot of pioneering work, especially on one of her dear subjects—disabled people. I hope to continue locally and nationally the good work that Liz did in that area, and in many others. Many people felt fondly about Liz, and I wish her well.
There is a joke in Rochdale—a polite one of course—that any public occasion to which I am invited with Sir Cyril Smith is a bit like "The Little and Large Show". I know that it is meant with great affection for Sir Cyril, who is an incredible act to follow. There are many ex-Members of Parliament, but Sir Cyril has a place in the history books and an honoured place in the history of Rochdale. The reason he was successful—bar party politics in Rochdale—was that he was a man of the people. Some criticised him for staying in Rochdale, but it meant that there were not many there whom he did not help in his 20-year career. If, in my time as a Member of

651
Parliament, I can help as many people as Sir Cyril did, I will feel that I have done the job that the people of Rochdale sent me here to do.
A quarter of a century on, it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the debt of thanks that I should pay to the last Labour Member of Parliament for Rochdale, the late Jack McCann. Although Jack was the first Member of Parliament for my constituency I knew—I am fibbing really as I was a tad too young really to have known him—I got a full picture of Jack McCann the man and the politician on the doorsteps. Lots of Rochdalians—generally older people—truly remembered the man and felt proud to have known him. They loved him—they loved his honesty and felt that he truly worked for Rochdale. That is what I hope to continue.
Rochdale has a proud tradition of what I would call quirky characters as its Members of Parliament and I hope to follow in that tradition in some way—although I am only 5 ft tall, I do not need a microphone. One of the most moving occasions during the election campaign was just before my adoption meeting, when I received a telephone call at our campaign headquarters. I was asked, in an agile voice, "Can I speak to Lorna Fitzsimons please?" The caller introduced herself as Alice McCann, Jack McCann's wife. She was bright as a button at the age of 83 and raring to go, asking, "When can I come and help? We've got to make sure we return a Labour MP this time. Twenty-five years on, it's about time." She painted the most beautiful picture of Rochdale when Jack won his by-election. She said that it was amazing; it was two weeks after the Munich air disaster. One can imagine what it was like in Rochdale. God bless Rochdale football club, but the majority of people actually support the Reds. The tone in the town and the country was very sombre and we were knee deep in snow in one of the worst winters, but the atmosphere after the by-election was electric with hope and optimism—the real attitude that Rochdale and true Rochdalians embody. That is what brought home to me the character and spirit of Rochdale.
I have the greatest pride in representing my home town. Under the new boundary changes, my village of Wardle and that of Littleborough have been brought into the constituency. Being able to say that I was born in a local hospital, Birch Hill, went to one of the new local schools—Wardle high school—and then worked in the constituency gives me a great heritage and an advantage in understanding the needs of the constituency.
Rochdale has a rich tapestry, whether in textiles, in which I am proud to be a skilled labourer—I did a degree in textiles and followed in my father's footsteps as he worked in the mills—or in brass bands. A little-known fact about me is that I am a secret horn player, or was when I was at school. I am proud to say that at the car boot sales in Rochdale there are one or two copies of the LP to which my name is attached. There is also the attitude of the people. They have warm, open hearts and they are honest. We might be a bit blunt now and again, but we are honest, warm and welcoming. The people are vibrant and colourful.
At the heart of the town—in the centre—we have a huge Asian population. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) mentioned the
652
curry mile in his opening speech on the Loyal Address; we have our own curry street in my constituency. Asian small businesses are at the heart of rebuilding Rochdale.
Rochdale has many expectations of this Government, and quite rightly. In the past 18 years, it has paid the price for the lack of investment, especially in our manufacturing base and our young people. The textile industry has been decimated. There is now a new drive, with a new Member of Parliament, a new leader of the council and a new team forming to put Rochdale back on the map where it should be, right at the heart of the economic and industrial revolution. I want to be known as the person who helped Rochdale to be the economic gateway to our liberation.
The other travesty of the past 18 years that Rochdale has had to witness is youth unemployment. The people of Rochdale are talented and hard working but, sadly, they have not had the opportunities—especially the under-25s—that they should have had. As a new constituency Member of Parliament, one of the big challenges for me is to provide opportunities through the much needed welfare-to-work programme outlined in the Gracious Speech. I will be working with my colleagues to ensure that all the needy young people in Rochdale get a chance at a real job or training opportunity to change the cycle of despair. On some of our estates—the Kirkholt estate, to name one—there is now much hope.
Everyone might think that The Sun or Alastair Campbell coined the phrase, "The Blair babes". Rochdale would like to think that it got there first, because we have a group of women called the Brimrod babes. They do not know that I am mentioning them in my maiden speech. Much has been made of the number of women Members in this new Parliament. I want to pay tribute to my Brimrod babes—the women who live on one cul-de-sac on a council estate. They are grandmothers, mothers and daughters—three generations—who have never had any formal education, by which I mean further or higher education, or been involved in politics. They were captivated. I do not know what happened precisely to their awareness, but watching my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the run-up to the general election, they decided to get active. They taught me many lessons about not presuming things about people. They liberated themselves and they helped me to get elected. I would take anyone who is in any doubt about the importance of this Parliament to their cul-de-sac and their homes. The way in which they have learnt that they can change their own lives and that we can help them is amazing. If, in my time as Member of Parliament for Rochdale, I can show the courage that they have shown to overcome their inhibitions and lack of confidence and get involved, I will be proud of what I have done.
Rochdale has a lot to offer economically, socially and culturally, such as in helping and guiding our quest to ensure that everyone in the world has access to human rights. Hon. Members who know that we have a large Pakistani community will understand the importance of Kashmir to the people of Rochdale. Our history is one of wide openness and of welcoming people of all races, creeds, countries and colours to Rochdale. That means not only that charity starts at home, but that we must remember that we cannot settle unless our sisters and brothers in Kashmir and elsewhere have access to democracy and human rights. The commitment to human rights made by my right hon. Friend the new Foreign Secretary and in the Gracious Speech was welcome to my constituents.

653
The other welcome commitment in the Gracious Speech concerned health. Like many other constituencies, Rochdale has a health care crisis. It is a crisis not in terms of bed blocking, but in that we have a mortality rate 10 per cent. above the national average. That is a travesty. The people of Rochdale, therefore, welcome the new Government's commitment to health care. For the first time, there is a Minister with responsibility for health in the community, who can tackle some of the problems that are causing deaths in Rochdale.
The crisis is such that we desperately need the private finance initiative to work. The people of Rochdale need accessible health care, and one of the most exercising points of the campaign in the past six months and beyond was the future of Rochdale hospital. I shall work alongside the new Front-Bench team and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to ensure that the private finance initiative works.
Because of the way in which the country has been run over the past 18 years, there is not enough money in the public purse to make the investment that we know is needed in our health service. The people of Rochdale have journeyed to the practical conclusion that they therefore need a successful partnership with the private sector; that has not been easy for some of them, but they have been courageous and know that all solutions must be considered. I hope that in this Parliament I can show the same ingenuity in seeking solutions to problems in my constituency and further afield.
I pay tribute to the people of Rochdale who voted for me as one of the younger new Members of Parliament, proving that young people have a voice right at the heart of Government and can effect change. If I can in any way emulate the history of those people who have worked in Rochdale for a better Britain, I shall truly have been a good parliamentarian.
11.20 am
Mr. Stephen Hepburn: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak so early in this Parliament; with so many new Members coming in at the general election, I had visions, or perhaps nightmares, of making my maiden speech some time around Christmas, so I am delighted to get in.
It is an honour to serve in the House, with the tradition and history that it oozes—I thank first the members of the Jarrow Labour party who nominated me and the constituents who voted me into this splendid House to represent their interests—but I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will take on board some changes that could be made to improve its functioning. I draw attention to the voting system in particular. I read recently about schools being failed after a visit from a group of inspectors; if that group studied our voting system, we would certainly be failed automatically. That should be considered, but I leave it in the hands of the Leader of the House.
I pay tribute to my predecessor, Don Dixon. I am in a good position to do that, as I am a good friend of his and have known him for many years. Many hon. Members will know Don; he certainly stamped his authority on the House in his role as Opposition Deputy Chief Whip. He came from a traditional, humble background in Jarrow. He had a basic education; worked in a shipyard; came up through trade union politics; became leader of Jarrow
654
council; and was elected to Tyneside council, transforming the whole of south Tyneside with his vision of council housing. He was then elected to the House in 1979, and served it well.
The great thing about Don was that he set great store by loyalty; he has shown loyalty to all those who know him, to the Labour party and, as I know for a fact, to the House. I am sure that hon. Members of all parties respect the job that he did, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for recommending his early elevation to the House of Lords; we in Jarrow see that as a tribute to Don, and we take it as a tribute to the people of Jarrow.
It is customary for new Members to speak about the constituency for which they have been elected. Once again, I am in a fairly good position, as I was born, bred and educated in Jarrow and know the town very well, but the constituency contains not only the town of Jarrow but the town of Hebburn; the villages of Boldon, Cleadon and Whitburn; and the new ward of Wrekendyke, which was transferred in the recent boundary changes.
My constituency is, of course, very famous in Labour history. It was built over the past century on a heavy industrial base on the Tyne. Sadly, that base declined through the 1980s. The last coalfield in Jarrow has closed, as have the steel industry and most of the shipping industry. With those closures, I am sad to say, many good, hard-working, decent people were discarded and told, "We no longer need your services, thank you very much." That is and always will be a tragedy and a message about what happened in the 1980s.
If there is one message that I would like to get across in this maiden speech, it is the need for jobs in Jarrow. It is very sad that, last Monday, yet another Jarrow march set off, this time on the way to Europe, nearly 61 years after the first Jarrow march, when Ellen Wilkinson and 200 men from Jarrow walked to London in the search for jobs.
At the meeting to see the marchers setting off for Europe on Monday, I expressed the hope that it would be the last march to have to leave Jarrow in search of jobs. Remember that the marchers who left on Monday left with exactly the same principles as those who left in 1936: they were after not handouts or charity, but real jobs, because unemployment affects people as individuals; it affects families; and, if there is mass unemployment, as there is in the north and in Jarrow in particular, it affects the town. It is no wonder that there are social divisions throughout the country.
It has sometimes annoyed me over the past decade or so—I hope that Ministers will take this on board—that unemployment is spoken of in percentages, with this per cent. in Jarrow, that per cent. in Liverpool and so on. Percentages are no good, because an unemployed individual is 100 per cent. unemployed. It is important to remember that.
Old habits die hard: I was reading Ellen Wilkinson's book, "The Town That Was Murdered", and found some interesting parallels between the 1930s and the 1980s. For example, she said that in the mid-1930s unemployment in Jarrow was about 70 per cent., while in the neighbouring town of Hebburn it was lower, so the Government decided to merge the figures and came up with a figure of 35 per cent.: they cut unemployment overnight. There is an interesting parallel with the 30 changes in the way in which the figures have been calculated.

655
Ellen Wilkinson also provided some interesting parallels concerning youth unemployment, which was rife then as now in Jarrow, and about people being thrown on the scrap heap at 40 and left to go stale and vegetate at home, wasting all the skills and promise that they showed in early life.
As Member of Parliament for Jarrow, I want to press the claim for jobs, which I consider to be imperative. That is why I welcome the Government's jobs package to get 250,000 youngsters nationally from welfare into work and to give the long-term unemployed the chance to get back into work, financed by a windfall tax on the privatised utilities.
Of course, we would be kidding everybody if we said we could build utopia overnight, but we must remember that the Labour party's pledges are a commitment and an indication of our priorities. The unemployed are of central importance to our programme. We are making a start, and I am sure that we will do more over the coming Parliament.
It is not as though the people of Jarrow and the surrounding area were lying back through the 1980s. Both councils in my constituency, South Tyneside and Gateshead, have been working actively with the private sector to try to generate jobs in the area. In particular, South Tyneside, which covers most of my constituency, has drawn up many innovative schemes to try to rejuvenate the area, in partnership with the private and voluntary sectors through an organisation called STEP, the South Tyneside Enterprise Partnership. Schemes include extension of the metro, provision of a second Tyne tunnel through a private finance initiative project, and preparation of green-field sites for industry.
I make no bones about the fact that I will press the Government on jobs for my area. I hope that we will get positive, urgent decisions on matters such as the second Tyne tunnel and STEP's single regeneration budget bid, which covers Jarrow and Hebburn. We need early decisions because those matters are vital for the area. There is much hope in my constituency. I make no apology for pressing the case for jobs in Jarrow, as other hon. Members will for their constituencies. I will often repeat the same message. I hope that we will be able to deliver for the people of Jarrow.
11.30 am
Mr. Paul Marsden: I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn), for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons), for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), for Erewash (Liz Blackman) and for Dudley, North (Mr. Cranston), and the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), among others, on making their maiden speeches.
I am the first ever Labour Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham. Against all the odds, we won the seat, but we also won the argument. It was Labour, not the Liberal Democrats, who fought the Conservatives. It will be like that for ever more. We shall continue to win because people will back new Labour as they need a good, hard-working constituency Member of Parliament and a good new Labour Government.
I pay tribute to my predecessor, Mr. Derek Conway, who gave the constituency great public service for 14 years. I pay tribute also to his predecessor,
656
Sir John Langford-Holt, who was held in great affection and high regard for 38 years before Mr. Conway. As I am only the third Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham since the war, I trust that the precedent for such longevity of service will continue. I pledge that I will fight for the people of Shrewsbury and Atcham with great heart and vigour.
I thank the Palace of Westminster staff, who have been so kind and helpful not only to me but to other new Members. They have set a standard in friendliness and in always being able to help us out. I also thank the voters who voted for me and my campaign team, who worked so tirelessly. I must thank my wife, Shelly, and my son, Alexander, who sacrificed much family life so that I could be here. I ask the powers that be to spell my wife's name correctly. I do not want to incur her wrath; in a choice between her wrath and the wrath of the Whips, give me the Whips' wrath any time. To those who warn that I would not want to incur the wrath of the Whips, I say, "You don't know my wife."
Last week, I brought my son, who is only 18 months old, to the Commons. One problem was that I had to explain that the television sets around the House cannot yet be tuned to Postman Pat or the Teletubbies. However, I might push the Finance and Services Committee to consider the possibility. My other problem was that my son is so young that he did not know the ways of this great Palace. When he could not get his own way, he decided to lie prostrate in the corridors of power, kicking and screaming. I was a little embarrassed until I found that that was not too unusual in the Commons.
To echo other maiden speeches, I hope that the House will become more family-friendly. I know that great strides have already been made but, as a father, I shall support measures to make it more user-friendly to families.
It is a great honour to serve the people of Shrewsbury and Atcham. The constituency's history goes back thousands of years. The village of Wroxeter, which is near Shrewsbury, was a Roman city—in its heyday, the fourth largest in Britain. Acton Burnell, another small village near Shrewsbury, held the third Parliament of Edward I.
Some might disagree, but I truly believe that Shrewsbury is delightful—the finest town in England. It is dominated by its 15th-century black and white Tudor housing and narrow cobbled streets. It is the birthplace of Charles Darwin. The surrounding villages account for my constituency's name. Atcham represents the quarter of its voters who live in rural areas. It is some of the most beautiful countryside to be seen. Hon. Members may recall that we have an annual flower show. I do not want to cause a dispute with the Minister for sport, but it can hold its own with any in the country.
Shrewsbury does not rely only on the past. It has a great future. It has a thriving business community with great plans for expansion. I trust that I can play a part in bringing more investment to the town and surrounding areas. I hope that our Challenge 2000 bid to try to create a new business venture in the north of Shrewsbury, which will bring up to 2,500 much needed jobs to the town, will be successful. Youth unemployment is especially bad in some deprived areas of Shrewsbury. People may say, "What deprived areas in Shrewsbury?" However, there are such areas. Many towns and villages around Britain have, like some parts of Shrewsbury, suffered over the

657
past 18 years. I hope that our pledge to put 250,000 youngsters back to work or into training will help up to 200 young people in the Shrewsbury area. I shall work in partnership with councils, businesses, the voluntary sector or whoever else to help to bring more jobs to Shrewsbury.
I mentioned the Acton Burnell Parliament of 1283, the main purpose of which was to provide for the recovery of debts. I welcome the measure in the Gracious Speech that will ensure that, at long last, large companies pay their debts on time. Small businesses have suffered much: one has gone out of business every three minutes since 1992. We need to help them quickly. Those entrepreneurs will help us to forge ahead and create more jobs.
The new Labour Government have set a new direction and offer new politics for Britain. For business circles, one of the Government's main attributes will be the creation of private-public partnerships and agreements. I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale. The public purse cannot fund everything in future. We must take the social conscience of the public sector and work with the dynamic, efficient private sector to come together as one to provide the services that the country needs.
On business, I look forward to the information technology opportunities that lie ahead, especially for rural areas. Many young people in rural areas in my constituency could work from home, the village hall or a communal area using information technology.
It was a great travesty to see Shrewsbury Town football club relegated last season. Of course, that occurred under my predecessor, so I look forward to the football club rightly being promoted in the coming seasons so that it can become a centre for the town.
Farming is of key importance in my constituency and farmers there have been devastated by BSE. The handling of the BSE crisis was terrible and I welcome the Foreign Secretary's pledge to work with Europe and to be at the centre of Europe in order to ensure the lifting of the beef ban as quickly as possible. I cannot stress enough how hard the crisis has hit some of those beef farmers, especially those on small farms. They have had to endure not just the financial hardship but the mental stress that has been inflicted on themselves and their families. I trust that things will improve quickly.
We need a reform of the common agricultural policy and it must be linked to enhancing the environment. We must ensure that in future we do not pay farmers to do nothing with set-aside. We should ask them and pay them to enhance the environment.
I should like to say a quick word about our terrific hospital, the Royal Shrewsbury. It has had to undergo incredible hardship and cuts over the past 18 years and I pay tribute to all the staff, the doctors, nurses, auxiliaries and consultants, who have worked so hard to provide such an excellent service in spite of financial difficulties.
I want to extend a warm invitation to any hon. Member to come to Shrewsbury to taste the delights of such a wonderful area and take in the beautiful countryside.
11.41 am
Dr. Brian Iddon: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) on his maiden speech and on being the first Labour Member for that constituency. I want to begin
658
with a denial—I am not 27. It came as a great shock to me to see in The Observer after my election that I was down as one of the new young intake. It has never been more true that one should not believe all one reads in the newspapers, even the quality ones.
It is a great privilege to be elected to represent the constituency of Bolton, South-East, which comprises parts of the old Bolton borough along with villages such as Little Lever and Kearsley and the former mining community of Farnworth. It is a mixed rural and urban community with a large Muslim population.
We made history on 1 May by returning for the first time three Labour Members representing the great town of Bolton. We have a Labour Member of the European Parliament and we have a substantial Labour council. Together, we shall put great pressure on the shakers and movers in this place to bring benefits to the people of my constituency and the rest of Bolton.
Burnden park, the former home of Bolton Wanderers football club, is in my constituency. I say "former" because that great football team is on the move—it is going up to the premier division following an extremely successful season and is moving to a new stadium at Horwich, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly). Before that great football team leaves my constituency, I want to place on record my congratulations on its past success and my best wishes for its future success.
The former member for my constituency was David Young, a Scotsman born in Greenock. He became a teacher in the midlands before entering Parliament in 1974 as the Member for the Bolton, East constituency. I helped David fight that 1974 election, so I have known him for a long time, and I was his constituency chairman twice. From 1977 to 1979, David served as the parliamentary private secretary to the then Secretary of State for Defence, Fred Mulley. As hon. Members will know, David had a keen interest in foreign affairs and was well travelled. He was an excellent constituency member and was in touch with all the electorate of Bolton, South-East, including the large Muslim community.
Bolton has suffered badly over the past two decades. Its textile and engineering industries have been decimated, with the loss of thousands of jobs. The miners have all lost their jobs and there is no longer a single pit left in the north-west following the recent closure of Parkside colliery. However, because of the robust nature of Boltonians and a keen interest by the local authority in creating new jobs, Bolton has picked itself up and adopted new skills.
I encourage anyone who has not visited this great town to do so. Outside Manchester it has one of the finest shopping centres in the north-west and our markets are a tourist attraction. It has a strong cultural tradition, with several fine museums, including the Hall-ith-Wood museum where Samuel Crompton invented the spinning mule. Arkwright also worked in the town. They were the pioneers of the industrial revolution. More recently, Sir Harry Kroto, educated at Bolton school, won the Nobel prize for chemistry. As a fellow chemist, I should like to add my congratulations to him. I should also mention Susan Isaacs, who was one of the pioneers of nursery education. I am pleased to learn that the Government have a keen interest in promoting such education. It has been revealed in the past few days in the

659
Bolton Evening News that even my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has a family tree that goes back to relatives in our town.
Two things propelled me to seek election to this place. First, as a chemist, about once a month for the past 29 years I have travelled Europe and visited nearly every university and polytechnic in the land presenting a show called "The Magic of Chemistry". It is an attempt to communicate science to the general public. One of my interests at Westminster will be to promote a public understanding of science. I am still a member of the Royal Society of Chemistry and will remain so. I take a keen interest in the teaching of chemistry and in the chemical industry.
I have been a member of Bolton council for almost 20 years and served for 10 years as its chairman of housing. That is my greatest interest, and I shall be following up housing issues in the House. The housing committee in Bolton has been extremely innovative and there are some examples that we should promote for the rest of the country.
We began a dispute service between neighbours, called the Bolton neighbourhood dispute service. It is run by a superb organiser, Sue Parry, and employs 42 volunteers to mediate between neighbours who often have not spoken to each other for several years. I am pleased to say that the success rate for cases referred to it is over 80 per cent. We were the first local authority in the land to start such a mediation service and it is now being modelled by authorities throughout the north and, I hope, soon, throughout the country. I shall be promoting such services for other local authorities.
That service recently expanded into something else, which is extremely novel. I am sure that all hon. Members are aware of the problem of bullying in schools. In Bolton, we are now training young people to mediate to solve the problem of bullying, and I commend such a service to other hon. Members for their areas.
When I was chairman of housing, I hit several problems, one of which was a rapidly escalating housing waiting list. It had been about 5,000, but suddenly it started to escalate and reached a peak at 8,000. I felt that I had to do something about it, so one day I walked into the office of the director of housing and said to Mr. George Caswell, "I want a partnership between this council, the Housing Corporation and some of the leading housing associations in the town." I have to pay tribute to Mr. Caswell, because within six months he had created an organisation called Bolton Community Homes Ltd., which has been one of the finest examples of partnership in housing across the land.
In approximately three years, we delivered 1,700 homes to cure the problem of the escalating waiting list. We did not build just ordinary homes for ordinary people. We built specialised homes for the disabled and other people with special problems. Indeed, the architects went to the very people who were to live in those homes—especially disabled people—and asked them what facilities they would like, and where they should be situated in the house. In other words, the people themselves helped the architects to design homes for them to live in. I recommend that approach to other people.
660
The old cotton towns of the north have a serious problem. They have row upon row of old, terraced houses well over 120 years old, the fabric of which is crumbling. That is the towns' biggest problem. I shall be pressing the Minister of State, Departments of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong), who has responsibility for housing—very hard on the matter. We have 23,000 unfit homes in Bolton. The environmental health officers consider that about 5,000 to 6,000 of them are irredeemably unfit and should be knocked down—and this is 1997.
Since 1979, we have lost more than 70 per cent. of our housing funding and we have not been able to tackle the substantial problems as we wanted. The Conservative Government reduced the grant for private sector improvements from a high level of 95 per cent. in 1979 to a low level of 60 per cent., where it remains today. That means that local councils have to borrow 40 per cent. of the money needed to improve private sector homes, and that is while their total expenditure is capped. It has been absolutely impossible for any local authority in the country, especially Bolton, to tackle that serious problem.
The Conservative Government bragged about spending the same on housing as the Labour Government spent when they left office in 1979. That is true, but the difference is that in 1979, the Labour Government were spending most of their housing money on bricks and mortar, whereas the outgoing Conservative Government spent most of their money on housing benefit, in pursuance of a dogmatic belief in market rents. Incidentally, they were never able to define market rents.
It is a scandal that so much money is spent on housing benefit. We must direct housing money away from benefits and into renovation and new homes for the homeless across Britain. Under the Conservatives, the housing benefit bill rose from about £3 billion when the Labour Government left office in 1979 to a rapidly escalating £13 billion today. The new Labour Government face an enormous problem even in halting the growth in housing benefit, never mind reversing the trend.
It will be a privilege to represent my constituents in Bolton, South-East. In my election campaign, I promised that in the House of Commons I would do my best for them, and I will.
11.53 am
Ms Kali Mountford: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak this morning on my first occasion in the House, in what has been a veritable confetti of maiden speeches. I stand in the shadow of some great speeches. I first refer to my right hon. Friend—I am sorry, I am elevating my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) far too soon. First, he is too young and now he has been here a long time. I was struck by the similarities between his constituency and mine as he talked about the weaving industry and his experience in housing.
Likewise, I am delighted to hear that the son of my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) came to the House at the age of 18 months, beating my own record of early interest in politics. I became interested at 14. I hope that my hon. Friend's son follows in his great footsteps. My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) made a

661
moving speech about his constituency, with its great and sound history. I know that his constituency will have a great fighter in him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons) has now left the Chamber. Her name rang around the debating halls of this country long before she became a Member of Parliament. I know that her great voice, embodied in a small body, will add a great deal to the House. It will be difficult for me, standing in the shadow of those wonderful speeches, to deliver my own maiden speech.
It is normal in the House to follow certain traditions. Those traditions were taught to me at the age of 14 by my teachers of history, government and citizenship. They are two great sisters who, I am glad to say, wrote to me yesterday. I was touched to receive their letter. I have remembered them all these years as an inspiration and I am delighted that they have noticed that I have arrived here at last after 30 years. They would be embarrassed if I named them, but I have to say that good teachers who inspire a person and whose teaching takes people through life are worth more than gold. Those two teachers were worth more than gold to me.
What my teachers taught me about the traditions of this House was the importance of democracy. We had some talk of democracy earlier today and I was delighted that there were parties of schoolchildren in the Gallery at the time. I hope that although the House is fairly quiet this morning, they will have been inspired by this great place. Democracy is nothing if we do not take part in it.
The thing that I learned when I was taught government and citizenship by those two great teachers was that we as a people have to take part in our own state—the state of the nation and the state of our democracy. I hope that the new Secretary of State for Education and Employment will take that on board as we examine the standards of education for the future. It is all very well to have basic standards of education, but I have met people in my constituency who do not know the difference between local government and Parliament, and who do not know how or where to vote, and people who do not know that they can vote or how to put their name on the electoral register. It is a sad indictment of a democracy if its people are not actively involved in the process.
I shall return to the traditions of the House, because I do not want to let my teachers down. I want to talk about my constituency of Colne Valley. It is often confused with other constituencies because it is named after the River Colne. Make no mistake, there are two valleys in the constituency—the Colne valley and the Holme valley. It is in the Colne valley that one finds great traditional industrial heritage. It has those oft-sung-about satanic mills nestled in its great splendour and rugged hillsides.
To the south is the Holme valley, with its beautiful picture-postcard elegance—those green and pleasant pastures. The contrast of the two valleys has attracted the television and film industry to my constituency. I am pleased about that because the television and film industry has an income equal to that of the oil industry. It is an importer of great wealth into our country.
The three programmes that I want to talk about should be well known to hon. Members. The first is "Last of the Summer Wine", with Compo, Clegg and Foggy, those three great characters. The programme may mislead hon.
662
Members into thinking that the people of Colne Valley are quite elderly. In fact, they are younger than the national average for any constituency. So please do not be misled by that great programme.
Two new television programmes have appeared on our screens, "Where the Heart is"—my heart is certainly in the Colne valley—and "Wokenwell", which those of us who live nearby know is actually filmed at Marsden. "Where the Heart is" is filmed outside my house in Slaithwaite, so I am extremely proud.
I particularly want to talk about the film and television industry, because it embodies technical skills and the great talents of producers, film technicians and the actors we all know. That industry is dependent on high-quality products, high-quality skills and well-paid jobs. That is the foundation for a proper strong, key economic base, the sort of economic base that I support.
In his maiden speech, my predecessor, Graham Riddick, referred to "Last of the Summer Wine", and also eulogised about our beautiful constituency. I agree with him on both those counts. Alas, I do not agree with very much else that he said in that speech, nor with very much else that he said after that. Hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree, however, that he was a man who argued valiantly for the things in which he believed, often in the face of great opposition—indeed, some hon. Members on his own Benches did not always agree with him. He always stood up for what he believed in and the people of Colne Valley recognised that.
In his maiden speech, my predecessor spoke up for the demolition of one of our local mills, which he described as an eyesore and which he said should be razed to the ground. I am pleased to inform the House that that mill has now been restored to its former magnificent splendour. Kirklees council, a good Labour council which I am happy to support, formed a joint venture company to achieve that transformation. That venture brought together the skills of the local construction industry, which was so short of jobs, and the need of the community for good housing. It has been a magnificent success. The former mill now provides 122 new homes for the people of Colne Valley. It also provided high-quality, good, well-paid jobs for architects, joiners, builders, plumbers and many, many more.
I approve of that type of marriage between industry, its needs and the needs of the community. I am delighted that the Labour manifesto, which has now been translated into a wonderful Gracious Speech, includes such partnerships.
If we were able to release the £30 million of housing capital receipts now held by Kirklees council, imagine how we could spend that money to invigorate our local economy. Despite the imagination of Kirklees council, which established the joint venture company to redevelop Crowther mill, there is still much to do.
Colne Valley does not suffer from the same type of housing shortage as elsewhere, but some of our housing stock is dilapidated, particularly that in the private rented sector. I am extremely worried about one family in my community whose house is so wet and damp that both their children suffer greatly from asthma. One child, born just in January this year, is already taking eight steroids a day. Her doctor has told her mother that that is because of the damp condition of her home. How wonderful it will be to renovate social housing and build it anew so that

663
such families have the opportunity of a decent home. That development will also benefit the construction industry, which we need in Colne Valley.
Let us also consider the implications of the windfall levy and our plans for how we might use it in Kirklees. We aim once again to bring together the skills of our community and the needs of the population. If we develop the construction industry, and we shall, it will provide a great opportunity to train more people to have the very skills that will be needed in that expanding industry. In my area we are already looking at ways in which we could use the windfall levy to create the opportunities to learn those new skills. That would also enable people to gain the new jobs that will be created as a result.
The former Labour Member for Colne Valley, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), will be pleased to discover that part of our plans for the windfall levy includes the introduction of a new environmental task force. We have a great need for that force in Colne Valley because of its canals, rivers and dry stone walls, which need to be renovated. Those environmental needs are also social needs when we consider the need for environmental improvements to homes on our estates. Again, overcoming those problems will involve a partnership between the needs of our community and the skills of our population.
When my right hon. Friend made his maiden speech, he made great reference to the environment. On a visit to Scapegoat Hill school in my constituency, I saw some trees that my right hon. Friend had planted 25 years ago. They are now growing vigorously despite harsh conditions, which may offer a parallel to the Labour party and its development in recent years.
I am sure that when my right hon. Friend referred to the importance of the environment, he envisaged that the environment of Colne Valley would be improved by measures such as those contained in the Gracious Speech, which we supported so strongly yesterday.
I am also pleased to recognise the contribution made to my constituency by Richard Wainwright, who was the Member until 1987. In his maiden speech, he referred to the traditional industrial heritage of Colne Valley and spoke about the local mills. We now need to diversify our economy, because too much dependence on the traditional industries of the mills will mean that our local economy will die on the vine. We cannot allow that to happen. The use of the windfall levy, capital receipts and the great progress made in welfare-to-work programmes will give us the opportunity to make our local economy as diverse as the many villages and people who reside in Colne Valley. That is the right way forward. We cannot once again depend on one industry, because that would lead to the death of our local economy. I want Colne Valley to have a strong and vigorous economic future.
It has also been a tradition for the Member for Colne Valley to talk about our great history, and I do not want to let my predecessors down on this occasion. Let me take the House back briefly to 1907, when the first socialist Labour Member was elected for Colne Valley—Victor Grayson, who subsequently mysteriously disappeared. I agree with my predecessor Graham Riddick that that is one tradition that I do not want to follow. Heaven knows
664
where he ended up, but I am glad to have ended up here. Other great names, such as Philip Snowden, were also referred to by my predecessors, and who can forget that Harold Wilson was born in my constituency.
What a great tradition for any new Member to follow, and I am glad to do so. In the shadow of the many speeches that I have heard this morning and of the great politicians who came before me, as the first woman Member for Colne Valley, I hope to achieve at least half of what they achieved.
12.7 pm
Mr. John Cryer: I am grateful to be called just before the Leader of the House. I pay tribute to those colleagues who have made their maiden speeches today, which have all been excellent, particularly those from the new Members for Colne Valley (Ms Mountford), for Bolton, South-East, (Dr. Iddon), for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden), for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) and for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons).
The issue that I should like to raise this morning is the future of Oldchurch hospital at Romford in east London. That hospital was on the previous Government's hit list of those under threat of closure in Greater London. A huge campaign to keep that hospital open has been run for about six years. If Oldchurch was closed in the long term—I know that the new Government have announced a moratorium on hospital closures, which I welcome—that would have an enormous impact on east London.
My hon. Friends the new Members for Romford (Mrs. Gordon), who has long been involved in the campaign, for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) and I have fought to keep the hospital open. I also know that my hon. Friends the Members for Dagenham (Ms Church) and for Barking (Ms Hodge) have long been involved in that campaign. The closure of that hospital would have an enormous impact not only on Havering, the borough which I represent in Hornchurch, but on Newham, West Ham and many other London boroughs where the provision of health care is already a great problem.
The plan is to replace Oldchurch hospital with an accident and emergency department at Harold Wood hospital, which is far less accessible, particularly for people in the south of the constituency. Reaching Harold Wood hospital's A and E department would be difficult. It would involve a two to three-hour trip on public transport. It would be particularly difficult for older people, who might not have their own cars, and young mothers—there are many single mothers in my constituency.
The decision to close Oldchurch hospital was wrong in the first place, was mistaken and can be reversed. The new A and E department at Harold Wood will be built under the private finance initiative, which I regard as mistaken, but the PFI contracts have not been signed, so the plan can be reversed without any spending commitments having been given. We can reverse the closure of Oldchurch hospital, keep it open and continue to maintain a service to people in Hornchurch, Romford, Upminster and many other constituencies in east London.
12.10 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): This has been a somewhat unusual debate, not only because of the empty

665
Conservative Benches, but because of the many maiden speeches that have been made. I do not think that this three-hour Adjournment debate has ever been used for that purpose. It has been extremely useful and the time been well used by a wide range of Members, who have learnt quickly what opportunities can be provided in the House to those who want to raise issues affecting their constituents.
In particular, I congratulate my hon. Friends who had to start the debate, going in at the deep end without any experienced Members opening the way. I recall the relief of getting my maiden speech out of the way. Members who have spoken should be feeling not just relief, but much collective pride at the quality of their contributions. They have clearly shown the quality of debate that we can expect from new Members who entered at the last election.
May I say a few words about each of the issues that have been raised? I hope to be able to have time to deal with all of them today. The debate was opened by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Cranston), who said that he wanted some change and reform in the House. Needless to say, I welcome that comment. We will be looking for some good ideas from new Members, who may not yet be bogged down in our old ways and therefore may not be as resistant to change as some of us who have been here for longer—although I am quite an enthusiast for change. I hope that we can have some support from new Members, and from old and new Members working together.
My hon. Friend showed that his work as a recorder is valuable experience, which he now brings to the House. I am sure that his background will be extremely helpful. He highlighted in particular drug and alcohol-related crime, and I am sure that what he has seen in practice will allow him to contribute to debates on those issues. I hope that we can use his expertise there.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) made a confident maiden speech and was very amusing on occasions. He gave some history of his constituency. It was the first that I had ever heard of railway signals being used to prevent people from voting, but we all learn, which is partly what these debates are about. With his background in the medical world, he was able to give us his informed concern; again, we will appreciate and listen to that in future. Giving us a full list of Oxford colleges was brave and I hope for his sake only that it was a complete list; otherwise, we will have to hear from him very quickly to repair any omissions.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon was followed by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), whom I have known for some time. He mentioned his father, who was known to all of us in the House, but he failed to mention his and his father's connection with Bolton Wanderers. However, as that was put right by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), I can forgive him that on this occasion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley showed that he knew his constituency very well, having been born and brought up there and having worked there. He clearly knows the problems it faces and intends to be a strong voice on its behalf. He talked about the many difficulties that it has faced in recent years, not least because of the previous Government's inability to get the best out of the
666
European Union. I am sure that he will be lobbying new Ministers hard, and he proved today that he is prepared and able to do that.
The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) is not a new Member, but one of those Conservative Members who has changed constituencies. He is not in his place at the moment, but he dropped me a note to say that he had to go to a constituency engagement. I was going to say to him that I welcomed his comments on party funding. I hope that they will be consistent. The fact that he has raised the issue today shows, I hope, that he will support our desire to have a Nolan or a Nolan-type inquiry into party funding, and to change the rules in the not too distant future.
The hon. Member for Southend, West raised some specific points about the cockle industry in Leigh-on-Sea. I have an admission to make: I am not an expert on that industry, so I intend to ask the relevant Minister at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to write to him about those concerns.
I do know something about the situation in care homes and in the national health service. The comments of the hon. Member for Southend, West about blocked beds and the need for change were somewhat rich. He was pretending that a problem that has been there for many years had suddenly arisen in the past 18 days of the Labour Government and had never materialised in the 18 years of the Conservative Government. Again, I will pass his comments on to the Department, but he should have acknowledged that his own Government bore some responsibility for the problems about which he was complaining.
In her maiden speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) spoke about her constituents' concern—particularly, that they have lost out because of the previous Government's negative approach to Europe. She also used her own experience as a teacher to make some pertinent remarks about education, the need for consultation and the need for people in education to work in partnership. I welcomed her contribution on that. It is important that the House consists of Members with a wide range of experience. I am sure that she will have much to contribute in education debates. She said that, if her constituents were to prosper as individuals as well as a society, education had to be a priority. That is clearly a Government concern.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) talked not only about the local problems of his constituency, but about the practical problems that some new Members face and that his party faces, having almost doubled in size in a short time. He said that he had a desk, an office and a telephone, although the telephone was not yet working. I have to issue a disclaimer to start with because those items are not a matter for the Leader of the House, but he is extremely fortunate. When most of us arrived as new Members, we were told not only that we should not expect an office too quickly, but that we should not even perch in the wrong places to use telephones. I was glad that one of my hon. Friends acknowledged the fact that the arrangements made by the House authorities this time have been far better and more helpful to new Members than ever before. The fact that we now have rooms with banks of telephones and information points is a remarkable breakthrough.

667
The hon. Gentleman might be concerned about the difficulties, but I ask him to sympathise with those of us who experienced far greater difficulties. That does not mean, however, that things could not be improved. The scale of the changeover is so great that it has taken everyone by surprise. If the hon. Gentleman accurately predicted the result of the election, I wish that he had told the rest of us, because we might all have been better prepared.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) talked about class sizes and the standard spending assessment for education, but also returned to an issue that he has mentioned many times—the need to improve electoral registration. It is something that he has brought to our attention many times by being a persistent Back Bencher and not letting the issue go.
I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), is here. I do not expect that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire will let Home Office Ministers off the hook, but I am sure that they will try to responsive. Ministers might not take the precise path that my hon. Friend wishes, but I am sure that they will consider the problem and try to make improvements. All of us believe that improvements can be made.
While my hon. Friend the Minister is here, I must point out that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire also mentioned the need to revise the design of the ballot paper. As that is an issue of great concern to me following my experience of elections, I hope that I can lobby as well as Back Benchers. I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire in highlighting the need for disabled people to have full and proper access to polling stations. It was partly due to the lead he gave before the last election that many of us were able to explore the problem in our own localities, and I hope and believe that some changes were made as a result.
We then heard a speech from the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who is a Liberal Democrat. He made a very confident contribution, and I am sure that we shall hear much more from him. He challenged us to be a reforming Government; I hope that we do not disappoint him. I am sure that he will continue to make valuable contributions to debates on education, the police and the environment, which he highlighted today, and that his constituents will be pleased that he has spoken so forcefully on their behalf. In passing, he sympathised with his predecessor for having three recounts. As someone who has a four-figure majority for the first time in five Parliaments, I sympathise with anyone who has to go through so many recounts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons) did not have as narrow as a majority as I had when I started. She showed that she not only knows but understands her constituency but said one thing that I found very hard to accept. She said that she was a secret horn player. I am not sure that there can be such a thing as a secret horn player; perhaps she will tell us about that some other time. She proved that she is well qualified to follow what she described as the trend to have quirky
668
characters represent Rochdale. She is extremely competent, and I am sure that her bouncy contributions will be welcome in the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) also made his maiden speech. He began by saying that he wanted changes to the voting system in the House, and we can all sympathise with the delays involved. He went on to say what a good friend he was of his predecessor, Don Dixon. To those of us who have been promoting change in the House, there is a certain contradiction in my hon. Friend's two statements. I just hope that the friendship is not spoiled by my hon. Friend's contribution. However, I am sure that his sentiments about the need to campaign for jobs in Jarrow will be shared by his predecessor and appreciated by other hon. Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) pointed out that he was only the third Member to hold his seat since the war. That is quite-a record these days. I hope that he will be here for a very long time. He mentioned the House's lack of family-friendliness. I have been here for many years and have often been asked what impact having a lot of new women here will make, so I was glad that a man showed that it is not simply a female issue, but that we should all attempt to ensure that the House of Commons responds to everyone's needs, including all those with family responsibilities. I hope that we can take such issues on board when it comes to modernising the House.
I am sure that my hon. Friend's constituents will appreciate the concerns that he expressed about bovine spongiform encephalopathy and the need to reform the common agricultural policy. The Government are of course committed to that.
I have known my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East for more than 20 years. He might have mentioned Bolton Wanderers because he knew that it would elicit favourable comments from me. However, on this occasion he was not asking for anything, so perhaps he was right to save his comments for another occasion. He has been renowned for his knowledge of chemistry for many years. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and I both have sons who have seen my hon. Friend's "The Magic of Chemistry" show. I hope that the House will find ways to use his expertise. He also demonstrated expertise in housing, and those of us who have known him for many years know that to be a genuine concern of his.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Ms Mountford) also made a maiden speech—one old friend of mine following another. She is also a near neighbour of mine in constituency terms. She made an excellent contribution, which I am sure her constituents will appreciate. I share her concern to ensure that young people get involved in the democratic process and understand how government and Parliament work. I also share her desire to see some movement on the issue of capital receipts, because we are all aware of the housing problems that many local authorities are facing and have faced for many years. I look forward to examining various issues with her in the House and in our constituencies for many years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) had already made his maiden speech, so he used this occasion to raise an important constituency issue, which is a traditional use of such debates.

669
He showed his strong local knowledge. I understand why he is concerned about Oldchurch hospital. He also said that other colleagues shared his concern. I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is aware of the problem. Although I do not share his views on the private finance initiative and its possibilities, I will ensure that the Minister replies to the details of the issues that he raised.
The purpose of debates on matters to be considered before an Adjournment is always to allow hon. Members to raise a wide range of issues, and that is what has happened in this debate. Several hon. Members have mentioned some common concerns, such as education, youth unemployment and crime. The fact that such common concerns have been expressed shows that the Government were on the right track when we determined our priorities for inclusion in the Labour manifesto and for action.
Today, in excellent speeches, new Members have expressed their concerns, and it augurs well for the House's future, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire said, that hon. Members are willing to debate. I congratulate all the new Members who have made their maiden speeches in this debate.

Electoral Fraud
12.30 pm
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I welcome you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the Chair. I also welcome my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to the Treasury Bench. I am sure that he will illuminate our debates with distinction.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise the issue of the conduct of elections, because, unhappily, electoral fraud and deceit are increasing. One form of fraud consists of candidates deliberately confusing the electorate by assigning titles to themselves on the ballot paper that are calculated to deceive voters.
In my own constituency, a man called Terry Betts referred to himself at the general election as the "New Labour" candidate. He was listed first on the ballot paper, whereas I—the official Labour candidate—was listed ninth. On election night, Betts apologised to me for—as he put it—"what happened today". I did not accept his apology, because I had not been the victim. The victims were the 2,000 electors who, because of the deliberate confusion caused by Betts, were denied the democratic right to vote for the candidate of their choice.
Betts described himself on the ballot paper as New Labour, so that voters would believe that he was the official Labour candidate and was supported by Tony Blair. The truth is that Betts was not a member of the Labour party and that he has never been a member of the Labour party. He was not supported by Tony Blair, and Tony Blair has never heard of Terry Betts.
On polling day, Mr. Betts was supported by Councillor Isaac Leibowitz—a man known to the Home Office—who drove around in a car with an audio system, shouting, "Vote Labour. Vote Betts." Last year, Councillor Leibowitz was expelled from the Labour party by Tony Blair.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. When the hon. Gentleman mentions another hon. Member, he should refer to him as "the Prime Minister", for example, or as the hon. Member for a specific constituency.
Mr. Sedgemore: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the problem is that I am explaining events that occurred during the general election, when the Prime Minister was neither the Leader of the Opposition nor the Prime Minister-he was Mr. Tony Blair.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: He is now, however, the Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman has sufficient experience in the House to know exactly how to deal with such matters.
Mr. Sedgemore: I will attempt to apply my brain to meeting your wishes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Electoral fraud comes easily to Isaac Leibowitz. He is, indeed, a persistent electoral fraudster. Neither Hackney council nor its chief executive, however, has ever even admonished him for bringing the council into disrepute, contrary to the national code of conduct for local government councillors.
In 1994, in a local government election in the Northfields ward, Leibowitz engaged in a proxy voting scam. Although he was a Labour councillor, the scam was

671
designed to help in the election of three Tory councillors and to prevent the election of a Labour Jewish woman named Denise Robson. There is incontrovertible evidence that, in that election, some people who voted were under age, that others voted twice and from different addresses, and that foreigners who were not entitled to vote did vote.
In 1996, in a by-election in South Defoe, Leibowitz set up a new political party, which, to deceive the electorate, he called the "Labor party". He fraudulently persuaded electors to sign his candidate's nomination papers, because electors believed that his candidate was the official Labour party candidate. Leibowitz then went "granny farming" for votes, by obtaining proxy votes from very elderly, housebound people who had lost their critical faculties and were incapable of exercising a choice. Only three weeks ago, he participated in the general election, in which he exercised his corrupt talents. In a press release, the so-called New Labour candidate said that he had the support of a group of local councillors, who masquerade under the title of Hackney New Labour. Last year, each and every one of those councillors was expelled from the Labour party by the Prime Minister. They have nothing to do with new Labour.
Hackney New Labour is led by an embittered, shambolic 76-year-old man named Gerry Ross. That so-called New Labour man is a former communist who supported Joe Stalin. From the beginning of his subsequent membership of the Labour party until his expulsion from it, he consistently proved to be a wrecker. In 1977, he was expelled from Hackney council's Labour group. Two years ago, he was forced out of the chairmanship of a Londonwide body, the London Committee for Accessible Transport, because no one could tolerate his behaviour. Last year, he was expelled from the Labour party by the Prime Minister. He now leads a group of political and electoral cheats, who are attempting to corrupt the democratic process in Hackney.
I am sure that the Minister anticipates one of the points that is worrying me—my fear that, in 1998, that bogus organisation, Hackney New Labour, will attempt to corrupt and pervert local elections in London and Hackney. I believe that action must be taken to stop that happening.
After the general election, I received reports of people suffering distress at every polling station because of confusion over who was the official Labour candidate—it was me. At one polling situation, an old lady burst into tears and had to be consoled by my ex-wife after she realised her mistake. That old lady gets a vote only once every five years, and her day had been ruined. A man at another polling station, after realising his mistake, rushed back into the polling booth and called out: "Stop voting, everyone. You are voting for the wrong person." At that, three voters left the polling station, with their ballot papers, to ask people outside who was the official Labour candidate—all of which, obviously, was unlawful.
An old lady at yet another polling station, who realised that she had mistakenly put her cross against Betts's name, ate her ballot paper rather than placing it into the ballot box. In a long political career, people have done many things to come to my defence, but none of them had been so heroic as to eat their ballot paper.
672
After the general election, we have received hundreds of telephone calls from voters who felt that they had been deceived. Many people have asked me why the chief executive—Tony Elliston, who was the returning officer in charge—did not take action. That is a good question, because, on 17 April 1997—during the general election campaign—the Labour party's lawyers faxed Elliston a copy of a judgment in a similar case, in which a candidate who called himself a New Labour candidate was not the official Labour candidate. In that case, the judge ruled that what had occurred was
"a fraudulent device or contrivance which was intended to impede or prevent the free exercise of the franchise of electors within section 115(2)(b)".
Some senior and respected councillors have told me that they fear that the chief executive's indifference to electoral fraud may arise from questionably close relationships with the bogus members of Hackney New Labour. I will not comment on that, but it is something that Ministers may like to mull over.
What I can say with certainty—for a moment, I thought that I was on the wrong side of the Chamber—is that, when my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) complained to the chief executive about the appalling delay in sending out poll cards, he responded superciliously, saying: "We don't want to get them out too early, do we?" That was not the view of the electorate, thousands of whom did not receive their poll cards until the day before the election.
Whatever the truth about the bogus "New Labour" candidate Betts, Councillor Leibowitz, the chief executive and Hackney New Labour, the Minister will agree, I am sure, that working men and women fought long and hard to obtain the vote. Politicians and administrators should respect their right to vote for the candidate of their choice—indeed, they have a duty to do so. I fear that things will not be sorted out without the intervention of Home Office Ministers, and I look forward to a sympathetic reply from my hon. Friend the Minister.
12.40 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) in congratulating you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on filling that Chair. I know from experience that it is a job that you will do admirably and to the benefit of the whole House.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for initiating this debate on a number of aspects of the conduct of parliamentary elections. I am especially grateful that he has raised the matter so soon after the general election. My hon. Friend has raised a number of points, the first of which is the cynical and misleading descriptions of some candidates on nomination papers and ballot papers, and the consequences that that has had in his constituency and elsewhere. The second point is the possibility of abuse of the absent voter arrangements.
Those are both important issues. Whatever other expertise we may have, the conduct of elections is dear to the hearts of all hon. Members. As the general election is so recent, it is even dearer than usual.
Both issues are important. I recognise that my hon. Friend has eloquently and wittily explained the problems that arise because candidates misdescribe themselves,

673
using party titles to which they have no right. That is indeed important. I am also pleased that the debate provides an opportunity to discuss spoiling tactics, which were not successful in my hon. Friend's constituency. In Knowsley, we have had long experience of candidates describing themselves as Labour candidates when they were not entitled to do so. My hon. Friend is right to say that it is far easier to cause confusion with such titles in local elections than it is in general elections.
I turn now to misleading descriptions on ballot papers. The provision that allows every candidate to include a description on his or her nomination paper is set out in the parliamentary election rules in schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983. No candidate is required to provide a description on the nomination paper, but, where he or she does so, the description as set out on the nomination paper is automatically transferred to the ballot paper.
The rules provide only that the description must not exceed six words and must be sufficient, with the candidate's other particulars, to identify him or her. Rightly, the description may not contravene the ordinary law of the land. It must not, for example, be obscene or racist, or act as an incitement to crime.
My hon. Friend has rightly said that responsibility for these matters rests with the returning officer. The 1983 Act places responsibility for the conduct of parliamentary elections on acting returning officers in each constituency. Acting returning officers, however, do not have the power to amend a candidate's nomination paper, and may reject a nomination only in two very particular circumstances. Those are that the candidate is disqualified because he or she is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment, or that the nomination paper is not as required by law and is not subscribed in due form.
The effect of the second part of the rules is that the acting returning officer can rule only on the validity of the nomination paper, and not on the validity of the person's nomination. It is here that the problem arises. The reason for limiting the acting returning officer's authority in this way is clear. Successive Governments have taken it as a first priority that acting returning officers should not be drawn into making decisions that might be considered political or party political. Every hon. Member will see the common sense in that.
I recognise my hon. Friend's concern that the use of misleading party names is a problem. The returns from the general election have still to be brought together, but I accept that the use of potentially misleading party names on ballot papers is likely to have increased from 1992. I am certain that, when we have a chance to analyse those returns, we shall see that that is the case.
Fortunately for the House and for my hon. Friend, the spoiling tactics used in his constituency did not have the desired outcome. Indeed, my hon. Friend is here today to tell us the story. As far as we know, the problem of misleading descriptions has not affected the outcome in any constituency in the general election. I know, however, that there is a strong argument that, in the 1994 European elections, the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) was affected. On a subsequent occasion, the hon. Member may raise that issue. In that election, the title "Literal Democrat" was used.
Mr. Mike Hancockindicated assent.
Mr. Howarth: I say to the hon. Member for Torbay—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is not here."]
Mr. Andrew Stunell: My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) is not here; I hope that the Minister is not under a misapprehension. He is right in asserting that there was a serious problem in the European election. The issue went to court, but was not resolved in the way that we would have hoped.
Mr. Howarth: I made a mistake. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) was nodding so vigorously that I assumed that he was the hon. Member for Torbay. Obviously, he has been seduced by the power of my oratory, which was the cause of the problem. Clearly, a problem arose in the European election, and it is a matter that must be looked at in future.
Hon. Members will recognise that the problem of the attempted misdirection of the electorate has been with us for a long time. Descriptions were introduced specifically to address that problem. Many hon. Members will recall the days when there was no description on the ballot paper; I remember that being the case within my political lifetime. Descriptions were introduced to try to address the problem, but they clearly have not been as effective as we would have wished.
There are a number of options that do not require party registration, an issue to which I shall turn in a moment, and which have been looked at by Home Office officials. The various options include the use of party logos on ballot papers, the strengthening of the 1983 Act to provide a specific offence of using a description intended to mislead, and the introduction of a challenge process to be heard before a High Court judge. I know that the Liberal Democrats, in various submissions, have supported that.
There are difficulties with all three proposals, which need to be scrutinised in much greater detail. At this stage, I would not like to make a commitment to any of them. However, now that the election is over, discussion of the issues between the political parties will go ahead. I hope that we can examine them again to see whether there is any prospect of moving ahead, although I must add the qualification that there are problems with all three proposals that I have mentioned.
I should like to say a few words on political party registration, which offers us better prospects for dealing with the problems. The principal problem with the use of party names as candidate descriptions is that political parties are not recognised in electoral law. The lack of any means by which a political party can register its name for electoral purposes is the starting point for the difficulties that my hon. Friend has described.
From that stems the problem of a candidate being able to describe himself as new Labour when he has nothing to do with the Labour party or as a Literal Democrat when he has nothing to do with the Liberal Democrats, or, as has happened in my constituency, simply to use the confusing title "Labour", spelled properly. We have never been able to challenge that.
If she were free to do so, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy) could wax lyrical for at least 15 minutes on the confusion that often

675
exists at elections in Liverpool, where various candidates use all kinds of different descriptions, trying to pretend that they are Labour party candidates when they are not.
We have to make progress on this. The lack of statutory registration of political parties has consequences for party funding. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House mentioned our commitment to look into that. The registration of political parties would have to be part of any mechanism for bringing party funding under control. If we have any kind of proportional system—an issue that will be considered, and should be the subject of a referendum, during this Parliament—we shall have to consider party registration.
My hon. Friend is aware of our manifesto commitment to examine ways of regulating and reforming the funding of political parties—a commitment that we take seriously. We also have a clear manifesto commitment to put to the Scottish and Welsh people proposals for the devolution of powers to representative bodies elected by proportional representation.
The Government are considering how best to take forward those commitments. The answer will, without doubt, involve a measure for the registration of political parties, although it is too early to be able to say yet what that may involve. Any measures to register political parties would provide an opportunity for action on the statutory recognition of political party names. We shall certainly have to examine that issue.
My hon. Friend also talked about granny farming—the first time that I have come across the term. That is not a bizarre agricultural practice, as it might sound, but a specific problem to do with proxy votes. The Government take seriously any allegations of widespread and systematic abuse of the procedure for absent voting. If it becomes necessary, we are prepared to legislate.
There is no recent evidence that the abuse of proxy voting is systematic or widespread. Application forms for absent votes were amended in 1994, after well-publicised examples of elderly people being deliberately misled into believing that they were applying for a postal ballot paper, which would have allowed them to cast their own vote, rather than a proxy to vote on their behalf. Electors now have to indicate clearly whether they are applying to vote by post or by proxy. All appointments of a proxy must be signed by the elector or by the proxy.
Under the Representation of the People Act 1985, an elector who is unable to vote in person at the polling station may apply to vote by post or by proxy. Those wishing to vote by proxy are required to give the name and address of the person appointed as proxy, and must sign the proxy appointment or arrange for it to be signed by the proxy.
676
The review of electoral law and practice set up after the 1992 general election considered whether changes should be made to the absent voting system and to the application forms, to reduce the opportunity for abuse of the system and to make it more accessible to voters. Various suggestions were considered, including the redesign of the form, the need for the elector to sign in person, the wording on the ballot papers and the inclusion of the level of fines. The application forms were amended in 1994.
In the past five years, there have been allegations of absent voting irregularities in St. Ives in 1992, in Brighton in 1993, in Burnley in 1994 and in Cynon Valley in 1995. Various actions resulted from those allegations, some of which were upheld. The offences in Cynon Valley led to a member of Plaid Cymru being tried in Cardiff Crown court and sentenced to two months in prison.
There have been no reports, either officially from an acting returning officer or from newspapers, of abuses in connection with absent vote applications at the 1997 election, although I am sure that my hon. Friend's speech will remedy that defect. Any allegations of malpractice regarding the absent voting system should be reported to the police, whose job it is to investigate.
A person who votes as some other person—in person or by means of a postal or proxy vote—commits an offence of personation, which is a corrupt practice under the Representation of the People Acts. A person is also guilty of a corrupt practice if
"by abduction, duress, or any fraudulent device or contrivance he impedes or prevents the free exercise of the franchise of an elector."
I am not sure how that applies to swallowing a ballot paper, but we should investigate that.
A person who makes a false statement in an application for an absent vote, or who attests an application that he knows to contain a false statement, also commits an offence, as does anybody attesting an application when not qualified to do so. Electoral abuse is a serious matter. There are strict penalties for those found guilty, with a maximum fine of £5,000.
My hon. Friend has raised some important issues, and I congratulate him. It is right that such issues should be aired as early as possible in the electoral cycle, so that we have time to review and consider them and take any necessary action. If I have missed any points from my hon. Friend's speech, I shall pick them up and communicate with him.
Part of the task that the Government have set themselves is to clean up politics in this country. The issues raised today fall within the scope of that aim. Subject to proper consultation, we shall act to clean up politics and to make the electoral system as free of defects as possible.

Gangmasters (South Lincolnshire)
12.59 pm
Sir Richard Body: I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your election. I shall try not to trespass on your patience too often. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on his appointment to a Department with which I have had a love-hate relationship for many years. I hope that he will enjoy his time there and play an active part in reforming the common agricultural policy.
A large proportion of our vegetables is produced in south Lincolnshire. As it is a seasonal industry, there is an obvious need for casual labour on a considerable scale. Many thousands of men and women are engaged in harvesting the vegetables and, increasingly, in processing them in factories. To give the Minister an idea of the scale, one factory requires more than 2,000 men and women to work on a casual basis most days of the year.
Obviously it is necessary to organise many thousands of people into the various farms and factories where they are required. That is the role of the gangmaster, who enters into an agreement with the farmer or factory manager to organise a certain number of people for a certain number of days. The gangmaster receives a lump sum and it is up to him or her to pay the gangers what he or she thinks fit.
There is nothing inherently wrong with the system. It worked very well for a long time, until unemployment took off and more than 1 million people in south Lincolnshire became available for casual work. They come from as far afield as Sheffield, Doncaster, Grimsby, Mansfield and even Birmingham. The people who recruit them are different from those who previously undertook such work. According to the Department for Education and Employment, there are now about 800 gangmasters, who fall into two categories. The first comprises those whose names, addresses and telephone numbers can be found in the Yellow Pages or the telephone directory. They can be easily identified by Government Departments and, generally speaking, they engage local people. They often employ their friends, relations and neighbours. They depend on having a good reputation, and over the years they have tried to do an honest job. If they were not honest to their friends and neighbours, they would not have gangs. However, their position has become almost untenable because of the other category of gangmasters who are in the vast majority—there are only about 50 or 60 in the Yellow Pages—many of whom have criminal records and continue to commit acts of dishonesty and violence.
There is such fear among the gangers that it is impossible for me to recount the experience of any ganger. One honest gangmaster who provided me with information was warned not to speak to me again. He was told that, if he did, he would be punished. He ignored that threat and gave me more evidence about the criminal activities of the other gangmasters. Having done that, he was punished. The other gangmasters took a puppy that he had recently acquired for his family and cut off its paws. Needless to say, he has given me no more information. Indeed, none of the honest gangmasters is willing to be forthcoming about the activities of the others.
678
We are dealing with people who have a disdain for the law of our country and do not hesitate to use some pretty bad methods of recruiting gangers and to treat them badly. I shall not go into detail about what goes on in the fields and the factories, but there are many cruel and obscene practices that cannot be justified.
This state of affairs has continued since unemployment rose, making it possible for disreputable gangmasters to recruit men and women who have been on social security and are willing to come to Lincolnshire, often making a long journey in transport provided by the gangmasters. Many of them get up at 4 o'clock in the morning to earn a miserable rate of pay.
The result is unfair competition. Wages are almost the only variable cost in producing and processing vegetables. Farms and factories that can reduce their wage costs can hold down their prices. As the Minister knows only too well, about five major supermarket chains are competing with each other and trying to keep down prices, with the result that at the end of the chain gangers are working at a derisory rate of pay.
The position has become worse in the past 12 months. Not only are gangmasters recruiting people who are on social security, but they have agents in eastern Europe—in Poland, the Ukraine and even Russia—who are bringing illegal immigrants to Britain. I cannot say how many there are, but it is certainly an appreciable number. Those people are told that, if they come to England, they can earn as much in one day as they get in one week in their own country, and that is true.
A number of evils are being committed. Apart from illegal immigration, there is massive social security fraud. One cannot quantify the millions of pounds that have been lost, but one sub-postmaster in my constituency has calculated that, even in his area, it must cost the system about £500,000 a year. Fraud is being perpetrated on the Inland Revenue and on Customs and Excise, but, above all, there has been a great depressing effect on wage rates in my constituency. It means that men and women in my constituency are better off on social security than doing a reasonable job. Only their self-respect enables people to continue working in appalling conditions as gangers on the farms and in the factories.
I feel sure that the Minister will be persuaded that action must be taken. The previous Government took a number of steps, none of which has succeeded. In the past, gangmasters were licensed, but licensing came to an end when there was full employment. There was no need for any control over gangmasters as, on the whole, the system worked successfully. However, the position has now completely changed and I can think of no solution other than a return to licensing.
The Minister may know that I introduced a Bill for the licensing of gangmasters. Up to now, I have not revealed that it was drafted for me by an official of the Transport and General Workers Union; I therefore hope that the Bill will be treated more sympathetically if I reintroduce it. If the Government cannot support such a measure, I urge them to think of taking some steps to overcome the evil to which I have referred. The previous Government tried; they took a number of steps, but they all failed. I urge the Minister to reconsider licensing.
1.9 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I should first associate myself with the comments of my colleagues on the Treasury Bench and other hon. Members in congratulating you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your appointment as the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means. Having served under you in Committee, I know that you will serve the House in your onerous task with distinction. We understand the great sacrifice that you, as a Member of Parliament, have made in order to fill the post that must be filled. We are therefore doubly grateful to you and your colleagues in the Chair for taking on such an awesome responsibility.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body) on taking this early opportunity to raise an issue that over the years I have been an hon. Member—not as many years as him—he has raised many times. I have occasionally been present when he has raised the issue during Question Time as well as in a ten-minute Bill. Since I knew that he had obtained this debate, I took the opportunity over the past 24 hours to check in Hansard the written questions that he has tabled on the matter. He comes to the issue with a long and dedicated experience of concern for his constituents.
I hope that the issue is not partisan in any way. It is one of fairness and of justice for our citizens who work in the agricultural and farming industry. I share the concerns expressed. If unscrupulous people are at work—the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness painted a very sorry tale of the production of food in Britain—they must be rooted out, and rooted out vigorously.
As the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness rightly said, agriculture and horticulture depend on a large number of casual or seasonal workers. Many years ago—longer than I care to remember—I did a couple of weeks of fruit picking up in Scotland. I understand the concerns and why the job is highly seasonal. I understand that, during some weeks, up to 14,000 people a day are employed on a casual basis to pick food. The task obviously needs to be done that way.
As the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness also rightly said, it is astonishing to learn—I have seen some of the newspaper advertisements—that, due to high levels of mass unemployment, especially in urban areas, which has gone on for a decade or more, people have been bussed into the Lincolnshire fields from as far afield as my own city of Birmingham. I shall return to that matter.
The organisation of employees by gangmasters is not, as the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness said, inherently bad. Gangmasters must—we will ensure that they do—operate within the law. The law must be enforced without exception. There is therefore a need to look at the legal framework. I shall spend a few minutes detailing some aspects of it, before I turn to more positive remarks.
A range of legislation regulates the employment of workers by gangmasters. All agricultural workers must be paid the appropriate minimum wage. Agricultural work is the only area in which there is a statutory minimum wage for each hour of work.
Ms Gillian Merron: Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the problems associated with pay, to which the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body) referred, would be alleviated by the introduction of a national minimum wage, especially since in my constituency and throughout Lincolnshire workers earn on average £40 a week less than is earned by the average British worker?
Mr. Rooker: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her election to the House. I campaigned for a national minimum wage when we last had a Labour Government, so I understand the difficulties and the need for it. Agriculture and horticulture is the one area with a statutory national minimum wage regulated by law and approved by the House, yet the law can be flouted in the extreme, as my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness have highlighted.
The national minimum wage in agriculture applies regardless of whether people are employed directly by a farmer, a gangmaster or a contractor. It applies to everyone who works on the farm, including those undertaking packhouse activities for crops grown on that farm. Provisions for people working away from the farm are slightly different. People on piece-work are sometimes told by gangmasters that the minimum wage does not apply to them. They are lying; the minimum wage does apply to such workers and they must not be paid less than the overall minimum required for the hours that they work.
Enforcement of minimum wage legislation is, of course, conducted through the criminal courts. One of the snags, however, is that we as enforcers have only six months after the event to take effective action in court. That presents a serious practical problem. I shall highlight one example of that.
As Channel 4's recent programme "A Bitter Harvest" highlighted—I have not seen the programme, but I have read the transcript and reports—someone may spend months researching a matter. Months therefore elapse before all the activities are recorded, produced and shown on television. That can cause problems for the regulators in rooting out perpetrators of events shown on our television screens. My officials are considering all aspects of that programme and enforcers across the Departments are considering whether any action can be taken as a result of the events highlighted in the film. We may be caught by the fact that the events took place more than six months ago. I do not deny that difficulty.
Other problems in enforcement relate to lack of records of hours worked or payment received. Workers are sometimes unwilling to be witnesses. Given that good gangmasters cease to be witnesses due to threats of intimidation from thugs and spivs, we should consider how workers feel when they want to complain. It is absolutely impossible for them to do so for fear of intimidation.
Gangmasters are subject to other legal provisions. Gangmasters supplying workers to work under the direction of farmers are subject to the Employment Agencies Act 1973, and the penalties for infringement are

681
harsh. The Department of Trade and Industry must follow up complaints. In the worst cases, offenders may have to cease operations as an employment agency or business for up to 10 years.
Gangmasters are also expected to comply with relevant tax and national insurance legislation. I know that my colleagues in the Department of Social Security will be looking at that. The agricultural compliance unit in the Inland Revenue was set up to ensure that taxes and national insurance are collected. That is one angle of enforcement. There are also provisions to prevent the harbouring and use of illegal immigrants. Enforcement can lead to the deportation of illegal workers or the imprisonment of operators. I would certainly support the latter as the first priority. It is the one way of stamping out that activity.
The use of illegal immigrants presents all kinds of opportunities for the exploitation of workers because of lack of knowledge of the English language and a fear of complaining. Such workers can be kept in appalling accommodation. Indeed, as we have seen recently, casuals employed by gangmasters can, over several weeks, end up owing gangmasters money, because gangmasters charge for transport and, perhaps, accommodation. We, in 1997, almost have tied labour in this country, since the longer such workers work, the more they owe the employer. That is outrageous and we must take every possible step to rule it out.
There are proper arrangements for seasonal workers under the seasonal agricultural workers scheme, which of course allows foreign workers into the United Kingdom to undertake agricultural work. Such practice is quite normal. Up to 10,000 young foreign, non-European economic area workers may come into the UK to undertake work for up to six months between May and November—the key season of the year.
A single operator may at the same time commit offences against each of the several disparate legal requirements. Such requirements are regulated by more than one Department, and there are therefore difficulties. There have clearly been difficulties in the past, which I hope my colleagues and I can eliminate in future.
The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness highlighted the fact that abuse of the law can be tempting to people who are in receipt of social security benefit. They can go into work that is not subsequently declared. Pressure of mass unemployment in urban areas has caused that. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that, if the abuse occurs widely—which it does in his experience in Lincolnshire—the effect on the local rural economy and on the level of wages for the indigenous population is catastrophic. That has a knock-on effect and leads to rural deprivation on a grand scale. I represent an urban area, but I understand that our rural areas are not like the pictures on the front of chocolate boxes. In 1990, I made a speech from the Opposition Back Benches about rural deprivation. I understand that the problem can be as serious as in the inner cities; however, because it is more disparate and diffused, it is not highlighted in the same way.
Sir Richard Body: On the subject of enforcement, and given that more than 700 cowboy gangmasters operate in urban areas and elsewhere, how can the Government identify and monitor them? They are fly-by-night
682
characters who act as gangmasters for a couple of months, make a lot of money and disappear on holiday or to prison.
Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman is right and the Government must address the issue. Local task forces of enforcement agencies are set up to tackle the problems. They can involve the police, together with enforcement officers from the immigration and nationality directorate, the Department for Education and Employment, the Department of Social Security and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The focus must be to catch the operators, and we need to consider what more can be done.
All the produce ends up on the shelves of our shops and supermarkets, so the food sector has a responsibility. The great supermarket chains are sensitive to bad publicity when they are accused of exploiting workers in the third world. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness has described third-world conditions for the people who work on the land and the local population in Lincolnshire. Those who buy from the farmers have a responsibility to ensure that farmers use good gangmasters and not spiv gangmasters. I will ensure that the food industry addresses that issue.
Sir Richard Body: It has failed so far.
Mr. Rooker: Yes, but we have a new broom and a fresh mandate. Our instincts are different and we want to solve the problem. The British Retail Consortium has approached the National Farmers Union about the introduction of a code of practice to control the activities of gangmasters. I am in favour of codes of practice, but I will review every code of practice issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to ensure that they do not undermine the regulations approved by the House. Codes of practice can be of benefit, but they can be used to avoid enforcement.
The NFU issues guidance already to farmers on the employment of casual labour. Not every farmer is a member of the NFU, and we must try to reach those non-members too. The NFU has also set up a working party that is addressing the issue of gangmasters more directly. It will propose a code of practice and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will comment on that.
There are many anecdotes about abuse of the system. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness has given hard evidence of such abuse, but it is always difficult to provide that hard evidence in a court of law. Legislation is available to deal with the problem, but the question is whether it is being used. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for highlighting the issue in the early days of this Parliament. The problems caused by some gangmasters have long been known, but the nature of gangmasters has changed. We must examine whether the existing legislation covers the new type of gangmaster.
As a first step, I will consider the existing laws and whether they meet the current situation. I will ensure that they are enforced in as concerted a manner as possible. Voluntary codes of practice may have a role

683
to play. The issue reached my desk only in the past 24 hours, but I will also inquire why the old gangmaster licensing system was abandoned in 1951. People then had prospects of full employment and nobody envisaged people being bussed from Birmingham, Manchester and Wolverhampton to the fields of Lincolnshire. The problem of the exploitation of illegal immigrants and people from eastern Europe was also non-existent. Harvesting was a family and community affair to get food into our shops.
I will give the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness a commitment that I will discuss the matter further with my ministerial colleagues in the Home Office, the Department for Education and Employment, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Social Security and the Inland Revenue. When I have concluded those discussions, and—I hope—found a way forward, I will be in touch with the hon. Gentleman. I am grateful to him for requesting this debate.

Mr. Peter Windass
1.25 pm
Mr. Hugh Bayley: I start by thanking Madam Speaker for permitting me to raise the subject of this Adjournment debate.
Over the past three years, I have corresponded with several Government Departments and executive agencies on behalf of my constituent, Mrs. Moira Windass, whose son, Peter Windass, was murdered in York in January 1994. That correspondence reveals serious shortcomings in the criminal justice system. It also reveals an inability on the part of Ministers to give accurate answers to clear, factual questions about the operation of the criminal justice system. I would have liked to put some questions to the Ministers concerned in an Adjournment debate, but I was prevented from doing so by the sub judice rule. I do not hold the present Minister responsible for the actions of the previous Government, but I was anxious to have this debate because I want the new Government to consider the administration of the criminal justice system and to improve it.
Peter Windass was a young man with his whole life ahead of him. He was an honest, upstanding and hard-working person; a qualified stonemason who worked on repairing and restoring York's city walls. When he died in January three years ago, it was as a result of an unprovoked attack. His attackers were arrested by the police within 24 hours. One has subsequently been convicted of murder and another of affray. From the point of view of the criminal justice system, it might appear that the case was dealt with satisfactorily. The crime has been solved, the criminals have been convicted and both have been sentenced to prison. However, from the point of view of the victim's family, the conduct of the case was far from satisfactory. The way that it has dragged on has prolonged and intensified their anguish.
It is impossible to describe the pain endured by the family of a murder victim. The family's feelings should be the primary concern of a criminal justice system. Instead, their feelings, questions and needs are treated as almost incidental to the judicial process. The family received good support from friends and voluntary bodies, including the Victim Support scheme in York, and from the police, but the courts appeared distant. The members of the family had to mingle in court with witnesses appearing for the defence, including people they knew from their neighbourhood who were threatening to them.
Various promises were made to the family by different parts of the justice system, but they were not kept. For example, the police promised them that they would be told of the date on which one of the accused would be sentenced, so that they could be in court to hear the sentence passed. That did not happen.
The justice process itself is painfully slow. My choice of the word "painfully" is careful. I do not use it as a figure of speech. I mean that the slowness causes pain for victims' families. It is almost three years since the murderer was convicted, yet still the tariff—the time that he will have to serve in prison—has not been confirmed, so the case has not ended. The family are still waiting to find out what penalty will be imposed on the man who murdered their son.

685
When justice is delayed, justice is denied. We need a justice system which, while allowing a defendant his rights in court, does not unnecessarily prolong proceedings.
When the family asked questions about the case, the answers they received from different parts of the justice system were sometimes contradictory and sometimes simply wrong. The police did not know what the Crown Prosecution Service was doing. The CPS and the Court Service were at sixes and sevens. The Court Service, the Prison Service and the probation service failed to work together, so the family received different answers to their questions from different parts of the system.
The criminal justice system has become fragmented. The problem is faced not by the Windass family alone, in one isolated case, but by many families of the victims of murder and manslaughter. Since the murder of her son, Mrs. Windass has played a prominent part in a voluntary body called SAMM—Support After Murder and Manslaughter. She knows that what happened to her family is, unfortunately, all too common.
We need a better co-ordinated criminal justice system, and I can give a few examples that illustrate that need. First, I wrote to Baroness Blatch, the former Minister at the Home Office, about the failure of the system to advise the family of the date of sentencing. The family were promised that they would be notified by a police officer, but that did not happen.
The Baroness replied:
"it has never been a Crown Prosecution Service function to inform the police of new hearing dates in the Crown Court."
Well, that should be a Crown Prosecution Service function, and the CPS should also have to tell the victim—or in the case of murder or manslaughter, the victim's family—the dates of new hearings.
Secondly, at the time of the murder, one of the two accused, a man called Eaves, was supposed to be under curfew in Blackburn as a result of bail conditions imposed for a string of other offences. In a letter to me dated April 1995, another former Home Office Minister, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), said that Eaves's bail was subject to four conditions, one of which was that he had to report regularly to the police in Blackburn.
In January 1996 the former Minister retracted that statement, saying that Eaves was not on bail but subject to an arrest warrant, and that the bail conditions before he absconded and the arrest warrant was issued did not stipulate that he should report to Blackburn police.
I raised that matter with the chief constable of Lancashire, and it turned out that the bail conditions applied had required Eaves to report to the police. The chief constable wrote to me:
"The bail conditions were initially imposed by Blackburn Magistrates' Court on 1st October 1993"—
about three months before the murder.
"The Police are informed, routinely, by the Courts of any bail conditions. However, there are insufficient Police resources to individually monitor whether or not someone is residing at a particular address or complying with curfew conditions."
If a court imposes bail conditions to protect the public from a violent or potentially violent offender, we need to ensure that those conditions are met and enforced. Indeed, we must first ensure that the conditions are enforceable.
686
I have a third example. Eaves has a long record of repeatedly breaking bail conditions and absconding while on bail, yet when, part way through the criminal proceedings against him, the charge against him was reduced from one of murder to one of affray, the court offered him bail again, despite objections by both the police and the victim's family. Eaves was granted bail again, and he absconded again.
In a letter to me dated April 1995, the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border—whom I have told I would raise the matter in the House today—said:
"The Government is determined to see that the courts grant bail only in those circumstances where it is safe to do so".
That policy is right, but in Eaves's case it was not applied. He had absconded from bail on the night that the murder was committed.
In the same letter, the right hon. Gentleman said that Eaves
"will be appearing at Preston Crown Court in due course when he will be sentenced. Under amendments to the Criminal Justice Act 1991, when deciding what sentence to pass on Eaves, the court will have to take into consideration the fact that the offence was committed on bail as a factor aggravating the seriousness of the offence."
Quite right too—but when Eaves was sentenced, the judge was not informed that the offence was committed when he had absconded while on bail, so the penalty that he suffered, the prison sentence, did not take account of the aggravating factor that the Minister had said would be recognised.
It is hardly surprising that the family feel let down by the criminal justice system. Moreover, the former Government's mishandling of their changes to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board regulations meant that, on top of everything else, the family lost out on compensation payments. They received funeral expenses only. I shall write to my hon. Friend the new Minister separately about that matter, because it has undoubtedly compounded the family's feeling that the justice system was working against them.
I believe that the criminal justice system needs radical change, and I have four specific proposals for the Minister. First, the Crown Prosecution Service should have a duty to keep the victim—or, in the case of murder, the victim's family—informed about the progress of criminal proceedings.
Secondly, the CPS should co-ordinate its proceedings better with those of the police. I should like an assurance from my hon. Friend that the Labour party's election manifesto proposal, that the Crown Prosecution Service should appoint a dedicated senior prosecutor attached to each police force, will address those two problems—the duty to keep the victim informed, and co-ordination between the police and the prosecution service.
Thirdly, tighter bail rules need to be introduced. If imposed by a court, a residential restriction to a particular address or a curfew at a particular time of day need to be enforceable and enforced. If they are not, there is no point in making them.
Fourthly, the Government must do everything they can, within the constraints of ensuring due process, to speed up the justice system. I find it intolerable that a year after the judge recommended a tariff, that tariff has still not been confirmed. Of course the convicted man should have

687
a right to make representations before the tariff is set, but the system should not allow the perpetrator of a crime to drag out the agony for the victim or the family for a further year. In this case, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can give an assurance that the tariff will be set as soon as possible.
In general, we need a new approach to the criminal justice system which puts the victim at its heart. I ask the House one very simple question—if the criminal justice system does not seek to provide justice for the victim of a crime, who then does it provide justice for?
1.41 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley) on initiating an important debate on this general area of policy and, particularly, the family to whom he has referred. Only those who have lost a loved one at the hands of a murderer can begin to understand the pain and grief suffered by bereaved families. The impact can affect not only the immediate family, but friends, colleagues and neighbours. For all too many, the repercussions can last for the rest of their lives.
No one could fail to have enormous sympathy for families who are bereaved in such a sudden and violent way, and I wish to take this opportunity to express my sincerest sympathy to Mrs. Windass, who is following the debate today. My hon. Friend has illustrated the experience of many other families. Many families of murder victims—and many other victims of crime—feel neglected by the criminal justice system and a great deal more needs to be done to meet their needs.
I can assure the House that this Government will take action to redress the balance of the criminal justice system in favour of victims, while maintaining the interests of justice. We will ensure that all agencies give a high priority to treating victims with sensitivity and respect, and will listen to their views to improve the services they provide to victims and their families.
The Government want to ensure that victims are kept fully informed of progress in their case—one of the central issues raised by my hon. Friend—if they want to be. Victims of crime must be kept informed of significant developments in their case and should have the opportunity to explain the effect the crime has had on them.
Pilot studies are now under way in six police force areas; the police will keep victims informed of developments. This will be extended to two more areas shortly and will provide, in effect, a one-stop-shop pilot project. However, the idea that victims who want to know what is happening can look to the police to keep them informed is only one option. We will carefully examine the outcome of the pilot exercises, but we believe that this task should not be left to the police alone.
In respect of the reform of the Crown Prosecution Service, I am happy to confirm the steps we are taking. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary regard this as an important reform. Our plans to decentralise the CPS will enhance co-operation between local Crown prosecutors and the police. The new local CPS should be more involved in informing victims of its decisions.
688
Specifically, local Crown prosecutors, who will be in post under our reorganisation, will be accountable for their decisions and should be prepared to explain to victims their reasons for discontinuing or downgrading charges against offenders—at least in the most serious cases.
My hon. Friend says that it should be the responsibility of the CPS to keep families informed. That is a fair point. In 1994, I tabled amendments to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill to place that requirement on the CPS, but they were not accepted by the then Government.
We also want local Crown prosecutors to be more proactive in meeting victims and witnesses—especially in cases where people have been killed as the result of a crime—to explain their decision on prosecution. The concern of families is shown by the fact that requests to meet the CPS are increasing in number; I am assured that no request is refused. Our plans to decentralise the CPS should achieve even greater responsiveness to the needs of victims of crime and their families.
The enforcement of bail conditions was another important matter that my hon. Friend referred to. It is not an easy one to deal with, as he will appreciate. In view of the serious series of events he described, I am happy to give him an undertaking to look into the circumstances surrounding the bail decisions to which he referred. There are cases where things go badly wrong, and that is why we want to improve the enforcement and oversight of bail conditions.
My hon. Friend referred also to the criminal injuries compensation scheme. I believe that this is one of a number of matters that fall between two stools. The House will recall that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)—the previous Home Secretary—introduced a new scheme, which was challenged and had to be withdrawn. He then had to replace it with a second new scheme, which was introduced and debated in the House. I assure my hon. Friend that I will look at the situation and take advice as to whether there are steps that can be taken to alleviate the problem. Again it is complicated, but I will look into it carefully to see what can be done.
It is clear that the families of homicide victims need assistance because of the deep distress caused by the tragic event. It is now common practice for police forces to appoint one officer on the investigation team as a family liaison officer. The victim's family will be given that officer's name and telephone number and the officer will be responsible for answering any questions the family may have about the case and for keeping them informed of developments throughout the police investigation and any subsequent court proceedings. This includes the progress and outcome of Court of Appeal cases—a point to which I shall return—where the police will tell the family quickly of the date of the appeal, if the offender is granted bail pending the appeal and, of course, the outcome, when it is known. Obviously that will not be a perfect system as, in some cases, the police do not have the information to pass on. We must tighten the procedures and we will build on best practice so that best practice becomes the norm. We will keep the matter under review.
An information pack is now available for the families of murder victims. The police will offer the families a copy of the pack, which was developed by the Home Office, to help anyone bereaved as the result of a crime.

689
The information pack contains practical information to help the family and friends of the victim, both in the immediate aftermath of the crime and in the longer term. All police forces have copies of the pack, which will be monitored to ensure that no family is left out. Again, we will keep this under review.
As well as receiving information about case progress, it is right that the victims should have the opportunity to explain how the crime has affected them. It is easy to forget that all crime is about the victims and that that is what the process is about. Ways of doing so are being tested in the pilot project.
As hon. Members will appreciate, giving people the chance to make a formal statement about how the crime has affected them raises a number of sensitive issues, which we will need to consider carefully when we evaluate the pilot study. Furthermore, when the victim has been killed, the issue of who should be allowed to make a victim statement as a secondary victim needs further careful thought. In some cases, it will be obvious that the position is not clear cut. In the case of homicide, the majority of victims—54 per cent. of males and 73 per cent. of females—knew the suspect before they were killed and 40 per cent. of females were killed by current and former partners. In such cases, the relatives' views would form part of their case for leniency and it would be far from obvious who was the right person, if anyone, to offer the contrary view as a secondary victim.
The complication of these issues should not and will not stop us engaging in them, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that there is no simple, straightforward way to deal with them immediately.
My hon. Friend made a number of serious points about the setting of the tariff and the period taken to reach that conclusion. He is right to point out that it is more than three years since the murder and more than two since conviction, yet the tariff has not been set for the life sentence. That is another common area of concern to the families of murder victims.
In every case in which a person is convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, the family of the victim have the right to know what tariff has been set—the minimum period to be served in prison for the purpose of retribution and deterrence. A decision on the tariff, however, has to await the outcome of any appeal to the Court of Appeal in case the conviction is quashed or the appeal sheds new light on the offence. Since the appeal process can be lengthy, it may indeed be many months after sentence before the tariff is set and the victim's family can be told. That is the general situation.
I understand that in Peter Windass's case, the Prison Service is awaiting representations from his killer's solicitors about the tariff. When those are received, Ministers will be able to set a tariff. I can assure my hon. Friend that Mrs. Windass will be informed of the outcome as soon as possible after that. I can go a little further, as officials are pressing solicitors for the representations to be make as quickly as possible and today I have discussed ways in which we can speed up the process of advising relatives about the progress of appeals and that of setting the tariff.
Clearly, improvements can be made. For instance, in this case it appeared that the dismissal of an appeal heard by a single judge was going to be followed by an appeal to a full court—leave was given for that second appeal.
690
The fact that that was dropped after 14 days was not picked up until much later. Clearly that added to the delay in providing information to the family. That is the type of gap and difficulty in the process that we will tighten up.
Mr. Bayley: I am grateful to hear my hon. Friend's commitment that he will speed up the process in this case. I would also be grateful if he would ask the solicitors how long the court has been waiting for representations from the murderer's solicitors and consider the more general point of whether that is longer than is necessary to ensure a fair opportunity.
Mr. Michael: Certainly I will be happy to consider that when I study the circumstances. I was pointing out that there has been a gap in our being kept informed. We have found out why it happened and will try to use that knowledge to learn lessons and ensure that it does not happen again.
On mentally disordered offenders, the arrangements for the probation service to keep victims and their families informed of post-sentence developments do not apply to victims of offenders who are sent to hospital. That does not apply in this case, so I will leave that matter to one side, but I have flagged it up as another area of concern.
Victims of crime and their families do not merely need timely information about their case and to have their views taken into account; they also deserve appropriate support to help meet their practical and emotional needs, whether or not their case goes to court. My hon. Friend tells me that Victim Support was helpful to the family in this case, although I must stress that it is no substitute for sensitive support and help from every part of the criminal justice system.
The Home Office provides substantial funding to Victim Support nationally, which provides practical help and emotional support to victims of all types of crime. Our grant this year is £11.7 million, which will support the work of about 365 local schemes and branches nationwide. The grant also supports the work of the Crown court witness service, which has been established at all 77 Crown court centres in England and Wales to help victims, witnesses and their families cope with the stress of a court appearance.
Victim Support is working closely with another organisation, Support After Murder and Manslaughter—known as SAMM—to which my hon. Friend referred, to improve and develop services to the families of murder victims. The network of self-help groups throughout the country puts bereaved families in touch with each other and allows them to share their anguish and their anger, to talk to someone who has been in the same situation and to gain strength from knowing that they are not alone in their grief. As my hon. Friend said, Mrs. Windass is a member of its executive committee and is using her experience to help others. That sort of mutual support and understanding is perhaps as helpful as anything else in enabling families to come to terms with what has happened and I pay tribute to those like her who turn their tragedy and misery into a springboard for helping others.
Through our grant to Victim Support, the Home Office has provided funds to help run the SAMM office located at Victim Support's national office in London. I am sure that the association between the two organisations will enable Victim Support and SAMM to develop and improve further the services that they offer to families bereaved by violence.

691
We are also committed to ensuring that the courts become much more sensitive to the needs and interests of victims and witnesses through better facilities, information, support services and separate prosecution and defence waiting facilities wherever possible. Some progress has already been made. The court users charter explains the standards of service that victims and witnesses can expect from the Court Service. The victims charter sets out clearly 27 standards of service that victims should be able to expect from all the criminal justice agencies, including the courts, and explains which agency provides each service and how victims can complain if they do not get the level of service promised. Shortly, we plan to issue a revised version of the Home Office "Witness in Court" leaflet, which explains to victims and witnesses what happens at court.
All those changes will help, but central to the needs of victims and families is their wish to see justice done. People such as Mrs. Windass know from their experiences the deep truth in the saying that justice delayed is justice denied. No one can have a monopoly on the feelings or needs of families of murder victims; every situation is different, each family will respond differently to the devastating tragedy, but all of us have the same goal—to try to meet the needs of those families in the best way possible, whatever they are.
The Government accept that the current situation is not perfect and that improvements can be made. We will work with the criminal justice agencies, Victim Support, SAMM and other support groups to improve the service that victims and their families get from the criminal
692
justice system. We will speed up justice, as our manifesto commitments made clear. We will start with youth justice, halving the time that it takes to get young offenders to court and establishing a fast-track system for the persistent young offenders who cause so much chaos and devastation in communities throughout the land. We must tackle violence in our society, bearing in mind the fact that the number of violent crimes increased by more than 11 per cent. last year alone and is 166 per cent. higher than it was in 1979. We must nip things in the bud when things start to go wrong. We must improve consistency and progression in sentencing, to tackle the scandal exposed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary when we were in opposition.
That is the background against which I can assure my hon. Friend that we will take action on the issues and concerns that he has raised in this short debate today. I am sure that he will be interested to know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, when speaking to the Police Federation at its annual conference today, will also be setting out a vision of the future and ways in which we intend to tackle and improve the operation of the criminal justice system, in the interests of victims, the communities that have been damaged by crime and those who have felt the scourge of violent crime in recent years.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising a series of extremely important issues and I look forward to dealing with them in practical terms in the coming months.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    Great Lakes Region
    Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what further assistance her Department plans to provide in the Great Lakes region of Africa; and if she will make a statement. [310]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): I should explain that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), is at a meeting of the Caribbean development bank, so I am here on my own today.
    Since 1993, the United Kingdom has committed £178 million—bilaterally and through the European Union—to help the people of the Great Lakes region to survive. The population desperately need peace and security to rebuild their lives. We hope to work constructively with Mr. Kabila's new Administration, with other Governments in the region and with international partners to try to secure stability and sustained economic and social development in the region.
    Mr. Ainger: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. May I be the first formally to congratulate her on her richly deserved appointment? Does my right hon. Friend welcome, as I do, the establishment of a new Government in the Democratic Republic of the Congo? What plans does she have to assist that Government to establish democracy and rebuild the economy? What plans does she have to assist the Government of Rwanda to ensure that there are speedy and fair trials of those accused of genocide?
    Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his generous remarks.
    The fall of the Mobutu regime in the Congo—as it now is again—is a fantastically important opportunity for Africa and for the long-suffering people of Zaire. An Administration in Kinshasa committed to respect for human rights and national consensus in transition to representative and elected government will be an enormously important step forward for the region.
    Tomorrow I shall discuss with Vice-President Kagame of Rwanda the way in which we can work together to secure that aim, and next week I shall meet ex-President Nyerere. We all want to work with the new Government, and if they will respect human rights, we will work together with the whole international community to bring economic and social development to that very important part of Africa.
    It is also important that the Rwandan refugees return home, that there should be proper trials for those accused of genocide and that human rights are protected so that the people of Rwanda can also look forward to social development in a more stable and peaceful future. Again, we shall do everything in our power to work in partnership with the Government of Rwanda to achieve that aim, constantly stressing to them that respect for human rights is crucial to further progress for their country.

    Third-world Debt
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had regarding the reduction of third-world debt; and if she will make a statement. [311]
    Clare Short: I had an encouraging meeting with the president of the World bank last week. The Government strongly support the heavily indebted poor countries initiative and are pressing for its speedy implementation. Our aim is to produce tangible results quickly for the most needy countries and to bring about a once and for all exit from their debt problems.
    Mr. Mullin: I welcome my right hon. Friend to one of the best jobs in the Government and I am sure that she will do it well. Has she given consideration to persuading her colleagues at the Treasury unilaterally to remit some of the debt owed to the Export Credits Guarantee Department by some of the most indebted countries, and will she make any relaxation of indebtedness conditional upon respect for human rights?
    Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. To be fair, the previous Administration worked hard in their later years to achieve success on debt cancellation. Britain's record on cancelling debt owed bilaterally is very good, but we cannot make further progress without getting partnerships across the international community. It is important that we get momentum behind the initiative and start to make progress.
    Uganda has been named as the first candidate to exit from debt, and Britain has volunteered to make an extra payment to make up for the fact that the African development bank is not in a position to make its payment. The previous Administration made that clear, and we are standing by that commitment. We hope that other Governments will work similarly. Once we get progress and success, I believe that the initiative can be built upon and that we can begin to give some of the neediest countries in the world the chance to work their way out of poverty.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: I, too, offer my congratulations to the right hon. Lady. She has a warm heart and an independent spirit. I suspect that she will need both qualities, not least in dealing with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Does she agree that it is disappointing that only Uganda has entered the framework set down for the highly indebted poor countries by the International Monetary Fund and the World bank last year, and that Uganda will be eligible for debt relief only in 1998? What practical steps can be taken to maintain the momentum to which the right hon. Lady referred? Is she satisfied that the criteria laid down in the heavily indebted poor countries initiative are wide enough to allow the most rapid entry of as many countries as possible into its framework?
    Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his kind remarks. He is right that we should like more rapid progress, but we have to take partner countries with us. Not all countries are as persuaded of the need to make progress as Britain is.

    695
    Uganda has been named, and there is preliminary agreement on the eligibility of three other countries—Bolivia, Burkina Faso and Cite d'Ivoire.
    I have discussed the matter with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is anxious to show what a warm heart he has on this matter, and we shall do everything in our power to ensure that rapid progress is made. Any support, suggestions or help from any part of the House on ways in which we can achieve that outcome will be welcome.
    Dr. Fox: I, too, unreservedly welcome the right hon. Lady to her post. We should pay tribute to the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer for their work on debt reduction. I was pleased to hear the right hon. Lady's fine words on the heavily indebted poor countries initiative and to know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a warm heart on the matter. However, a warm heart will not reduce debt. How much do the Government intend to make available for the initiative? They said that they would make money available when they were in opposition.
    Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I have already paid unreserved tribute to the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Uganda is first and Britain is committed to making additional payments because the African development bank is not in a position to pay its share. We cannot say exactly what the amount will be until the calculations are made, but Britain is in advance of other countries. We are determined to make progress on Uganda and very keen for our partners to make the same sort of commitments. We shall do all in our power to make fast progress.
    It is in the interests of justice, and of the whole world, that we should deal with the desperate poverty entrenched by debt. In sub-Saharan Africa, 40 per cent. of people live in poverty. We shall make no progress until we deal with debt.

    Kenya
    Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on aid projects that the United Kingdom is currently funding in Kenya. [312]
    Clare Short: Within the context of the overall policy review that I am conducting, I intend to concentrate our aid programme on improving the access of the poor to essential health services and basic education, and on finding ways to increase the incomes of smallholder farmers and the urban poor.
    Mr. Cox: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on her appointment and I welcome her reply. Will she discuss with the Kenyan authorities two issues which cry out for urgent action? The first is the plight of street children and their horrendous suffering. The second is the substantial increase in the number of people with AIDS. Will my right hon. Friend urgently consider helping on those two issues with advice and, if possible, with financial aid?
    Clare Short: Britain is a large donor in Kenya and, potentially, can attempt to use its influence. Developments
    696
    in Kenya are worrying and patchy. There has been a deterioration in the level of primary education and a growth in the level of poverty. As my hon. Friend said, the problem of AIDS is also very serious. We are reviewing all our spending and commitments so as to concentrate on those in greatest need. The two groups in Kenya to whom my hon. Friend referred are obviously in great need.
    Mr. Brooke: It is a pleasure to see the Secretary of State in her place. May I ask her whether the aid programme is funding the secondary education in Kenya of any refugees from southern Sudan where secondary education is in turmoil?
    Clare Short: I am afraid that I do not know the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question, but I will find out and write to him.

    Aid and Trade Provision
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to carry out a review of the aid and trade provision. [313]
    Clare Short: As I have said, we are reviewing all our expenditure programmes. I am determined to concentrate our efforts on poverty eradication. This means that we are necessarily reviewing the aid and trade provision.
    Mr. Wareing: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her appointment and I am reassured by her answer. During any review, will she consider the recommendations made by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs during the last Parliament when it looked into the Pergau scandal? Most of the ATP aid was being focused by the Tory Government on Indonesia and China—two countries which do not have the best human rights records. Among the developing countries, Indonesia is the sixth largest recipient of direct foreign investment. How could the Tory Government have justified concentrating 17 per cent. of ATP aid on that country? I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that we should be directing that aid towards the poorest peoples in the world.
    Clare Short: During the review we shall, of course, take account of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee report. I share my hon. Friend's concerns and I am reviewing our aid programme to Indonesia. Many people argue that the aid and trade provision does not meet either development or commercial objectives very well. We want absolutely to concentrate all our efforts and all our resources on the eradication of poverty. That means that we must look seriously at the way in which the aid and trade provision has pulled our aid spend in a different direction.
    Mr. Wilkinson: In greeting the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box, I welcome her review of Britain's overseas aid programme, particularly the review of the aid and trade provision that she has announced. Will she focus much more on the aid and trade provision to the mutual benefit of British industry and commerce and the recipient countries, thereby enhancing political and commercial connections between them while at the same time diminishing Britain's contribution to the European

    697
    Union's aid programme, which is not nearly so well targeted as the British one and is often wasteful and misapplied?
    Clare Short: As I have said, we are reviewing the aid and trade provision, but perhaps our thinking goes in a slightly different direction from that of the hon. Gentleman. The aid programme is not about the promotion of commercial opportunities. That is an important objective of Government policy, but the aid programme should be part of a bigger strategy for eliminating abject poverty in the world. That is in the long-term interests of everyone and, indeed, of commercial activity. If there is less poverty, there will be more commerce.
    On European Union aid, the hon. Gentleman will know that it was his Government who, in Edinburgh, made an agreement which meant that up to 40 per cent. of our aid spend should go through the EU and unfortunately I have inherited that. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the performance of EU aid is patchy and I shall be doing everything in my power to use our influence in the EU to try to get the concentration on poverty eradication in EU spending in the same way as we want to achieve that from our own aid spending.

    Child Labour
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to stop the exploitation of child labour in third-world countries. [314
    Clare Short: The tragedy of child labour, bad though it is, is not just the current exploitation of children but the fact that they are deprived of education, which will blight their lives permanently. We intend to strengthen our support for the International Labour Organisation's efforts in the developing countries to eliminate hazardous and exploitative child labour. Promoting universal primary education—an achievable objective throughout the world if the world community decided that it wished to achieve it—is a crucial part of the solution.
    Mr. Canavan: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her appointment. Last week Christian Aid published a report on the exploitation of children in the manufacture of sports goods. An Indian child as young as seven receives just 12p for hand-stitching an Eric Cantona football which retails in Britain at £9.99. Will my right hon. Friend appeal to all sports stars, sports clubs and the sports industry to co-operate with Governments, non-governmental organisations and the International Labour Organisation to phase out the exploitation of child labour and to introduce, where appropriate, special development measures to protect family income and children's rights to health and education?
    Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Christian Aid report was very useful and we welcome it strongly and applaud the publicity accrued on this serious issue. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend for not calling for an immediate boycott of the goods involved. People who are concerned about child labour often do that, but it can lead to the children being thrown into an even worse
    698
    situation in which they have to live as beggars on the streets or are even forced into prostitution. We need the type of partnerships that my hon. Friend suggested.
    We should like sports firms and others who find that the products that they buy are produced by child labour to use their influence to press our Government, the companies involved and Governments in developing countries to plan the phasing out of child labour. In many countries, parents cannot find work, but children are employed. In this respect, the history of our own country is an experience on which we can draw. There must be regulation to phase out child labour and ensure that children are in education, where they belong, so that they have brighter prospects.
    Sir John Stanley: Will the right hon. Lady focus particularly on the evil of bonded labour in those countries where it is still rife? Such labour is the 20th-century equivalent of slavery, and children especially suffer from it.
    Clare Short: The right hon. Gentleman is right. Bonded labour is a scourge of the world. As he says, it is akin to slavery and we shall take action on it. I believe that we should take whatever action we can, in co-operation with other Governments.
    The proposal for a human rights clause in the World Trade Organisation so that no country can obtain access to the most privileged terms of trade unless it guarantees the right of labour to organise and that there will be no child labour and no bonded labour is one of the ways forward for the world. We shall join with the American Government and others in supporting that call, which will provide a long-term solution.
    In the meantime, we shall take what action we can, wherever we can.
    Mr. Corbyn: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her appointment as Secretary of State and I welcome what she has just said. Is she prepared to use the Government's influence on the World Trade Organisation to ensure that all future trade negotiations and trade strategies which are agreed will include a specific commitment to full recognition of all ILO conditions by all signatory states, as a major part of ending the disgraceful exploitation of children and ensuring decent rights for all workers in developing countries?
    Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We consider that the pressure for a human rights clause in the World Trade Organisation is crucial, not only to make progress on child labour but to prevent the globalisation of the world economy leading to the pushing down of standards across the world. Minimum conditions that all countries are required to meet before they obtain access to the most privileged terms of trade will provide a platform for everyone across the world. It is a very important change and we shall do all that we can to achieve it.

    Aid Target
    Mr. Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she expects the

    699
    Government to meet the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product in their contribution to overseas aid; and if she will make a statement. [315]
    Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she estimates that spending on overseas aid will reach the target of 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product. [318]
    Clare Short: We remain committed to the 0.7 per cent. United Nations aid target and to reversing the decline in United Kingdom spending. As we said during the election campaign, however, we shall work within existing ceilings this year and next. I am currently reviewing expenditure plans and putting in place a coherent strategy to tackle global poverty, which will be published in the White Paper promised in the Queen's Speech. As we demonstrate progress, additional resources will be made available.
    Mr. Baker: I welcome the right hon. Lady to her position and congratulate her on her strong commitment to and understanding of development issues. Does she share my concern that this country now contributes just 0.28 per cent. of GDP in overseas aid compared with 0.51 per cent. in 1979? The rich in this country have had tax cuts, but the poor in many countries have lacked basic food and shelter.
    Given the right hon. Lady's strong commitment, is she capable of persuading her colleagues—particularly the Chancellor of the Exchequer—to ensure that, despite the stringent financial conditions that he has imposed on the Cabinet, sufficient funds will be made available to meet the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent.? Will she set a time scale for that?
    Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: Labour's record on aid is a proud one—we reached 0.51 per cent. of GDP and rising towards the target. The Conservative Government, who so rightly have lost office, left us with a contribution of 0.27 per cent. of GDP—even worse than the figure that the hon. Gentleman gave.
    We need a higher aid spend, but we need to spend our aid money better. We need coherence across all our policies on debt, at the International Monetary Fund, the World bank, the European Union and the Lome renegotiations. In that way, we can focus our efforts on the measurable eradication of poverty.
    While I can hardly change the Department's aid spend this year—although I can do so at the margins—because it takes so long to work up sensible and strong projects, I am busy working to redirect our energies next year. It is in the year after that, however, that I shall need more resources because we shall have plans in place to spend the money properly. I hope and intend that that will be so.
    Mr. Luff: In adding my voice to the general welcome that has been extended to the right hon. Lady in her new role, may I ask if I am right in interpreting her previous answer by suggesting that while the Chancellor of the Exchequer may or may not have a warm heart, he is most unlikely to have an open purse? If those are the circumstances that she faces, can she give any clearer indication of how she will make the aid spend more effective?
    Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I thought that I had been talking about that for some
    700
    considerable time this afternoon. Too much of the current aid spend goes on projects which are worth while in themselves but are not focused on the eradication of poverty. I am very supportive of the plans outlined in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Assistance Committee report, which stated that the world should set itself targets including that of halving world poverty by the year 2015. All the donor countries would then work in partnership with developing countries to reach measurable progress.
    If we work in such a way, we may then begin to believe that in the new millennium we shall see the end of abject poverty in the world. Currently, poverty affects one in four people. The aid spend is an important part of that plan, but it must be based within strategies which deliver progress; otherwise, money may be spent on good causes, but we shall not reach progress.
    My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer cares very deeply about that agenda and I am extremely optimistic that he and I will work beneficially together to get the progress that we want.
    Mr. Cunliffe: Will my right hon. Friend assure Labour Members that a Labour Government will never repeat the cut imposed by the Tory Chancellor in his Budget this year, when he reduced overseas aid by £180 million? That deliberate cut imposed untold hardship and misery on hundreds of thousands of African and Asian families so that the price of gin and whisky in this country could be reduced by 27p. Such was the motive behind that attempt at general election popularity.
    Clare Short: The Conservative party fought the election on a commitment to move to an aid spend of 0.7 per cent. of GDP, but year upon year the Conservative Government cut the aid budget. As I said earlier, they also gave up to 40 per cent. of our spend to the EU and thus lost control of it. Their record is poor. We fought the election on a commitment to halt the decline and to increase the aid spend and we intend to keep all our manifesto commitments.
    Dr. Godman: When my right hon. Friend conducts her expenditure review, will she examine closely the way in which Brussels officials manage the know-how and PHARE funds? In terms of devolution, surely Britain's contributions to the funds should be managed by my right hon. Friend and her Department.
    Clare Short: The know-how fund is managed from Britain by my Department, with the Foreign Office co-operating. The PHARE fund is a European Union programme; it therefore has to be managed differently, but it should be complementary. The spending on that fund, like that on all other funds, must be reviewed to make it more effective than under the previous Administration.
    Dr. Fox: The Secretary of State was correct when she said that we need to spend all our money better. Is she aware that Oxfam says that 19 water tanks, providing 28,500 people with 10 litres of clean water a day, could have been provided through our aid budget for the absurd cost of the Foreign Secretary's glitzy presentation of the mission statement? Was that money well spent?
    Clare Short: I have to say that that is an extremely cheap point—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman served

    701
    as a Minister in a Government who have just been booted out of office and who consistently cut, cut and cut the aid budget to give tax cuts to their wealthy friends. The new Administration will ensure that our aid spending eradicates poverty as effectively as possible, but it is also our duty to announce the priorities of our foreign policy—and that is what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs did.

    Africa
    Mr. Purchase: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what are her priorities in respect of Africa. [316]
    Clare Short: I aim to work in partnership with African Governments—what we need is not donor countries telling other countries what to do, but partnerships—and with international institutions on strategies to eliminate poverty through sustainable economic and social development. That will be underpinned through support for good governance and human rights. Priority will be given to programmes which help the poorest people in Africa. As I have said, we intend to outline our strategy in the promised White Paper.
    Mr. Purchase: I add my voice to those welcoming my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to her post and wish her well in that work. She will bring a refreshing change to it.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that the resolution of the conflict in southern Africa is a considerable priority and that it is important to support the efforts of the South African Government and, in particular, President Mandela in his current efforts to bring peace and to resolve that conflict? In so doing, we shall lift out of poverty many of the millions of people who have had conflict heaped on them in circumstances of dire poverty, leading to a worsening of the situation almost beyond human comprehension.
    Clare Short: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: poverty often leads to war, which just worsens the cycle. Africa has suffered gravely, but there are grounds for optimism. The absolute decline in its economy has been turned around. Governments such as Uganda, Ghana, Ethiopia and Eritrea are doing well. The change of regime in the Congo could be an enormous opportunity for progress. That would also help to resolve the situation in Angola. There is now a real opportunity for Africa, and we must work in partnership with those Governments to make progress.
    Mr. Soames: I warmly welcome the right hon. Lady to her post. Although there can be optimism at recent developments in Africa, does she agree that one of the major priorities should be a move towards better government among some of the countries to which we give aid? Will she assure the House that she will use the ability as a donor Government to insist on better practice by many Governments in Africa, linked to aid?
    Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The needy people of Africa need good governance so that there can be partnerships with developed countries and real progress can be made. We shall use all our influence
    702
    to try to achieve that aim. The beauty now is that Africa has its own examples of good governance and success, such as Uganda and Ghana, which means that there is the chance of a home-grown African model spreading to others. So yes—we shall do that and there are real opportunities now.

    Rain Forests
    Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she plans to take to ensure that the United Kingdom's international development policies contribute to the preservation of the world's rain forests. [317]
    Clare Short: My Department has 200 forestry projects under way in 41 countries at a total cost of £200 million.
    At the UN General Assembly special session on environment and development in June, which I hope to attend with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, we shall work to secure more effective international action to improve forest management.
    Mr. Jack: I thank the right hon. Lady for her very comprehensive answer. Is she aware of the tremendous support being given by a range of British companies to a rain forest protection programme in Guyana undertaken by the Amerindians, using modern technology to publicise worldwide the threat to their rain forests? One of the industrial partners in that project is British Telecom. If British Telecom is affected by the windfall tax and has to reduce its expenditure on that project, will the right hon. Lady undertake to lobby the Chancellor of the Exchequer to safeguard that vital rainfall—wind forest—rain forest protection plan?
    Clare Short: I am not sure whether I heard the right hon. Gentleman correctly—is he advocating a rainfall tax? I am very disappointed in him: questions about the future of the world and its poorest people and the future of the rain forests are important to the whole of humanity and should not be used to make cheap political points.

    PRIME MINISTER
    Madam Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), I remind the House of the new method of handling engagements questions. The Member with the first such question should call out the number of his or her question in the normal way. After the Prime Minister has described his engagements, that Member will be asked to put a supplementary question. For the second and subsequent engagements questions, the Members who tabled the question should not call out the number of the question but simply put their supplementary question as soon as I call their name. Members with substantive questions on the Order Paper should, of course, continue to call the number of the question.

    Engagements
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 21 May. [340]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): I have had various meetings with Ministers today to discuss the

    703
    implementation of our election pledges. I will have various meetings later, in particular in relation to young people and skills. In addition, I have attended a meeting of the Labour party's national executive.
    Mr. Taylor: I warmly welcome the Prime Minister to his role of answering questions and I am grateful to him for finding the time in his diary to do so. At some point he might consult the House about these changes. I also wish him well in dealing with the massed ranks of his own Back Benchers as they lose their political virginity.
    Will the Prime Minister agree today to compensate pensioners for any damage done to pension funds as a result of the windfall tax and changes in advance corporation tax which he might propose?
    The Prime Minister: I first have to say yes, indeed, we have had a busy day because this Government, unlike the last Government, are governing in the interests of the people of this country. Secondly, the windfall tax will not harm pensioners at all. What did, however, harm pensioners was the last Government's imposition of VAT on fuel. It is precisely for that reason that we propose cutting it.
    Ms Corston: It is an honour to be called during the Prime Minister's first Question Time to make a serious attempt to question the Prime Minister. Given that at present only one crime in 50 leads to a conviction, does my right hon. Friend recognise the need for effective measures to prevent crime as well as a criminal justice system in which the public can have confidence? Will he tell us what measures the Government will take to prevent crime?
    The Prime Minister: Certainly I shall. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, today my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is announcing a series of measures that I hope will have a beneficial effect on cutting crime. He is of course announcing first, that we say that children between the ages of 10 and 13 are able to tell the difference between right and wrong and the law should be changed in that respect. Secondly, we are going to halve the amount of time it takes to get persistent juvenile offenders to court. Thirdly, he has announced a review of the entire youth justice system. Much of the behaviour of some young tearaways and thugs makes life hell for people. We are committed to taking action and again, unlike the previous Administration, action we will take.
    Mr. Swinney: Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether the Government will argue for a zonal lifting of the European beef ban? If they will, will he outline a time scale within which we can expect the lifting to occur? Will he also guarantee that the beef ban will be lifted in Scotland at the same time as it is lifted in Northern Ireland? [341]
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are in negotiations with the European Commission and with our European partners to try to get the best possible deal on lifting the beef ban. One part of lifting the ban, of course, is a certified herd scheme. It is important not only that we apply that scheme in Northern Ireland, which has a traceability scheme, but that we discover how we can lift the ban in other parts of the United Kingdom.
    704
    I should tell the House that the BSE situation that the Government have inherited is quite appalling, and not only because of its expense. The way in which the negotiations were handled was a disgrace, and it will take some time to sort out the situation. The early indications, however, are that we are able to get a far better deal than the previous Government. We shall do everything that we possibly can, in the interests not only of the farming industry but of Britain's good standing abroad.
    Mr. Stephen Twigg: Is the Prime Minister aware of widespread public concern about the growth of drug abuse in the United Kingdom? Over the past decade, there has been a fivefold increase in the number of drug offences. Will he provide an outline of the Government's plans to deal with the drugs crisis?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. As my hon. Friend may know, we are committed to proper testing and treatment for all offenders who have a drugs problem. Additionally, however—as we announced before the general election—we will appoint one individual, whom we will call the drug tsar, who will co-ordinate all aspects of the fight against drug abuse and the link between drug abuse and crime. In many parts of the United Kingdom, as much as 50 per cent.—possibly more—of crimes are linked to drug abuse. It is absolutely essential that we bear down on every single aspect of the problem. By putting one person—who will be responsible to the Home Secretary—in charge of all aspects of co-ordinating Government policy on the problem, we believe that we will give ourselves a far better chance of dealing with that evil in our midst.
    Mr. Ashdown: May I, first, welcome the Prime Minister's attempt to find a new format for Prime Minister's Question Time? Such an attempt was undoubtedly too bold for some, but the Prime Minister's efforts will have been worth it if we find a format that is a little less confrontational and a little more rational.
    Is it still the Government's intention, in the next two years, to spend not a penny more on education than the Conservative Government whom they defeated?
    The Prime Minister: First, I am delighted to hear the right hon. Gentleman's welcome for the change in the format of Prime Minister's questions. I hope that, in time, it will prove to be for the benefit of all hon. Members.
    There are differences on education spending between ourselves and the previous Government. The first important difference is that we will phase out the assisted places scheme and reduce class sizes for all five, six and seven-year-olds. Secondly, the nursery voucher scheme will, rightly, be replaced by proper nursery education for our children. Thirdly, the windfall tax will have some impact on the skills and training part of the education budget, helping young people back into work through better skills and training.
    Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister knows that the figures that Ministers quote on the abolition of assisted places do not add up. Even if they did, however, surely it is true that the Government will not deliver next year, and that they may deliver very little in the subsequent year. Therefore, are not the consequences of the Government's policy that teachers who were to be sacked because of

    705
    Conservative policies will be sacked, that class sizes that were to rise next autumn will rise, and that the serious situation in books and equipment facing schools this winter because of Conservative policies will not get better under a Labour Government, and may even get worse?
    The Prime Minister: No; I do not accept that. Reducing class sizes will be achieved partly by employing extra teachers. The right hon. Gentleman said that the figures do not add up, but they were checked by the National Foundation for Educational Research, which found that they added up, and even that there was money to spare. It is very important to understand that the vast majority of people—parents who use the state education system—understand that it will take time to put things right. It will take time, because of what we have inherited. Those people now know that they have a Government who have the right values, who are committed to the state education system and who, over time, will improve the system, as we have promised to do.
    Mr. Stuart Bell: Having fought the general election on a platform of no hundred days of dynamic action—the definition of dynamic action changing from one Prime Minister to another—having introduced a Queen's Speech with 26 Bills, much to the delight of the public, having made the Bank of England independent, having severed supervision of the banking system from the Bank of England and having introduced a new system of regulation for the City of London, can the Prime Minister tell the House what he proposes as an encore?
    The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. It is, of course, important that we start to make a difference in the areas where the people of this country elected us to make a difference—in our schools, in rebuilding our national health service, in giving hope to our young people and in the measures, as my hon. Friend rightly says, in relation to the Bank of England. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor took decisive action at the very beginning and he is to be congratulated on that. It is far better now that we take the politics out of setting interest rates and that we do not play politics with people's mortgages. As the National Association of Estate Agents said just the other day, in the long term that will lead to lower mortgage rates and, therefore, to a better deal for home owners.
    Mr. Major: In view of the apparent confusion in briefings from Ministers over recent days, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House which companies and which classes of companies are likely to be liable to the windfall tax? Will he also please explain to the House why the chairman of British Telecom apparently felt that his company would not be liable?
    The Prime Minister: I heard what the chairman of British Telecom said the other day and I was delighted that he indicated that he had the good judgment to vote Labour in the general election. The idea, however, that the chairman of British Telecom or anyone else was in any doubt that we intended to introduce a windfall tax is rather hard to believe. As the right hon. Gentleman knows because we have said this many times, the actual companies will be decided by the Chancellor in accordance with precedent, which is to make any moves
    706
    in relation to the Budget in the Budget. That is the proper way in which to do it. The companies and the amount of the windfall tax will be decided by my right hon. Friend in the normal way.
    Mr. Major: Sir lain seems to be rather regretting his vote already, but I will let that pass for the moment. I find it surprising that the House of Commons is to be the last to be told who will be liable to the tax in view of the private briefings that are going on. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can confirm to the House that no one acting in his capacity or no one from the Labour party when in opposition gave any indication, clearly or in terms of a nod and a wink, that British Telecom would not be included in the tax. Can the Prime Minister be categorical about that please?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly can be categorical. Everybody has known that the decisions on who—whether British Telecom or anyone else—will be liable for the windfall tax will be taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the normal way. It is perfectly obvious that that should be the case. Prior to the Budget, it would be wholly wrong if my right hon. Friend announced the companies or the amounts of the windfall tax. In following that precedent we are following precisely what the previous Conservative Government did in relation to the windfall tax on banks.
    Mr. Major: The House will note that the right hon. Gentleman replied in the generality but did not reply specifically. He did not provide the House with the categorical assurance I asked him for; perhaps he will do so in just a moment. If the tax proceeds, it will lead to an extra tax on gas, water, electricity and telephones. I return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor). If the tax gives rise to an increase in bills for many people on low incomes, will the right hon. Gentleman follow the precedent set by the previous Government and increase social security benefits to compensate for that? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that if he does not, the populist tax on fat cats he proposes will be a tax that hits most those who have least?
    The Prime Minister: I shall resist the temptation to say that that was the soundbite, because I have a feeling that I used to use a few of those myself at one time. No, that is not the case. There is a cap on prices. Some of the regulators have already said that they would not consider it right for the windfall tax to lead to any increase in prices.
    The reason for introducing the windfall tax is clear. There is no doubt that vast excess profits were made. There is also no doubt that it is essential that we give hope and opportunity to those hundreds of thousands of young people at present without them in our society. There will be a great deal of agreement, not just among those who do not have opportunity, but even among those who are perfectly well off, that if we do not tackle the problems of a growing underclass of people cut off from society's mainstream without any chance of a job, with poor educational opportunities, without the chance to do well in life, we shall end up, as the previous Government did, paying more and more in welfare bills and having less and less for future investment.
    Mr. Bermingham: May I make a simple plea to my right hon. Friend on behalf of St. Helens, which is an

    707
    industrial town? Perhaps he could find time to have a word in the ear of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and suggest to him that, if slanted towards encouraging investment in industry, the June Budget would undoubtedly help our manufacturing base—for home consumption and overseas exports—and thus the welfare of all our people.
    The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for that. I have no doubt that the Chancellor will receive a great deal of advice and assistance in the weeks ahead. He will have listened carefully to my hon. Friend and I have no doubt that he will take it into account.
    Mr. Luff: How will the Prime Minister fund his programme for young people when the money from the windfall tax dries up? All the experts agree that it will and that he will need extra money. [342]
    The Prime Minister: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman seems to understand, as his leader did not, that money is needed to tackle the problem. I agree wholeheartedly on that. The windfall levy is a one-off, but by getting young people off benefit and into work, we shall save money in the long term. Conservative Members shake their heads, but there is no doubt that there are young people in this country who are leaving school without any proper qualifications. If they do not get the right chances on skills and apprenticeships, they will never make anything of their lives.
    During the election campaign, I met some third-generation families in which the father has not worked, the son has not worked and the grandson is not going to work either. Unless we try to give them some sort of chance to escape from that welfare dependency, we shall be in this difficulty for ever.
    Lorna Fitzsimons: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the problems that our communities face not just from the causes of crime but from the underlying aggressive and loutish behaviour? What are the Government going to do about that?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. That is one reason why the measures that we announced in the Queen's Speech tackle not merely juvenile offending and other criminal offences, but disruptive, noisy or anti-social neighbours. All hon. Members who have talked to their constituents will know of the misery caused by small groups of people who act in an anti-social way. This Government, at long last, is going to do something about it.
    Mr. Curry: Do the Government intend to limit the amount of time that British fishermen can spend at sea to meet cuts in European quotas, as suggested by the Fisheries Minister? [343]
    The Prime Minister: Against a background of negotiations that were not well handled by the previous Administration, we are trying to secure the best deal for our fishermen on quota hopping and on other issues so that we can put in place a long-term framework to guarantee their future and offer some stability.
    Mr. Insley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that an estimated 120 million anti-personnel land mines are
    708
    planted around the world? Every 20 minutes, those land mines kill or maim someone, often harming young, innocent children. When does my right hon. Friend expect to fulfil Labour's commitment to ban those evil weapons for good? [344]
    The Prime Minister: I can tell my hon. Friend that the Government will announce later today that we will ban the import, export, transfer and manufacture of anti-personnel mines. We shall also phase out the United Kingdom stocks of anti-personnel land mines and ban the trade through the United Kingdom of all such land mines. They have caused enormous carnage, often to wholly innocent civilians, including children. The sooner that Britain gives a lead in this the better. It is the right and civilised thing to do.
    Mr. Robert Jackson: Will the Prime Minister undertake a review of the somewhat curious arrangements for science policy that he has inherited?
    Hon. Members: Reading.
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Jackson: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider two points in particular: first, whether it is right to have the Government's chief scientific adviser located, not in the centre of government, but in one of the Departments that he is responsible for supervising, and secondly, whether it is sensible to have two separate Ministers responsible for research councils and for universities when research council funding is integral to the funding of universities?
    The Prime Minister: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for giving me notice of it. I pay tribute to his work in education and science when he was a Minister in the previous Administration. The review that is being conducted by the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), will examine both the points that he raised. I give no undertakings at all as to the outcome of that review, but it will certainly examine those issues.
    Mr. Winnick: So far as Northern Ireland is concerned, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the framework document remains on the table as that will provide a fair settlement for both communities in Northern Ireland, as well as for cross-border bodies? Does he agree that there is a particular responsibility on the part of the IRA to end its murderous terrorist campaign which has caused only pain, suffering and numerous deaths in the past 25 years? Is it not obvious that no amount of terrorist activity will in any way change the position in Northern Ireland? [345]
    The Prime Minister: I very much agree with my hon. Friend about the activities of the IRA. Of course, all the documents that were negotiated by the previous Government remain on the table. As my hon. Friend knows, my officials are talking to Sinn Fein, but I should make it clear that there is no question of Sinn Fein participating in any talks whatever unless there is a clear,

    709
    credible and unequivocal ceasefire. That should be demonstrated in word and deed. Sinn Fein and everybody else should be under no illusions whatever about that.
    Mr. Trimble: I endorse what the Prime Minister has just said about the terms of entry into talks for Sinn Fein.
    I am sure that he will ensure that that will be borne home to Sinn Fein in any discussions with officials and that he will ensure that discussion does not move into negotiation as that would not be permissible. I am sure that the Prime Minister is bearing in mind the fact that an election is taking place in Northern Ireland today. In the light of that and in the light of the comments by the Irish Prime Minister and by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) that he has commended, that a vote for Sinn Fein is a vote for murder, does he think that it was wise for officials in the Home Office and the Northern Ireland Office to arrange for events to take place today that would only boost the standing of Sinn Fein?
    The Prime Minister: If I understand rightly, the events to which the hon. Gentleman is referring involve the transfer of prisoners. I shall return to that in a moment. In respect of the talks with Sinn Fein, there is no question of their being about a negotiation of a ceasefire. They are to make clear the Government's terms and conditions for Sinn Fein's entry into any such talks. Secondly, in relation to the two prisoners who have been transferred, I have made inquiries and it is clear that the arrangements were put in train before the general election. It follows the transfer in the past year of nine prisoners who were convicted of terrorist offences. It should not be seen in any way as a signal to Sinn Fein.

    Pensioner Poverty
    Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has to alleviate poverty among existing pensioners. [346]
    The Prime Minister: We are doing everything that we possibly can to alleviate poverty among Britain's pensioners. Many hundreds of thousands—perhaps millions—of Britain's pensioners enjoy a good standard of living; there are many more who do not. That is one reason why we are looking urgently at the help that can be given to Britain's poorest pensioners, and, of course, it is one reason why we are committed to the cut in VAT on fuel.
    Mr. Pickthall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons for pensioner poverty is the complexity and sometimes arbitrary nature of the income support cut-off points? Will he find time—unlike the previous Government, who refused—to look at the work done by Lancashire county council's welfare rights service, which has managed to find ingenious means of getting 15 per cent. more pensioners to claim income support—about 7,000 individuals, totalling about £4 million going into pensioners' pockets in Lancashire? Will he use his immense influence to ensure that the Government's programme for ending pensioner poverty begins with getting pensioners the rights and benefits to which they are entitled?
    The Prime Minister: I am very happy to congratulate the work of those who are bringing home to pensioners
    710
    the entitlements that they have. I should say two other things to my hon. Friend. The review of pensions that is being undertaken by the Department of Social Security will include how we help those pensioners in greatest poverty. In addition, I hope that he can say to his constituents, as I would say to the country, that previous Labour Governments have done well by Britain's pensioners—always—and we will do well by them again. [Interruption.] We have done very well, as indeed they know. Although, no doubt, there will be different ways of doing well for a different age, we shall continue to do our best by Britain's pensioners.

    Engagements
    Mr. Wallace: If, as the Prime Minister indicated some moments ago, a lifting of the beef export ban is not exactly imminent, is he able to indicate what kind of approximate time scale our beef producers might reasonably expect? In the meantime, what steps are his Government taking to restrict imports into the United Kingdom of beef products that do not meet the same very high standards required of our domestic producers? [347]
    The Prime Minister: We obviously want to do everything that we possibly can to encourage and bring about the lifting of the beef ban. I say to the hon. Gentleman with the greatest respect that I do not think that plucking out arbitrary timetables has a very good history in the matter. We remember what happened before. [Laughter.] I am sorry to bring back bad memories. I believe that we can make progress and I am hopeful that progress is being made. The very fact that we have a Government who are arguing the case sensibly and constructively gives us a far better chance than we had under the previous Administration.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the indignation and outrage felt among bus passengers in north-east Lancashire, who have been left high and dry by Stagecoach? Even as I speak, bus fares are going up, services are being cut, drivers are leaving in droves and the situation is in crisis. Is not such a situation, where private monopolies have driven out public interest, a shaming indictment of the previous Government's policies? [348]
    The Prime Minister: In the interests of non-confrontational exchanges across the Floor, we will leave it to others to judge whether the situation is a shaming indictment. The one thing that is quite clear is that there are severe problems with the regulatory system at the moment. That is why my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is, in addition to his rain-making duties, undertaking a review of bus regulation. We are well aware of the need to ensure, particularly for people in rural communities, that they get the bus services that they need.
    Mr. Gray: Will the Prime Minister find time to visit employers in my constituency of North Wiltshire who tell me that they will lay off workers the morning after he brings in the minimum wage? Does he agree that the tragically high level of youth unemployment on the continent of Europe is not least because of the job-destroying minimum wage in Europe? [349]
    The Prime Minister: I must say to the hon. Gentleman that the United States has a minimum wage and a lower

    711
    unemployment rate than we do. In contradistinction to the position here, that is now a matter for agreement between the republicans and democrats. It is a pity that we cannot obtain the same agreement about decency. Employers will be fully consulted about the level at which the minimum wage is set and how it is implemented. That is very important. I do not believe that the Conservative way of competing on the basis of low wages and low skills is the right future for Britain. We will compete in the future by investing in our people and by employers recognising that if they treat people fairly, they will get the best out of them. If that is one change that an incoming Labour Government can make, we will have done a service to the whole country.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that in this first session of Prime Minister's questions we have already got through more questions than we used to in two quarter-hour sessions? It has been a more civilised
    712
    and informative event than ever before and I look forward to more in the future. On the question of the national minimum wage, many of us take great pride in the fact that the Labour party has stuck to that policy through thick and thin and intends to implement it as early as possible.
    The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments and I hope that people will understand that this is a better way to organise Prime Minister's questions. The Select Committee on Procedure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is establishing will look at ways that it can be improved in the light of experience.
    On the minimum wage, I do not wish to repeat what I said earlier, but some 800,000 people in this country are paid £2.50 an hour or less. There are reasons of efficiency for introducing some basic minimum threshold for pay, but there are also reasons of decency and fairness, and we shall do it.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Peter Brooke: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Will hon. Members please leave quickly and quietly? We have business to do.
Mr. Brooke: Have you had any requests for a statement on the saving of Bart's—if it is true, I welcome it—which has so far emerged in briefings to Back Benchers, among whom, I cheerfully remark, the local Member of Parliament has not been included? That seems as unsatisfactory a method of instructing Parliament on the issue as the original written answer about the closure. Until we have the opportunity to cross-examine Ministers, we cannot break out the champagne.
Madam Speaker: I am not aware of any statement or comment on the issue that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. His point of order gives me an opportunity, for which I am grateful, early in the life of the Government to remind those on the Treasury Bench that any statement on a change of policy should be made first to the House, not outside and not to Back Benchers. The House needs to know first of any change of policy and I hope that those on the Treasury Bench take my words to heart and inform any Ministers concerned.
Mr. Michael Connarty: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the interests of advancing the Chamber into the civilised world, may I suggest that you think seriously about changing the rules so that hon. Members can read questions if they wish? When hon. Members were asked to speak without reading pieces of paper, it may have been a way to demonstrate their public school upbringing, but they now have the ability to read and should be allowed to read questions without being barracked by other hon. Members in the Chamber.
Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. If the hon. Gentleman wishes our procedures to be changed, the Select Committee on Procedure will soon be established and he can refer the matter to it.
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you aware that at 8 o'clock this morning Liberal Democrat Members attempted to put in more prayer cards than there were hon. Members from that party present? I am sure that you will wish to deprecate that. Will you make it clear to Liberal Democrats, and to any other hon. Members in the Chamber who do not know, that prayer cards can be put in only by the hon. Member involved and not by anyone else?
Madam Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is right to remind the House, especially new Members, that prayer cards can be put in only by the Member concerned. Members must be present in person to do so. I certainly deprecate the use of other Members to put prayer cards in place.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Just a minute. I have more points of order here.
Mr. John Greenway: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A moment ago, you made a welcome statement about the rights of Back Benchers and the need for policy announcements to be made in the House. May I ask you to go further? Yesterday, an important announcement about policy change in relation to the Bank of England and the City of London was made, but no briefing papers about the statement were available in the Vote Office. Should not that be put right?
Madam Speaker: Briefing papers and documentation in the Vote Office have always been a question for the Minister concerned, not for the Speaker. I am concerned to ensure that when statements are made, they are made in the House, and not outside—but, as I said, documentation is the responsibility of the Minister concerned.
Mr. Alan Clark: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Two minutes ago you will have heard the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) make a derogatory remark about people with a public school education. Do you not agree that it is a usual courtesy of the House to give notice of such remarks? The hon. Gentleman might have advised the Prime Minister before he made that point.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) would have had writer's cramp this morning if he had tried to write to all hon. Members with a public school education, so we need not worry about that question.
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Before I came into the Chamber for the debate, or rather, for Question Time, ready for the debate on the referendums, I asked the Vote Office for the papers from the Government about what would actually be set up by the referendums—that is, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. I was told that there was none. Was that an oversight by the Vote Office, or have the Government really not given us any information about what we are to discuss in relation to the referendums?
Madam Speaker: All that we have to deal with today is the usual question of the Bill before us. No doubt the hon. Gentleman has had it for some time, has thoroughly digested it and is ready to speak on it when I call him.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Just a moment. This is getting to be like a jack-in-the-box, with everyone bobbing up and down. Who is next?
Mr. Michael Fallon: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. We do not take further points of order. I have dealt with that matter, and we shall now deal with the Bill. There are no further points of order once the Speaker has responded.

Orders of the Day

  Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  3.36 pm
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  For the convenience of the House, I should make it clear that although I shall try to deal with the Bill as a whole in explanatory terms, I shall of course lay particular emphasis on the Scottish aspects. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will deal with the debate tomorrow, and he, perhaps, will be able to fill in more completely than I shall have time to do, the arguments concerning the Principality.
  The measure is a deceptively simple one.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It was a little difficult to hear you as Members were leaving the Chamber, but did I understand you to say that you had selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition? If so, did you consider the possibility of calling the amendment in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends, or that tabled by other parties that are represented in Scotland—
  Mr. Richard Livsey: And in Wales.
  Mr. Maclennan:—and Wales—bearing in mind the fact that the official Opposition have no direct representation in Scotland?
  Mr. Livsey: Or in Wales.
  Mr. Maclennan: This is an unusual situation, but unusual situations merit unusual responses by the House.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Do you agree that the Bill is not a "Scotland" Bill but a United Kingdom measure, so the United Kingdom Parliament should decide on it?
  Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker: No, no. We cannot go on with points of order. I can deal perfectly well with the point. Many Members wish to speak in the debate, and I want to call them, so let me answer the original point of order.
  Yes, of course, I looked seriously at the reasoned amendments on the Order Paper. I consulted for a long time this morning and gave the matter a great deal of thought, and I came to the conclusion that I have announced to the House. I want the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) and the rest of the House to understand that I took a great
  716
  deal of time and trouble to consider those reasoned amendments, to take advice and to listen to it. But of course, finally, I have to make the decision, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Will the ruling that you have just made be a precedent for future debates on Scottish and Welsh measures?
  Madam Speaker: The hon. Lady is asking a hypothetical question. I deal only with matters of the moment, and I will deal with that issue when I need to.
  Mr. Dewar: This is an important Bill. On the face of it, it is neither long nor complex, but it is a first and decisive step towards delivering a Parliament for the people of Scotland. Therefore, it is a measure of great importance. That is marked by the fact that it is the first Bill to be given a Second Reading by the new Government.
  The Bill will pave the way for that Parliament, and its passage is an essential preparation for it. The whole constitutional package that is to be presented to the House is important. Few of us would dispute that there is widespread cynicism about the political processes and, arguably, democracy itself is in some disrepute. Most Members of Parliament—however much we might disagree about the solution—would accept that this is a very real problem. It is this problem that we are, in part, trying to address with our constitutional measures.
  What we are looking for is openness and accessibility in government, as well as modern, democratic and responsive government. The Parliament that we envisage in Scotland—working within the framework of the United Kingdom and strengthened by that—will put under democratic control the substantial and extensive powers at present exercised by the Secretary of State for Scotland. We want to make those accessible and more immediately responsive to the public will in Scotland.
  Mr. Michael Fallon: The Secretary of State has referred to making government more open and accessible and to the "whole constitutional package". Would not it have been better to have held the Bill back until we could see the detail of the Government's constitutional proposals?
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Dewar: I am getting some advice from my Back-Bench colleagues, which I gladly accept.
  The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) will not be surprised to hear that that is not my opinion. The Bill will allow a test of public opinion and is a matter of establishing consent. It is not a Second Reading aperitif for devolution in Scotland or Wales. There is, I would argue, a strong case for having a test of public opinion, but whether we should or should not is the question before us. If the Bill reaches the statute book and we move to the referendum, there will be a White Paper that will clearly set out the scheme and which will inform the public of the details—although I have to say that, in Scotland, Wales and other parts of the country, these issues are well understood. In any event, the White Paper

  717
  will set out the scheme in some detail, and it is on that basis that the arguments will rage. It may be that I shall come across the hon. Member for Sevenoaks in my travels, which will be a pleasure. It is then that the arguments on devolution itself will take place.
  Mr. Eric Forth: When will the people of England be consulted on what they think about all this?
  Mr. Dewar: That is a rather brave point, but I have to accept that the right hon. Gentleman is sometimes brave to the point of perversity. He is brave in making that point, given the recent election results in this country. In any event, there is a clear precedent from 1979. This is a mechanism for testing opinion, which deals with the challenge repeatedly made by the Conservative party in Scotland and in other parts of the country—that there is no consent in Scotland. I shall return to that matter in a moment.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Dewar: I will not give way, as I have a lot of substantive points to make.
  Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset): Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?
  Mr. Dewar: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I have a substantial case to make and I feel that if I give way over-indulgently—even to such an attractive option as a question from the hon. Gentleman—we might never make progress at all.
  I hope that the House will forgive me for making one personal point. In campaigning on devolution, I am one of those who can look back over many years—indeed, back to the 1950s. I was campaigning then, I have been campaigning ever since and I remain committed to that cause.
  When I came back to the House in 1978, after a sad misunderstanding with the electorate that kept me out for eight years, I found John Smith, one of my foundation friends, bearing the weight of the battle. As I look around me, it is odd to see that some things have not changed—my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), for example, is still with characteristic persistence holding to his lonely course. Indeed, I suspect that there are some things that will never change.
  I remember those days between 1976 and 1978 and the remarkable achievement of John and his colleagues in getting the Bill on to the statute book at a time when the Government were failing and there were enormous and complex political problems. Perhaps because of John Smith and because of the special nature of that argument, the term "unfinished business" has a special meaning and significance in Scottish politics.
  As we start on what I hope will be the final stage of this great saga, I am very much aware of my responsibilities, of the work and the challenges that lie ahead and also of the optimism and expectation that certainly rest in Scotland and, I believe, in Wales, on the passage and progress of this legislation. There is a genuine mood for change and I hope that the House will be prepared to rise to it.
  Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes): The Secretary of State referred to the work done by the late John Smith.
  718
  Will he recall and confirm that when that measure was taken through the House, the Bill was first and the referendum second? Is not that a precedent that he should follow now?
  Mr. Dewar: I know that this is often said to postpone, but I shall be dealing with the order of events in a few minutes. If the right hon. Gentleman waits, he will receive an explanation that has some relevance to his experience and that, I hope, will appeal to him.
  It is a mark of the changed times and of this Government's determination that I expect that we shall be able to publish the White Paper within a total time scale of around three months. I remember that the comparable time in the 1970s was almost three years. That difference reflects the changes in the opinions in my party—it certainly reflects changes in the popular mood in Scotland and in Wales and, I think, in the country as a whole, which I welcome.
  As one sometimes loses the neatness of the scheme when one takes up interventions, let me remind the House of the order of events as we intend them. We start today with the Second Reading of the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill. The remaining stages will take place the week after the Whit recess. As those who have read the Bill will realise, there is provision for secondary legislation, and the necessary orders will be published in draft in the same week as the remaining stages are taken.
  As I explained, the White Paper will be ready well ahead of the referendum—before the House rises—allowing for a full statement in the House and discussion at that stage. The referendum will come in the autumn—certainly, before the major party conferences. The substantive legislation—that will be when we lock horns on the merits of the devolution package itself—will come before the end of the year. If that legislation has a successful passage, elections to the new Parliament will be held as soon as is practical after Royal Assent. We could have a Parliament in place in Scotland and Wales to welcome the new millennium, and that will be extremely popular and right.
  I say unashamedly that this is a massive undertaking—moving from the aspirations of opposition to a defined scheme that is workable and efficient and is accepted and endorsed by Parliament and the people. I believe that we can hold to the timetable that I have outlined.
  Mr. William Cash: May I put the United Kingdom question to the right hon. Gentleman? On the dismembering of the United Kingdom under the projected proposals in the Bill, does he agree that it is essential that the people of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, should have the right to give their verdict on the questions posed in the Bill?
  Mr. Dewar: I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman's constituents would thank him for landing them with that responsibility.
  Mr. Cash: Oh, yes they would.
  Mr. Dewar: I wonder; but I will not get into an "Oh, yes they would", "Oh, no they wouldn't" exchange with the hon. Gentleman, because if there is one thing about

  719
  him that I admire, it is his staying power, and he might well best me in such a debate. I shall therefore return to the logic of the argument.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Dewar: I shall take one more intervention, and then move on for a considerable period.
  Mr. Ian Bence: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is misinterpreting my reason for intervening. I take a great deal of interest in Welsh and Scottish affairs, and was born in Wales, as he will know. My difficulty, as I represent an English constituency, is in knowing whether I should support the Bill—which I might well do, because it provides for a test of opinion in Scotland—without knowing, as I cannot until he issues the papers, what powers the Scottish Parliament is to have and whether it will affect my English constituents, who will have to pay for it.
  Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman belittles himself. I admire modesty, but on this occasion I detect a touch of false modesty. If he is saying that he does not understand the outline of the scheme and is unable to reach his own conclusion, that tells us something about his powers of decision rather than about the difficulties experienced by most people.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd rose—
  Mr. Dewar: I shall take one more intervention, as it comes from the Welsh nationalists.
  Mr. Llwyd: I thank the Secretary of State. In an effort to be constructive, I want to mention one thing: he said earlier that the White Paper would be produced within three months, before we broke up for the summer. May I impress upon him the need for the White Paper to be available to the House before we break up for the summer, so that the matter can be fully debated by the Welsh Grand Committee—and no doubt the Scottish Grand Committee—as well as the whole House?
  Mr. Dewar: It is certainly my intention that both the Welsh and the Scottish White Papers should be available before the House rises. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales would be glad to have a word with the hon. Gentleman about that. There is nothing between us on that matter, at least, regardless of what may transpire in the future.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd rose—
  Mr. Dewar: I am very sorry, but I shall get into trouble with the House if I take endless interventions. I might refer later to a group in which the hon. Gentleman is involved.
  Mr. Shepherd rose—
  Mr. Dewar: I cannot resist the hon. Gentleman: he is beguiling.
  Mr. Shepherd: I bless the right hon. Gentleman. I merely wanted clarification that the subsequent stages of the Bill, as a major constitutional measure, will be taken on the Floor of the House.
  Mr. Dewar: That will certainly be the case. I have repeatedly made it clear that I am not an enemy of proper
  720
  scrutiny and discussion, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman, whom I have known for a long time, will accept that. We shall see how we progress, but I certainly hope that we shall have a proper look at all the arguments in some detail.
  I have made the point, and I spell it out again, that the Second Reading is on the Bill, not on devolution as such. The Bill makes no judgment on the issues and arguments surrounding devolution, but allows the final decision about endorsement to lie with the people.
  I remind the House that referendums are not unprecedented: we had them in 1975 and 1979, on matters of fundamental constitutional change in both cases. We believe that there is a case, on such occasions and issues, for an inclusive process, gathering support across party political boundaries. What we seek—whether we get it is a matter for the people—is a broadly based consensus for change.
  I want to deal briefly with the simple and basic question: why a referendum? I have already hinted at the answer that I shall give. Throughout the past year or two, we have consistently been challenged on the wisdom of introducing a Bill, on the basis that there was no consent for it.
  The argument, which I understand, is that people vote at general elections for many reasons. It has often been put to me that the nice man who lives down on the corner may have voted Liberal Democrat for many reasons. Was it because he specifically endorsed proportional representation; because he wanted an enormously forward position on Europe; because he was an enthusiast for Scottish devolution; or, for example, because he simply could not stand the Tories, and the Liberal Democrats were an easy way of getting out of that dilemma? Many of my Tory friends, and I am not one to dispute it with them, found the last explanation the most plausible.
  In those circumstances, I have a scintilla of sympathy with the argument that consent is open to challenge. Rather honourably, we decided to face up to that challenge—not shrug it off—and put it to the test in a referendum. That is what we are inviting the House to authorise. I shall come to pre-referendum and post-referendum tests later, but the House should have some sympathy with the general argument.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dewar: I let the hon. Gentleman in on Friday. I do not want to make a habit of doing it every time that I speak, because I fear that if I am generous now, he will take it as a precedent. I should be obliged if he waited.
  There is advantage in popular consent. In our unwritten constitution, popular consent gives a certain legitimacy. In a sense, it is the way to build the devolution scheme into the system and to give it roots. That, for me, is attractive. It also gives the Opposition, and those who dissent from my point of view, the opportunity to defeat it and, in effect, to kill it. That seems right. If we get the

  721
  right result, we have moral authority to speed the passage of devolution. That is again a matter for the people and we shall have to see what the results ultimately bring.
  Mr. Jenkin rose—
  Mr. Andrew Rowe rose—
  Mr. Dewar: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy. May I suggest that he should take the advice of the right hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Robertson) about why there is to be a referendum before a Bill on Scottish devolution is put before the House? It has nothing to do with the airy-fairy arguments that the right hon. Gentleman advances; it has to do with the fact that the opposition to the principle of devolution was so effectively conducted by Michael Forsyth, the former Member for Stirling. Seeking powers to raise an extra tax in Scotland became such an embarrassment to the Labour party that the Prime Minister imposed the referendum policy on the Scottish Labour party.
  Mr. Dewar: We all make mistakes. I thought that I was letting in the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who is sitting beside the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). That was unfortunate. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was trying to whitewash his part as a very minor sprocket in the departing Scottish Office team. I assure him that I very often take the advice of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Robertson), and hope to do so many times in future.
  Mr. Alex Salmond rose—
  Mr. Dewar: I must make some progress. I should like to deal with some of the amendments. I have listened with interest to what has been said by Opposition Members.
  The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) is a very old friend. I was a little surprised that he was anxious for us to give the light of day to the Liberal Democrat amendment. I should have thought that it was more a case of private grief breaking into public view, although I might be prejudiced. The Liberal Democrats' reasoned amendment is interesting because it welcomes
  "appropriate referendum proposals for Wales,"
  but mysteriously discovers that a referendum in Scotland is unnecessary. It seems that the Liberal Democrats have managed to square a circle, on which I congratulate them. It is a curiosity, a collector's piece. In any event, it will not be debated now.
  Mr. Maclennan: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that there is less certainty about the outcome of a referendum in Wales than of one in Scotland, even on the most optimistic assumptions that the Government no doubt make. In this disunited kingdom, it is reasonable to have arguments to address both cases separately.
  Mr. Dewar: It is not satisfactory to hold elections only when one thinks that one might lose them. It is an interesting democratic principle. It has some appeal.
  722
  It may be irrelevant to the debate, but I have dreamt about a re-run of the 1997 general election for the past three nights. I found it very refreshing.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dewar: I am sorry, but I must make some progress. I look to the Chair for protection.
  The Tory amendment deals specifically with the question of the pre-legislative referendum, and I understand that. I have explained that we see the purpose of the referendum to establish consent in principle and to move on to the next stage, we hope with renewed impetus and some authority. The Tory party has concentrated on that issue. In a sense, it is an interesting matter of constitutional practice whether the engine pushes or pulls the train. One could hold many learned colloquies on that point, and I have no doubt about the mental ingenuity of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard).
  I stress again that the aim is to establish consent before plunging the Government machine, the civil service, the House of Commons and the House of Lords into the complexities of this journey. Parliament still has a job to do against the background of the advice offered by the people in the referendum if the scheme goes ahead. It clears the way and allows Parliament to do its job of scrutiny knowing the true basis of the support. I hope that that support will go beyond narrow party boundaries. I feel strongly that constitutional change is not the partisan property of any single party. As I tried to explain, rather unsuccessfully, to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), events in Scotland are reinforcing that message. A vote with a clear-cut decision in the referendum will provide stability and a background against which Parliament can do its job.
  Mr. Garnier rose—
  Mr. Dewar: It is not without precedent. I make the point to the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram)—
  Mr. Garnier rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) should not keep trying to intervene when the Secretary of State has made it clear that he is unlikely to give way.
  Hon. Members: He is a new boy.
  Mr. Dewar: I am not sure that he is. He looks horribly familiar to me.
  Mr. Garnier: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, and to the Secretary of State for allowing me to participate. As the right hon. Gentleman is so keen on the public consent aspect of the referendum—I do not argue with the need for that—will he address the House on

  723
  clauses 1(3) and 2(3), which will allow Greeks, Finns, French, Danes and other European Union residents of Scotland to vote in the referendum?
  Mrs. Ewing: Why not?
  Mr. Garnier: Why not, possibly, but it will not allow my constituents who are members of the EU and United Kingdom residents to vote in that important referendum.
  Mr. Dewar: I shall come to that in a moment, but I want to draw the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to the concept of residency, which has some relevance in the matter.
  The pre-legislation referendum is not without precedent. The right hon. Member for Devizes will remember the Northern Ireland framework document, which is a recent example. There was the triple-lock mechanism under which there was to be political discussion and, it was hoped, broad agreement. That was to be followed by a referendum and then by legislation. I do not want to dwell on that, but it is an example and there are circumstances in which that has occurred.
  Let me put it this way. The rule appears to be that when it suits, not perhaps even the Government but a wider part of the House, a pre-legislation referendum is not so unacceptable, unthinkable and offensive. I should have thought that the argument about consent that has been raging would echo around, if not the constituency of Devizes, at least the ancestral acres of the right hon. Member for Devizes, so that he would be aware of the need to settle the issue of consent. I shall leave it for the right hon. Gentleman to think about. No doubt we can debate it again on another occasion.
  Mr. Ancram: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dewar: If the right hon. Gentleman does not mind, I shall not give way, because I am conscious of the abuse of the House.
  There is nothing surprising in the Tory amendment. What is surprising is what is not in it. I understood from the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks that an issue on which the Conservatives were particularly het up, to use a Scottish colloquialism, was the need for thresholds, and that does not appear in the amendment. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was
  "a powerful case for a threshold".
  There was then perhaps a touch of the faint heart or a wish to distance himself, because he went on merely to say that the Opposition would table
  "a number of amendments to the Bill, and some will deal with the question of possible thresholds."—[Official Report, 16 May 1997: Vol. 294, c. 286, 291.]
  It may be—I understand this—that he did not want to be too closely associated with the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who had started that particular hare running. Perhaps he was thinking about the dangers of guilt by association.
  In any event, I understand that there is considerable interest among Conservative Members in thresholds. The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks might be even
  724
  more worried if he reads the second Conservative reasoned amendment. It comes from what the Leader of the Opposition once slightly unhappily called the bastard tendency, which takes the view that there should be a fancy franchise and artificial obstacles in the way of the democratic process. That view was rather strongly endorsed by the right hon. Member for Devizes when he replied to the constitutional debate last Friday.
  I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe intends to say a word or two about the other Conservative amendment. I presume that, if amendments are to be tabled in about a week, he has a clear mind on what they are likely to contain. It would be extremely helpful for the House if it had some sight of the amendments on thresholds with which we are to be presented so that we can, with fair and equitable minds, assess them. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not think it amiss if I tell him that I have a prejudice against such amendments and that I take the view that a test of public opinion is conducted on the basis of simple majority in this country. If he or his party tried to revisit the 40 per cent. rule, it would be seen in the most basic terms, certainly in Scotland and Wales, as something akin to ballot rigging, and would be treated with contempt.
  At a time when the Scottish Conservative party is clearly considering a shift in position or at least a move towards individual conscience rather than a collective view on devolution, it would be unfortunate if there were shabby manoeuvring or what would clearly be seen as such in order to fix the result. If that is in contemplation, it is important that the Opposition reveal their hand in good time. I do not advise the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe to go down that road, or to travel north with that glad news. He might find himself as unpopular there as he has been in certain other quarters rather spectacularly in recent days.
  In fairness, I shall not say more about that, but if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would like to look at the views that have been expressed by a range of office bearers in the Scottish Conservative party and by a majority of party chairmen who could be contacted by the newspapers, he will see—I put it modestly—that there is a wish to rethink and certainly to be seen to play fair in the Scottish Conservative party on this issue. I greatly welcome that. The perhaps spiteful side of Westminster politics should not get in the way of that process. That would be bad for democracy, bad, funnily enough, for the Conservative party—although that is not my first priority—and bad for the process of constitutional reform. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will take that on board.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: If in the referendum the Scottish people vote yes to the first question and no to the second, will the Government have any objection to my constituents in Kent refusing to contribute to the costs of the Scottish Parliament? They will have no opportunity to vote on its creation and no representation within it. I thought that taxation without representation was something of which we did not approve.
  Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I did not know that his constituents intended or expected to pay for the Scottish Parliament. However, if he intends to make that offer, I shall certainly be prepared to have a

  725
  look at it. Indeed, it might make for some unexpected good will between us. He should perhaps take that suggestion back and have a look at his generosity.
  Mr. William Hague (Richmond, Yorks): In the light of his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), will the right hon. Gentleman make the position clear? Is the implication of his answer that the costs of the Scottish Parliament and proposed Welsh Assembly are to be met out of the Scottish and Welsh blocks and, therefore, out of the budget for public services in Scotland and Wales?
  Mr. Dewar: I have a special passage on that in my speech, which I know the right hon. Gentleman will no doubt be looking forward to if he stays the course. He might reason with his hon. Friends to let me make some progress and then that passage will come all the quicker.
  It is clear from the outset that what we are looking for is to settle the question of consent for the specific scheme. The scheme has been set out in the White Paper and it can be judged and endorsed if it is thought right by the people. It follows from that, and it is an important point that I know is dear to the heart of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and some others, that we are not running an opinion poll or what is sometimes rather vulgarly called a beauty contest. We are looking for a particular endorsement of a practical scheme. It is not a matter of running the gamut of every possibility and then considering what to do at the end of the process.
  I have a clear view on the matter. I have watched the debate rage for close on 20 years. We have made surprisingly little progress in practical terms, and I want to see practical progress. It is because I want to see such progress that I want to concentrate upon that aim and that objective. That leads me to the conclusion that we should be concentrating on the scheme that is on the stocks and which is on offer. If we get the endorsement of that scheme specifically, we should be in the House pressing ahead from that.
  Mr. Salmond rose—
  Mr. Dewar: I shall let the hon. Gentleman intervene in a moment, but I have one other related point to make.
  Even though the hon. Gentleman and I may have differences of interpretation, I hope that he will accept that I should be the last to challenge the sovereignty of the people or to deny them the right to opt for any solution to the constitutional question which they wished. For example, if they want to go for independence, I see no reason why they should not do so. In fact, if they want to, they should. I should be the first to accept that.
  It is on that basis that I had no difficulty—perhaps this is a Scottish point—in signing the Claim of Right, but that does not imply that the people had to exercise their right by travelling on one particular road. That does not imply that if they failed to pick the road with the exit sign from the United Kingdom, they were betraying their trust. That is not my view. I believe that people have a right to choice, but that they have the right to every choice. I believe that the choice that they have made is the choice that we have put before them—there is evidence to support that claim. I hope that the referendum will settle that point.
  726
  I accept that if the nationalists want to progress their cause—I do not expect them to pack their bags and go home—their route to putting independence back on the agenda is to carry the people with them. With six seats and a long record of failure in that respect, however, they have much to do and a long way to come.
  Mr. Salmond: There is nothing between the right hon. Gentleman and myself about the matter of choice. I fully accept that argument. If the scheme is on the stocks, as the right hon. Gentleman put it, we can look for an early publication of the White Paper. If he is arguing that the general election did not decide the constitutional question, why will he not offer the choice between the well-supported constitutional options of independence, devolution and the status quo? Does he recall on 23 April 1992 telling The Scotsman that the case for a multi-option referendum should be shouted from the rooftops? Why was it to be shouted from the rooftops in 1992, but not to be countenanced in 1997?
  Mr. Dewar: I am always slightly depressed when people have good cuttings files. If the hon. Gentleman would like to look back at the context in which I made that remark in 1992, he will appreciate that it was after an overwhelming vote for change in Scotland and the refusal of the then Government to take any action of any type. It was in that specific context that that campaign was launched. We are now in government with a policy that was contained in our manifesto. We are honestly going to put it to the people. If we are wrong and they reject it, that is their option. I am not going to be distracted, however, or put off from making progress as I think right on this occasion.
  Sir Patrick Cormack rose—
  Mr. Dewar: I am sorry, but I shall not give way. I have been speaking for more than half an hour, and in fairness to the House, I must get on.
  I should like to consider briefly the contents of the Bill. This is the first time that I have done so and I find it a slightly daunting prospect when a speech becomes a list. It is important, however, that there is clarity. Put briefly, clause 1 authorises the holding of a referendum in Scotland and it explains that the date of it will appear in secondary legislation. The clause also defines the questions, sets the franchise, which will be based on the local government elections, provides for the appointment of a chief counting officer for Scotland and counting officers for each local authority area, and sets out their primary duties.
  The House will appreciate—and this is an important point—that great care has been taken in framing the propositions. We took advice from people learned in electoral practices. We have tried hard to go for clarity and, above all, fairness. I genuinely believe that we have been scrupulous in trying to avoid any leading questions, and I hope that there is universal agreement that that has been fairly achieved.
  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: In this part of the Bill, the House is being asked to give away its tax-varying powers in a referendum question. Taxation goes to the heart of the House's powers, so, at the very least, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we must

  727
  be given practical answers as to whether it is feasible, in a single United Kingdom administrative and fiscal region, to have different tax rates applying to the earnings or investment income of different citizens, according to whether they work or live in various parts of the United Kingdom? Will he undertake to give the House full proposals and details before we agree to handing over those powers by way of a referendum?
  Mr. Dewar: The subject will of course be dealt with in the White Paper. I am a little puzzled, because I do not know anything about the right hon. Gentleman's personal circumstances, but I would lay a small bet that he and I pay different rates of tax from those of most of my constituents. Of course we have variations in the sense that we have local tax, national tax, indirect taxes and direct taxes. We have a whole portfolio, a portmanteau, a travelling pantechnicon of taxes under all Governments and I do not accept the impossibility argument to which he refers, but it is an important issue and we shall return to it.
  As I say, we have tried to be scrupulous about avoiding leading questions. We are anxious that no one should misunderstand what they are being asked to decide on and that there should be a minimum of spoilt papers. We shall use two ballot papers in Scotland because of the two questions. That is obviously to allow a free vote on each issue and to aid the counting process. I believe that it can be done with great fairness and great clarity, and that is our intention. The detail will be in the White Paper. We shall obviously, as I have stressed time and again, come to it in good time, and well ahead of the referendum.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: If the right hon. Gentleman believes that the new Scottish Parliament is not going to be a danger to the continuance of the United Kingdom, and I believe that he is sincere in that, why cannot we have a third question in the referendum, inviting people to proclaim their belief in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Dewar: Because that would imply that those who are going to vote yes in the referendum are the enemies of the United Kingdom. As the hon. Gentleman has conceded, he assumes that I am genuine in my view, and my view is that we shall strengthen the United Kingdom by bringing in a more democratic and responsive form of government. It is obviously impossible to present me with a referendum in which I have alternatives but in which I might want to vote yes both times. I am sure that, if he thinks about it, he will understand that point.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Dewar: I shall not take further interventions. I am sorry, but I have outstayed my welcome.
  I understand that there are doubts about the second question. My friends in the Liberal Democrat party and on the Liberal Democrat Benches feel those doubts particularly strongly, but in my view, the whole question of revenue raising is a discipline and a responsibility, and the right to vary tax is an important part of the scheme. Opponents will view it as an opportunity, of course. The tartan tax—the playing to the pocket—will no doubt be a prominent feature of the campaign, as it was in the
  728
  campaign in the run-up to the election. I might be wrong, but I believe that it will be as unsuccessful as it was in the run-up to the election. However, whether it is an opportunity for my opponents or not, we came to the view that it was right that the people should be allowed to decide in Scotland, and we went for the second question.
  I think that we shall win that because it will be very difficult for even someone with the ingenuity of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe somehow to persuade Scots that although there are many tiers of government with varying revenue and taxation powers, it is a unique impossibility, an abomination and a danger when similar powers are given to Scots sitting as a body, elected and responsible for wide-ranging legislative powers. That is in effect asking the Scots to give a resounding vote of no confidence to their own probity and responsibility and their ability to conduct business. I do not believe that we shall have that.
  As the House, or those who have followed the argument, may remember, the poll in The Scotsman in January this year suggested that there was very substantial approval-59 per cent., in fact—for those powers. That may not be an accurate reflection, or it may change, but it is honourable and right to find out in the only way that matters and is clear. That is what we shall do.
  The local authority franchise has been picked because it is the one that is available and which most nearly accords with the residency test, which we believe is the proper way to decide someone's eligibility to vote. It has some odd consequences, some of which I welcome. For example, it ensures that peers in Scotland will be able to vote. Rather to my surprise, perhaps because Scotland is a sort of second home for that group, there are only 123 of them, I am told, but still, let us value those 123 votes. They may be glad to know that it will not be possible to identify them and discover exactly how they voted in the referendum.
  Some European nationals will also be included, a matter that has been raised. That is defensible on the simple ground that they are European nationals who have established the right of residence in Scotland. It will also have the effect—
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dewar: No, I am sorry. We can come back to this matter on many other occasions.
  Picking the local authority franchise also has the effect of excluding overseas voters. If we had gone for the parliamentary franchise, which is marginally smaller, we would have had to include overseas voters, which would have meant that the fine old peppery gentleman who has spent 17 years in Kuala Lumpur but who takes a great interest in what is happening in the old country would have had a vote. [Interruption.] I am not aware of his domicile.
  Mr. Wigley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dewar: No.
  Madam Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has made it clear to me and to the hon. Gentleman that he is not giving way at the moment. This is an important matter that we need to know about.
  Mr. Dewar: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I said that I would not take any more interventions, but I am

  729
  happy to speak to the hon. Gentleman personally afterwards, to try to deal with whatever is troubling him at this stage.
  The chief counting officer will be for the whole of Scotland and there will of course be one officer for each local government area. That is the precedent of 1979. The result that matters is the national result, but the local government results—area by area—will also be available. The final aggregate will tell the story that matters. The Bill is the way to ensure that that happens.
  As an addendum, I hope—I cannot be definitive about this—that, unlike 1979, we shall have the final result on the night, rather than having to wait until the next day. That is certainly my intention if it is at all practicably possible. I just wanted to record that.
  Mr. Wigley rose—
  Mr. Dewar: I am very sorry, but I have made a decision. I shall of course talk to the hon. Gentleman afterwards.
  Clause 2 makes similar provisions for Wales, as the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) will know. Clause 3 includes the necessary secondary legislation governing the conduct of the referendum. An Order in Council, subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses, will be laid, and the draft will be made available the week after the Whit recess. We are happy to consider comments on the draft received by the middle of June, which can be taken into account before final orders are laid.
  Clause 4 excludes the possibility of legal proceedings to question a referendum result certified by counting officers. That follows the precedent set in all the other legislation dealing with referendums. I am assured that only the most devious of minds would see conspiracy behind a safeguard against protracted and unnecessary potential litigation.
  Clause 5 will provide for the payment of charges and expenses of returning officers and chief counting officers. It also allows expenditure for preparatory work. We believe that it is a prudent measure to maintain momentum, so that a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly can meet quickly after the first elections. It also deals with matters such as the acquisition, refurbishment and design of buildings, with planning needs and with other romantic matters of that type. Its provisions will be used only if there is a positive outcome to the referendums, and, for significant expenditure, only after the successful Second Reading of a devolution Bill.
  I know that we shall be hearing a great deal about the provisions of clause 5—the tone has already been set by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks, on 16 May. On that evidence, the Opposition seem to be rather over-staffed with hon. Members of vision and wide horizons, who are sadly fixated by the comparatively minor expenditure specified in the explanatory and financial memorandum. It is a type of parliamentary pump approach—which blows up to fill the foreground of what should be a great constitutional debate on comparatively limited matters.
  As the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks will know, the costs specified in the explanatory and financial memorandum are relatively modest and are dwarfed by the potential benefits. In Scotland, the cost of the referendum will be less than £1 per head. Moreover,
  730
  the transitional—or paving—costs, which we do not believe will be as high as the specified upper limit, will be under £5 per head. That is in the context of a budget of £14 billion.
  Mr. Heald: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Dewar: I will finish now.
  Mr. Hague rose—
  Mr. Dewar: I shall give way.
  Mr. Hague: In the interests of clarity, is the right hon. Gentleman telling us that the costs of the referendums will be drawn from the Scottish and Welsh blocks?
  Mr. Dewar: The right hon. Gentleman will see in the Bill that the funds will come from the Consolidated Fund. Perhaps we can take the matter from that point. I should tell him, because I think that it is important, that the referendum costs will be less than one thirtieth of 1 per cent. of the Scottish Office's annual budget. He should look at the £18 million to £25 million, which is the cost band for provision of paving expenditure, and compare it—to give only one example—with the £30 million or so that was lost, in a definitive sense, through the former Government's unwise investment in Health Care International, a private hospital in Clydebank. I appeal to him to raise issues of importance, but to try also to maintain some sense of perspective. If not, he will diminish only himself.
  The Bill's schedules simply set out the layout and content of the ballot papers.
  I have provided a rough Cook's tour of the Bill. I apologise for the length of my speech—I have perhaps been over-generous in allowing interventions, but there have been persistent attempts to intervene.
  I have real hopes for the referendum campaign. In a sense, the Bill is only a mechanism. The reality—the consequences that will flow from it—should be an all-Scotland debate on issues of real importance. A similar debate should occur in Wales. I hope that the debate will have real public involvement and that there will be a sense of excitement. It will be a test not only of whether a Parliament in Scotland and an Assembly in Wales would bring better government, but of the type of Parliament and Assembly and of the range of powers that they should have.
  The Bill should be a part of the process of rebuilding confidence and it will, I hope, return some faith to our democratic agenda. It is about whether people should be trusted with decisions about their own future, and I hope that the House will endorse it.
  4.28 pm
  Mr. Michael Howard: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill because it would ask voters to give blanket approval to proposals in advance of legislation being published, debated, amended or agreed; and believes that such referendums should only be held after full and detailed scrutiny of the legislation in question on the floor of the House of Commons."

  731
  I congratulate the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales on their appointments, and the Labour party on its electoral success in Scotland and in Wales. If there is a silver lining for Conservative Members—it is certainly not very much of one—it is that there can no longer by any doubting us when we say that we are in favour of the first-past-the-post voting system out of genuine principle. In Wales, we won the second largest number of votes, but we were left without any seats. In Scotland, half a million Tory voters failed to secure parliamentary representation, so no one can accuse us of favouring the current system out of selfish party advantage.
  Although Labour has won a famous victory, it does not follow that it has won a secure mandate on the question before the House. The Secretary of State for Scotland himself has pointed out previously and today that Scottish and Welsh voters cast their ballots on 1 May for a multiplicity of reasons other than devolution. I do not find the right hon. Gentleman's favourite reason the most persuasive, but he might not expect me to agree with him on that. Even if devolution had been the sole issue on polling day, no specific models of constitutional change could be said to have won popular endorsement.
  Let us take Scotland first. Labour began by saying that, if elected, it would move to create a Scottish Parliament on the model proposed by the Scottish Constitutional Convention. The Prime Minister then casually informed the Scottish Labour party that there would be a referendum first. We then learned that there would be two referendums; then that there would need to be only one referendum after all, but with two questions.
  By that time, the people of Scotland might justly have felt that they were being taken somewhat for granted. That was not the end of the matter. Any hopes that the launch of Labour's manifesto would clarify the position were short-lived. Having pledged itself to a Parliament with tax-raising powers, Labour then said that it would not use those powers.
  Next, we were told that the Scottish Parliament would be like an English parish council. Finally, as if all that were not enough, the Prime Minister announced that sovereignty would rest not with this House and not even with Her Majesty, but in his own person—l'etat c'est Blair! What have the people of Scotland just voted for—a tax-raising assembly, an English parish council or a new sun king?
  What are the people of Wales being asked to vote for? Unlike the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly will not have tax-raising powers. It will not have the power to legislate on local government, on health, on education, on housing or on transport. If the Scottish Parliament is like an English parish council, how would the Prime Minister describe the Welsh Assembly? Would he describe it as a meeting of church wardens?
  On Friday, the Secretary of State for Scotland described the notion of a Scottish Parliament without tax-raising powers as "an odd non sequitur". In April, the Secretary of State for Wales described the notion of a Welsh Assembly with tax-raising powers as economic illiteracy, so what are we to believe? Are we to believe that the Secretary of State for Wales is a non sequitur, or that the Secretary of State for Scotland is economically illiterate?
  732
  Why are the Government determined to foist on the people of Wales a settlement that they regard as second-rate in Scotland?
  We support the Government in their stated aim of strengthening the Union, and we share their ambition to give the Scots and the Welsh more say over their own affairs, but the Bill is no way in which to achieve either of those aims. Its objectives, I fear, are somewhat more cynical and more selfish.
  In their determination to maximise their majority in this House, the Government are wilfully ignoring the danger that their proposals pose to the long-term unity of the country. The Labour party wants to have its cake and eat it. It wants a devolved Parliament in Scotland, and it wants to keep a disproportionate block of Scottish Members of Parliament in this House to drive through legislation for England and for Wales.
  The simplicity of the proposed ballot papers as set out in the Bill masks the fact that all the most important questions have been left unanswered. Is it right, for example, that Scots and Welshmen residing outside their homelands should be disfranchised? Is it right that the rest of the kingdom should be left unconsulted about a profound change to its government? Do the questions on the proposed ballot paper refer to a Parliament and an Assembly within the United Kingdom or outside it? In other words, should supporters of complete separation vote yes or no?
  What will be the position of the Scottish and Welsh Secretaries of State? How will they occupy themselves in the Cabinet? Will they make the tea or do some photocopying, or will they just sit sniggering together like middle-aged versions of Beavis and Butthead?
  What of the Barnett formula on funding for Scotland if tax-raising powers are granted to the Edinburgh Parliament? What will be the relationship between Members of this House and Members of the devolved Assemblies who sit for the same geographical areas? How can hon. Members representing Scottish and Welsh seats become Ministers for portfolios that fall within the jurisdiction of the devolved legislatures? How would the position of the Minister of Transport, for example, be tenable? Those questions demand answers.
  I am delighted that, after an uncharacteristic period of silence—coinciding quite by chance, no doubt, with the run-up to the general election—the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has again found his voice. I am sure that he will not mind me reminding the House of the question that he has made famous.
  Under Labour's plans, Scottish Members would continue to sit and vote in this House on all English and most Welsh matters, but English and Welsh Members would have no commensurate say over Scottish matters. Why should the Secretary of State for Scotland be able to decide the future of grant-maintained schools in my constituency of Folkestone and Hythe, when I have no say over schools in Glasgow?
  The manifest unfairness of that arrangement has attracted a great deal of comment, but the other half of the question has received less attention: why should Scottish Members continue to legislate for England and Wales when they are to have no say over the affairs of Scotland? Under the Government's proposals, Scottish Members would have less say on Scottish matters than on English matters. If they were petitioned by their constituents about

  733
  the state of Scottish schools, they would have to reply, "Nothing to do with me." Their constituents might justly wonder whether their salaries—
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Home Secretary—[Interruption.]—sorry, the former Home Secretary—to talk about the substance of devolution, when we are discussing the mechanics of the referendum proposals?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I do not believe that that is out of order, and he is not the Home Secretary.
  Mr. Howard: I understand why Labour Members do not want these questions raised, and why they do not want concentration focused on them, but this is essential background to the question that the House has to debate today and tomorrow.
  Mr. lain Duncan Smith: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Howard: I shall give way in just a moment; I just want to finish the point that I am making.
  In the light of the questions that I have just posed, the Scottish constituents of Labour Members—indeed, of all hon. Members—might justly wonder whether their salaries should be cut to reflect the reduced role that they would have.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the point of order that has just been raised is at the nub of the problem? The hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) complained that my right hon. and learned Friend was raising those difficult issues, but the Government have asked us not to raise any of those points. We are to ask the people to vote on something that they know nothing about, in the absence of any debate.
  Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right. I shall develop that point in a moment or two.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been making something of what used to be called the West Lothian question. Will he address what I call the East Lothian question? How could he justify a situation in which he and his colleagues voted to impose the poll tax on my constituents in East Lothian and on other Scottish constituencies at a time when it did not apply to their constituents?
  Mr. Howard: Because that was a decision taken by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which has jurisdiction to legislate for every part of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Thomas Graham: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats in Scotland argued clearly for a constitutional convention. We also argued clearly for a referendum. Is he aware that there was a meeting of the remnants of the Conservative party in a wigwam, where they had a pow-wow, but that all their peace pipes were broken? The Tory party is split. It does
  734
  not know whether to support devolution or a referendum. It is time he realised that the problem for the Tories has not gone away. They are so split asunder that they will never rule Scotland.
  Mr. Howard: I always enjoy the hon. Gentleman's colourful language, but his question is somewhat remote from the point that I was addressing.
  Mr. James Wallace: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made great play of the so-called West Lothian question. Can he tell the House how often, during the 50 years when Ulster Unionist Members sat on Conservative Benches, took the Conservative Whip and served in Conservative Governments when the Stormont Parliament was in existence, the Conservative party ever complained that those hon. Members were able to vote on matters relating to West Lothian and West Bromwich, but not on those relating to west Belfast?
  Mr. Howard: There are at least two answers to that question. As has been acknowledged on several occasions, not least by the Secretary of State for Defence, who was in his place earlier, it is unwise to draw analogies with Northern Ireland, because circumstances there are extremely different. The hon. Gentleman will be aware, however, that, in 1921, when the legislation that made the change to which he has referred was introduced, there was a commensurate reduction in the number of Members from Northern Ireland. It may well be sensible for us to explore that point in due course.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is doing a skilful job of showing that devolution involves a number of complex points of principle, but he seems to have learnt nothing from the election. Was it not a wholly untenable position for his party to hold that we have reached such a point of perfection in our constitution that there should be no change in Scotland, and that there was no such thing as the Scottish question? Was not that the basis of the total rejection of his party in Scotland?
  Mr. Howard: No, it was not. Had the hon. Gentleman been listening, he would have noticed that, a few minutes ago, the Secretary of State acknowledged that people vote in general elections for a multiplicity of reasons, as they did on 1 May, and that one cannot draw the inference that the hon. Gentleman sought to draw.
  Moreover, it has never been the case that we have resisted change. As was pointed out earlier, the previous Secretary of State for Scotland, the former right hon. Member for Stirling, was responsible for significant change in the arrangements for governing Scotland, so the hon. Gentleman has completely misrepresented both the result of the election and the position of the Conservative party.
  Mr. Salmond: Two of the other Conservative leadership contenders have indicated their support for a blocking mechanism, a threshold or a 50 per cent. rule, according to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). Does the right hon. and learned

  735
  Gentleman support such a blocking device, and, if so, would it apply to any European referendum that might be introduced?
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman will have to restrain himself. In due course, he will see exactly what amendments the Opposition table, on this and other issues. We shall comply in full with the rules of the House, and we shall give due notice to the hon. Gentleman and to the Government when we table those amendments.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Howard: No, I must make a little progress.
  I was dealing with the reaction of the people of Scotland and the right hon. and hon. Members who represent them to the proposals that lie behind the question before the House today. As for the people of England and Wales, their reaction is likely to be even stronger.
  The Labour party has shown itself ready to promote its party interests, quite regardless of the damage caused to the integrity of the United Kingdom. It seems determined to retain the over-representation of Scottish Members in the House. It does not take much imagination to foresee the mood in England if that majority were used to bulldoze through policies that were unpopular with the English electorate. That is precisely why the cynical proposals outlined by the Secretary of State menace the integrity and harmony of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Cash: In the context of what I have just termed the United Kingdom question, and considering the reality of what will happen in the dismembering process, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the question is not entirely for England or for Wales, or indeed for Scotland, but for the United Kingdom as a whole, having regard to the interests of those in Northern Ireland, for example, who will also be affected by the logical consequences to which the Bill will lead?
  Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend raises an important point. He, too, will have to wait and see what amendments are tabled when we debate the substance of the matter in due course.
  I turn to the nub of our argument against the Bill's proposals—that part of the Secretary of State's speech where he was at his most defensive and his least convincing. The proposed change would be the greatest change in our nation's constitution at least since the Government of Ireland Act 1920, and possibly since the Act of Union itself in 1707.
  It is right that the electorate should be consulted before changes of such magnitude are implemented, but they should be asked for their opinion when all our questions have been answered, when all the details are known, when the legislation has been finally tempered and scrutinised in the House, and when Parliament has debated and decided. Instead, the Government are breaking with constitutional precedent by holding a referendum before voters are allowed to know the final shape of the
  736
  proposals. The people of Scotland and Wales will be asked to give their consent to devolution in principle and to trust Ministers to sort out the details afterwards.
  Indeed, things are even worse than that. The Government intend to curtail Parliament's ability to perform its proper function. A pre-legislative referendum is designed to pre-empt parliamentary debate. It is not a new device. The device was the hallmark of continental dictatorships between the wars. European tyrants used the plebiscite to sideline their Parliaments; they used it to suppress the rights and liberties of their citizens. That is the model that the new Labour Government have decided to follow.
  Why the Government's reluctance to follow constitutional precedent? Why their unseemly haste? Could it perhaps have something to do with the memory of what happened the last time that the proposals were put to the people?
  In 1979, the referendums were rightly held after the legislation had been finalised, so that voters were able to decide on very specific proposals. Both in Scotland and in Wales, support ebbed during the referendum campaigns, as people came to appreciate what the proposals would actually mean. In my native Wales, opinion polls before the campaign were running at 4:1 in favour of a devolved Assembly, but on polling day, there was a 4:1 vote against it. People's enthusiasm for devolution waned when they saw that it would spawn expensive new bureaucracies and cause bitter disputes between the nations of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. and learned Friend get a clue from the Bill about who is supposed to be paying for the Scottish Parliament? Is not expenditure—by the Scottish Office, the Welsh Office and central Government—on Scotland and Wales very much higher than on England? Despite that additional expenditure, general taxpayers are being asked to pay for the referendum. I suspect that they will also have to pay for the cost of the additional Parliament, the additional level of government. Should we not know now, before we English Members of Parliament have to vote on the matter, exactly who is supposed to be paying for it?
  Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It was noteworthy during the Secretary of State's speech that he declined to answer a direct question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who suggested that his Kent constituents would be paying the cost of the referendum, but just a minute or two later confirmed that that would indeed be precisely so.
  The reason why the Government are determined to hold the referendum before the voters can see the details of the legislation is that they fear that otherwise people will reach the same conclusion as they reached in 1979. That is why the Government are resorting to this unprecedented and anti-democratic approach.
  The Secretary of State was silent—until pressed in answer to a question, when he was non-committal—about whether the main devolution legislation would be taken on the Floor of the House—a procedure described as game-playing by the Prime Minister during the debate on the Gracious Speech last week. We believe that that should happen, and I hope that the Secretary of State for Wales will deal with the point when he winds up tomorrow.

  737
  The Union of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland is based on a community of interests, a shared history, and an essential friendship between its constituent peoples. Like the relationship between Boswell and Johnson, that friendship can sometimes be prickly, but it is old and genuine. Its flavour is captured in the words of the highlander at Dunkirk, who told his comrades that, if the English surrendered too, it could be a long war. By its selfish and hurried pursuit of short-term advantage, Labour has jeopardised that relationship. A Union that has held fast for centuries could begin to fray in a matter of months.
  The practical advantages of the Union are as much in evidence now as ever. Scotland and Wales have benefited enormously from massive inward investment during the Conservative Administration, including the LG plant in Newport, which is the largest single instance of foreign investment in Europe. The talent and industry of the Scots and my Welsh compatriots have enriched our island.
  United, Britain has a strong voice in the councils of the world. Can anyone imagine that our constituent nations, if separated, would retain that influence? The House should be in no doubt that there would be a real danger of separation if the Government's proposals were to be implemented in their current form.
  Mr. Stephen Day: I am sure that many in the House, on both sides, hold their Britishness dear. I count myself among them. However sincere the Government may be about their desire to maintain the Union, the danger at the heart of the proposals is that no union can be dissolved or changed unilaterally by one partner. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the issue needs to be taken out of the party political battle, for all parties to consider the effects of constitutional change on all the constituent parts of the United Kingdom? My constituents matter as much as those of hon. Members from Scotland.
  Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend raises an important point, and his constituents and mine are likely to be vitally affected by the Government's proposals. He raises an important aspect of the proposals.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the LG investment in my constituency, and suggested that it would not happen. Does he not realise that LG was fully aware that a Labour Government were on the way, and that devolution was part of our promises? LG sees the investment in Newport as one of the fruits of devolution. The previous Prime Minister has admitted that LG came to Wales primarily because of the work of the Welsh Development Agency, a devolved body created by a former Labour Government.
  Mr. Howard: The Welsh Development Agency has done notable work, not least during the time that my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) was the Secretary of State. It is a far cry from arguing that the Welsh Development Agency played an important part in LG coming to Newport, which it clearly did, to arguing that the investment is a vote of confidence in the proposals for administrative and legislative devolution.
  I return to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day). The ingredients necessary for a bitter and acrimonious breakdown
  738
  between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom are all there in the legislation that lies behind the question before the House today. They include the anomalous position of Welsh and Scottish Ministers; the unfair representation of Welsh and Scottish Members in the House; the lack of clear delineation between the spheres of authority of this Parliament and the devolved legislatures; the opportunity for intrusive judicial review; and, in the case of Scotland, the financial tensions that will inevitably be caused by the granting of tax-raising powers to the Scottish Parliament while Scotland continues to be generously over-funded by the Westminster Administration.
  Mrs. Fyfe: Does the former Home Secretary realise that his credibility as a true and perfect democrat was destroyed for ever when he used a large Tory majority to impose the poll tax on Scotland alone? There are people in Scotland who will never forget that. It is one reason why there is not one Conservative Member left in Scotland today.
  Mr. Howard: I have already answered that question. However, if we want to resume fighting those battles of long ago, the hon. Lady will remember that the degree of discontent with the previous rating system in Scotland, which led to those proposals, was even more intense than the discontent in England and Wales. That is why, in those far-off days, we legislated for Scotland first.
  Mr. Dewar: When challenged by my hon. Friends the Members for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) about the poll tax, the right hon. and learned Gentleman answered that it was legitimised because it was brought about by an act of the sovereign Westminster Parliament, which represented every part of the United Kingdom. If this sovereign Westminster Parliament, which also represents every part of the United Kingdom, decides, for the better governance of the country, to set up a Parliament in Edinburgh to deal with specifically Scottish domestic affairs, will that not also be legitimised?
  Mr. Howard: It will not be legitimised, for the following reason. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman will listen, he will readily see why. It is accepted in all parts of the House—perhaps not all, because the Liberal Democrats do not accept it, but it is certainly common ground between the Government and the Opposition—that, before legitimacy can be achieved, there should be a referendum on the present proposals, in addition to legislation passed by this Parliament.
  What is at issue today is the timing of that referendum. If it took place after the legislation had been fully and finally approved by the House, there would be a great deal more point to the question that the Secretary of State for Scotland asked me.
  It is precisely because the Government do not propose a referendum after the legislation, after all the questions have been answered and after the voters have seen the specific details of what is proposed, that they will not provide their proposals with the legitimacy that they might otherwise have acquired. That is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question.
  I appeal to Labour Members to reflect on the consequences of what they propose to do. Can they justify putting the Union in peril for party political gain?

  739
  The Opposition will do all we can to prevent the legislation from being passed in its present ill-advised and divisive form. There must be time for the detailed legislation to be considered before the referendums are held.
  The Bill would allow one of the greatest changes in our island's history to be decided by a bare majority of Welsh and Scottish voters, possibly on a very low turnout, without their having seen the details of the legislation, and without the people of England having been consulted.
  In the deliberately short time that the Government have allowed us, we shall argue vigorously to convince Scottish and Welsh voters that devolution on such a model threatens the break-up of our country. We Conservatives know that patriotism is not the same as parochialism. We are proud to stand as the party not only of the Union, but of the constitution and of parliamentary sovereignty.
  The Bill purports to give the people choice, but in fact it denies them choice, by denying them the information on which to base their judgment. It asks them for their unconditional votes. We shall resist the proposals in the House and oppose them in Wales and Scotland. We stand ready to take our fight to the people.
  4.58 pm
  Miss Anne Begg: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make my maiden speech as part of this historic debate. The issue of Scottish devolution is close to my heart. What an honour it is to speak in the debate that will eventually lead to the setting up of a Scottish Parliament.
  Now that Labour is finally and firmly in government, we can show not only the people of Scotland but the cynics and doom merchants that Labour will deliver a Scottish Parliament, if that is truly what the people want—hence the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill. Before we undertake such constitutional change, we must be absolutely sure that it is
  "the settled will of the Scottish people",
  as the late John Smith said.
  The Parliament that Labour proposes to set up in Edinburgh will, I am sure, bring great benefits to the north-east of Scotland and to my constituents in Aberdeen, South in particular. The voting system will ensure that no one area in Scotland will dominate the Scottish Parliament, and the people of Aberdeen will have a more direct say in how their health and education services should be run. Aberdeen was ahead of the game when it came to providing health care for the whole community. Foresterhill hospital was built before the NHS was established from money raised by public subscription—it really was a public hospital.
  Aberdeen is also a beautiful city. When the sun shines, it positively sparkles with the light reflected off the grey granite. There is much pride in our civic amenities in Aberdeen. Anyone driving into Aberdeen, South towards the Bridge of Dee will notice the mass of blooms—crocuses and daffodils in spring, or roses down the central reservation of the dual carriageway in summer. It is an impressive sight. A separate category had to be created for Aberdeen in the Britain in Bloom competition, because we kept winning year after year, and we thought that we ought to give others a chance.
  740
  It is no surprise that Aberdeen attracts a lot of tourists, many of whom visit the Duthie park winter gardens—a haven of tranquillity and peace in a busy, thriving city. For most people, Aberdeen is a thriving city. It still has a busy fishing port, and many of my constituents work in the fish processing industry. The biggest change to Aberdeen's economy and prosperity was the arrival of oil. I am glad to say that the oil industry is still buoyant in Aberdeen, especially as initial predictions were that the oil would soon run out. It has not yet, but the city must be ready in the future if there is a change in our economic circumstances.
  Inevitably, Aberdeen, South has its share of social problems. The rising threat and menace of drugs are ever present and, even in Aberdeen, many young people find it hard to get a job. Those are two issues that the new Labour Government will begin to address.
  It is in its parliamentary representation that Aberdeen, South has had the greatest instability. Any Member who thought that he or she might have a job for life after winning Aberdeen, South was quickly disabused of that notion. It was my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland who started the process by unseating Lady Tweedsmuir in 1966. He was not to last, but I am glad to see that he has made good now.
  lain Sproat came next, in 1970. I have a debt of gratitude to pay to Mr. Sproat over a telephone bill. At the time, I was an impoverished student, sharing a flat in Aberdeen, South with other equally poor students. The telephone phone bill which arrived obviously was not ours—it was so large that even someone on a Member of Parliament's pay could not have afforded it. Would British Telecom, or its predecessor, accept that we could not have run up such a large bill? Of course not. But it was a letter to our Member of Parliament, lain Sproat, that finally got the issue sorted out. I can now publicly thank him.
  lain Sproat was not to last, either. Next came Gerry Malone. He was defeated for the first time in 1987 by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran). The fact that my hon. Friend now represents a different constituency will give the House a clue as to his staying power in Aberdeen, South. In 1992, he was replaced by Raymond Robertson—my opponent at the election. Although obviously upset by his defeat, Raymond was always polite and courteous towards me. Aberdeen, South has see-sawed between the Conservatives and Labour, so there is a lesson there for me not to become complacent. However, there is a crumb of comfort. Aberdeen, South has obviously been a good training ground for new Members of Parliament. All my male predecessors have reached either ministerial or shadow ministerial positions—not, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am putting down a marker for my own advancement.
  To return to the subject of this debate, I am sorry to report that the procedures of the House have been usurped by the local Aberdeen evening newspaper, the Evening Express, which is the sister paper of that other well-known news organ of the north-east, The Press and Journal. I have to dispel the myth about the parochial nature of the latter—it was not the newspaper that ran the story earlier this century with the banner headline "North-East man drowns at sea", with the much smaller sub-headline "Titanic sinks".

  741
  Last Friday evening, the Evening Express published the results of a phone-in poll which it ran asking readers whether they wanted a Scottish Parliament. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be waiting in anticipation to find out what verdict was given by his old stomping ground—he still keeps very much in touch with what goes on in Aberdeen. The majority of the readers decided that they did want a Scottish Parliament after all. That is all right then—I feel that I am now speaking for my constituents in speaking in support of a referendum. We cannot just depend on newspaper polls, however. We must also ask the people directly, and we will do so through the referendum proposed in the Bill.
  I began by saying that this was a historic debate. I am proud to be the new Member for Aberdeen, South and I have to thank the House authorities, my colleagues and Madam Speaker for making it possible for me to operate in the House just like everyone else. They have all made it possible for me to play my part as a member of the new Labour Government—a Government who will bring about real change in the lives of the people and real change in the way in which we govern Scotland.
  5.6 pm
  Mr. Michael Ancram: I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) on her maiden speech. I have not heard all the maiden speeches of all the hon. Members who have represented Aberdeen, South, but I have heard quite a few. I have also had a somewhat chequered political career and I know what she is talking about—security of tenure. On behalf of all hon. Members I think that I can say that her speech was remarkable in its clarity and its passion and we look forward to hearing many more speeches from her in due course. I also thank her for her words about Raymond Robertson, who was my parliamentary private secretary in Northern Ireland and was a great support to me in my work. He will be pleased to hear the kind words that she spoke about him.
  This has been a strange debate. Listening to the Secretary of State, I cannot help feeling that he does not really want the referendum. It is somehow unnecessary—it has been forced upon him by circumstances and he really lives in that period of the Labour party in February 1996 when the Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Robertson), then the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, was making it clear that there were no proposals for a referendum. Indeed, as I understand it, he went on to say that the election of a Labour Government with the proposal in their manifesto would be the only mandate necessary.
  The House of Commons Library is sometimes a useful source of information. I commend it to the Secretary of State for Scotland. He will find from that source again that, some nine months later, the right hon. Member for Hamilton, South decided that there should be a referendum: he went further and suggested that there should be two—the second would trigger the tax-varying powers of a Scottish Parliament. At that time, according to the information that has been made available to me by—
  Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you can tell me why the right hon. Gentleman is speaking from the Back Benches today,
  742
  when he was speaking from the Front Bench on a constitutional issue on Friday. We cannot criticise decisions from the Chair, but we hope that they are made in the full awareness that there are no Conservative Members in Scotland or Wales.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The responsibility that a particular Member takes on a particular day is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Ancram: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood that, for all the sadness of losing office, one of the privileges of being in opposition was that one could speak from the Back Benches in a way that was not possible when in government.
  I want to make what I consider to be relevant points about the Bill. I was referring to the way in which the Government's policy on referendums has changed over the past 12 months, and pointing out that at one moment it was intended that there should be two referendums, which was described by the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Prime Minister as a
  "mature and sensible decision of the Scottish Executive Committee."
  He went on to say:
  "This decision brings a Labour Government and a Scottish Parliament that much closer."
  A week later, the present Secretary of State for Defence said that there would be only one referendum, not two, as there was no support for that policy. I have the feeling that one reason why the Secretary of State for Scotland was so unconvincing today is that he would rather have no referendum and proceed straight away to legislation to be passed by the heavy majority that the Government command in the House.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: It would perhaps be for the benefit of the House if the right hon. Gentleman were to explain whether his status as a representative of the views of the official Opposition has changed since Friday. Is he speaking as a Back Bencher or as a Front Bencher sitting on the Back Benches merely for convenience?
  Mr. Ancram: It must be obvious to the hon. Gentleman that when one speaks from the Back Benches one speaks as a Back Bencher. I am making my own personal points today, and I shall make them as I ought.
  Mr. Wallace: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can clarify whether on Friday, when he spoke from the Front Bench, he was an official spokesman. Has he been sacked in the meantime? As the constitutional issues are the same, do the official Opposition know whether they are forwards, backwards or sideways, and do they have any clue at all what they are doing?
  Mr. Ancram: Again, if the hon. Gentleman were to look at Friday's debate and compare it with today's, he would discover that the previous debate was about all the constitutional proposals in the Queen's Speech, while today's is about a single issue.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In my experience as an Opposition Whip for four years,

  743
  a Front Bencher was never called from the Back Benches if another Back Bencher was available to speak. I do not know whether the precedent has changed, but I would be grateful if you could consider the matter.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not sure that a firm precedent is being set, but I shall take note of what the hon. Gentleman says and investigate the matter. He is also in danger of confusing me, because a moment ago he was on the Front Bench and now he is on the Back Benches.
  Mr. Ancram: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The first specific point that I want to put to the Secretary of State for Scotland concerns the fact that, as I understood him, he was asserting that preceding the referendum a White Paper would be published, which would be sufficient to explain to the people of Scotland and Wales that for which they would be asked to vote either for or against.
  If the question to be asked of the Scottish and Welsh people in a referendum is whether they support the proposals for a Parliament and an Assembly as set out in the White Paper, why do not the questions as proposed in the Bill set that out? The question in schedule 1 says:
  "I agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament",
  not a Scottish Parliament as set out in the White Paper, and the same goes for the Welsh Assembly.
  If the Secretary of State for Scotland addresses his powerful legal mind to that matter, he will immediately see that the question being asked would be as relevant to a Scottish Parliament within an independent Scotland as to one on a devolved basis. I can only suspect that he has set out the proposition in that way because he does not want to be bound by the White Paper as endorsed by a referendum and wishes, if necessary, to be able to alter the legislation as it goes through Parliament and vary it according to circumstances that might arise, without the necessity of going back to the Scottish or Welsh people to ask for re-endorsement of a changed scheme.
  If the Secretary of State does not mean that, surely the only other possibility is that he has sufficient contempt for Parliament to say that no changes can be made in the legislation as it goes through Parliament because the endorsement, in his view, will have precluded it. That question goes to the very heart of his proposals. Before the Bill becomes law, we must know precisely what the people of Scotland and Wales are being asked to endorse.
  The Secretary of State referred to the situation in Northern Ireland. I want to offer him a word of caution. We have a bipartisan policy on Northern Ireland, and the most important thing about such a policy is that we should understand it. Today he has in effect suggested that it was proposed by the previous Government—and therefore, under a bipartisan policy, by the present Government—that a White Paper should be drawn up and then put to the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum; that is the analogy that he drew with what is happening now.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the framework document, but that is not a White, or even a Green Paper; it is an understanding between two Governments that was to be used as the basis for parties to try to reach agreement among themselves. It was made absolutely clear that it
  744
  was not the framework document that would be put to the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum, but any detailed agreement arrived at by the parties either with or without the help of that document.
  I put that point with a good deal of force, because there is a suspicion in Northern Ireland that British Governments intend to produce White Papers and go over the heads of the political parties by putting them to the people in a referendum. I hope that the Secretary of State will take this opportunity to make it clear—as he failed to do in his reply to my intervention—that that is not the Government's policy, any more than it was ours.
  Mr. Dewar: I am happy to oblige the right hon. Gentleman, because I certainly do not want to get into difficulties over the matter; if he checks the record he will see that I referred to the triple lock and to discussions followed by a referendum followed by legislation. I merely made the point that, when circumstances make it sensible, the opposition in principle can be set aside and we can have pre-legislative referendums. That was my only point, and I believe that I have been precise about it.
  It is possibly fair that the right hon. Gentleman should have regard to the fact that the ballot paper is to contain a preliminary sentence that says:
  "Parliament has decided to consult people in Scotland on the Government's proposals for a Scottish Parliament".
  It is therefore a little unfair of him to take the question out of the context of the ballot paper.
  Mr. Ancram: Is the Secretary of State therefore suggesting that he would accept an amendment to make that clear in the propositions themselves? If not, perhaps he would explain why not. We may table an amendment to that effect and see whether he will accept it.
  The whole principle of what was being done in Northern Ireland was that the parties would come to an agreement that would be detailed in all respects and would be a matter not only for political parties but for two Governments, and that that would then be put to a referendum. That agreement would be reached—this is germane to the second point that I want to put to the Secretary of State—not by a simple majority but on the basis of what is called sufficiency of consensus.
  Sufficiency of consensus was designed to ensure that any agreement that was to be put to the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum would have the broad agreement of the representatives of both parts of the community. That is far wider and broader than a simple majority. The Secretary of State raised the subject of Northern Ireland, and I take him up on it.
  The second concern of Conservative Members is that we are not talking about sufficiency of consensus, or even a simple majority of those able to vote in Scotland. Under the Bill, assent can be given by a simple majority of whoever bothers to vote in a referendum. If this referendum is to have any value, its outcome must be credible. The Secretary of State would not dissent from that. In his view, would a poll of 10, 20, 30, or 40 per cent. deliver a sufficiency of consensus? In terms of what I have been working on for the past four years, it would not.
  The Secretary of State must be very conscious of the fact that, if any progress or process is to follow on a result emanating from such a referendum and move forward

  745
  with any chance of survival, it must be based on what would be accepted by the people of the United Kingdom as a whole as a credible outcome. He cannot duck the threshold question. What does he believe is the minimum level of voter participation in Scotland that would deliver credibility? I do not believe that, in his heart of hearts, he thinks that anything under 50 per cent. could deliver it. I hope that the Government will deal with that in their reply.
  We have discovered in this debate that the cost of the referendums—I am not entering into the next stage, the preparation for assemblies—is to come from the Consolidated Fund, which, as I understand it, is not a Scottish or Welsh block fund but a United Kingdom fund. All taxpayers in the United Kingdom therefore contribute to it. I want to make it clear beyond peradventure that the Bill is telling my constituents that they will not be allowed a say in the outcome of the referendum but that they will have to pay for it. Under the principle of no taxation without representation, I believe that that has constitutional significance that the Government should address.
  Mr. O'Neill: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain where funding was to have come from for the constitutional arrangements that he had hoped to set in place in Northern Ireland? Would the money have been taken from the Consolidated Fund or from the Northern Ireland block grant?
  Mr. Ancram: The cost of the Northern Ireland talks process, which is happening on the ground at the moment, is shared between the Northern Ireland block grant and the Irish Government, because they are the two main participants in the process. The hon. Gentleman's point has been answered in a way different from that which he expected.
  It is clear that the implications of even this rather minor Bill on a referendum have not been thought through thoroughly by the Government. Enormous constitutional issues will arise from the outcome of the referendums. If they are not addressed during the passage of this legislation, those outcomes could lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. It is for that reason that I will oppose the Bill.
  5.23 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) is the seventh Member of Parliament for that constituency whom I have known, and she delivered a remarkable speech. The first Member for Aberdeen, South whom I knew was Priscilla, Lady Tweedsmuir. She, too, was a remarkable lady. The Secretary of State, who beat her in an election in Aberdeen, South, would concede that she was a most effective Member of Parliament. The constituency has had some remarkable Members and I suspect that my hon. Friend will follow in that remarkable line.
  I take my hon. Friend up on one phrase. She said that she was concerned about the settled will—the settled will—of the Scottish people. I think that that is what has to be established.
  There is something that puzzles me deeply. I do not understand why it was ever thought necessary to hold referendums before legislation.
  746
  I for one have made it quite clear to anyone who would listen that I would vote for the Second Reading of a Bill—any Bill—because the matter had to be discussed. I made it clear—I do not think that anyone in the Labour party dissented from this—that at the first sign of time-wasting by the Opposition, I would vote for a guillotine because it was no part of my business to disrupt the legislative programme of a Labour Government.
  What therefore is the necessity for a pre-legislative referendum at all? If it is not to put pressure on Government Members, what on earth is it for?
  I have been asked about the matter everywhere. At my reselection meeting for the Linlithgow constituency Labour party and elsewhere, I have repeatedly said that I would campaign ferociously for a referendum on the one meaningful question that a referendum can ask: "Do you approve of the Scotland Act 1997 or 1998 as passed by Parliament?"
  That is a precise question that covers all the eventualities.
  Given the size of the Government's majority, there may not be any eventualities; there may not be many changes. However, there is an assumption that in all the parliamentary discussions there will be no changes. The House of Commons cannot be taken for granted by implication.
  Certain hard issues must be sorted out. I had the good fortune to be called to speak on Friday and drew attention to some of them.
  There is only one to which I go back and ask my hon. Friends to ponder. The question was first put by John Lloyd. He called it the Bury, North question. It is a serious issue. How can the Labour Member who has won Bury, North—not a constituency over-endowed with wealth—by defeating Alistair Burt go on justifying to his constituents the fact that it takes fewer than 55,000 votes to send a Scottish Member to the House of Commons but more than 68,000 votes to elect an English Member? I think that I will omit the implications, particularly the public expenditure implications, of the so-called West Lothian question. It was dubbed that by Enoch Powell, not by me. We cannot assume that that subject will not be addressed in the parliamentary discussions.
  That subject must be addressed somehow or other because, above all else, we are talking about something that the Government hope will last in perpetuity, and in the form in which it is proposed.
  I do not know whether the Secretary of State thinks that I fall into the category of the "horribly familiar" or the "bastards", as he put it. However, presumably it is common ground among Labour Members that what is proposed should have at least a chance of lasting.
  If the proposition is to have a chance of lasting, these awkward and difficult questions must be faced up to. The place to face up to them is the Floor of the House of Commons. If it is not done here, where else is it to be done? If it is not done, the whole proposition could be unstable. That would be deeply unsatisfactory and could lead to all sorts of sournesses.
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: The hon. Gentleman has made the important point that, in my constituency of Mid-Bedfordshire the electorate is 68,000. In most Scottish constituencies, the average size is about

  747
  55,000. Therefore, does he agree that it would be right and proper for there to be a single boundary commission for the whole of the United Kingdom to equalise those numbers?
  Mr. Dalyell: I cannot agree or disagree off the top of my head because it is a complex matter. It would be incautious to make ex cathedra statements.
  That kind of issue must be faced up to on the Floor of this House. We do not know how the parliamentary process will end. It might not end in the form proposed in the White Paper. If it does not end in that form, the referendum will be putting a proposal or a set of proposals that will be different or possibly significantly different from the final outcome. It depends what comes out of the parliamentary process.
  Even at this 11th hour and 59th minute I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to reflect on whether things could be done differently. There are two reasons for that, one of which I have tried to outline. This is the question of stability, and of endorsing something that can in no sense be interpreted as fraudulent. If we have a referendum on something that is different from what is finally proposed, the referendum is surely invalidated.
  The second consideration is that of entrenchment. That point has been put strongly by some members of the Linlithgow constituency Labour party who have an honourable history of being absolutely dedicated to the idea of a Scottish Parliament. If a referendum took place on a settled set of proposals after the legislation had been through the parliamentary mill and said yes, that would give it an entrenchment and at least a chance of success that it would not otherwise have.
  I thank the House for my hearing.
  5.32 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: I agree with the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), the doyen of the Scottish parliamentary group, on two matters. First, I want to congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) on a model maiden speech. She has clearly shown how quickly she has got the feel of the House and we look forward to the contribution that she will make in the coming months and years. She is right to say that hers is an unstable seat and, with the Liberal Democrats in second place, I am glad that she acknowledges that.
  I also agree with the hon. Member for Linlithgow on the number of Scottish Members and the size of Scottish constituencies if we have a Scottish Parliament. We adopt the view taken by the Kilbrandon commission that there is a case for a reduction in the number of Scottish Members to about 58, 59 or 60. We cannot run away from that issue and, no doubt, there will be plenty of opportunities to debate that in the months ahead.
  As the first Opposition Member from a Scottish or Welsh constituency to take part in the debate, I want to reflect on the contributions so far by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe seemed to learn nothing from the general election campaign. His speech seemed to be a retread of those I
  748
  have heard on many occasions by the former right hon. Member for Stirling, Michael Forsyth—speeches which brought such distinguished success, or lack of it, to his party in the general election.
  The right hon. Member for Devizes was today speaking from the Back Benches. I wonder whether that is because his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe was speaking from the Front Bench whereas on Friday his right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) was speaking from the Front Bench. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman chooses whether to sit on the Front Bench or the Back Benches depending on which leadership candidate is in pole position on that day.
  The right hon. Member for Devizes has been named as a potential shadow Secretary of State for Scotland. His speech lacked punch today and he was clearly making sure that he would not be selected for the post.
  Although he is no longer in the Chamber, it is a pleasure to congratulate the Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Dewar), on his appointment. He has already indicated a co-operative and open approach, not least in getting on to the statute book the Scottish home rule Bill. His party, my party and a wide range of people in Scottish civic life have worked over seven or eight years to bring that project to fruition and I can assure him that, whatever our disagreements over the referendum, we will work co-operatively to bring that project to a successful conclusion.
  The Secretary of State was complaining about Conservative Members talking about the cost of the referendum. He said that it will cost £5 million, less than one thirtieth of 1 per cent. of the entire Scottish Office budget. He said that they needed to lend a sense of perspective. My perspective is that it is £1 million more than the additional money that the Labour Government have found for investment in Scottish education in the coming year. They are spending more on the referendum than they are able to find to increase investment in Scottish education, which suggests that the concerns that we expressed about Scottish education during the election campaign will still be around when the referendum is long past.
  A referendum did not form any part of the constitutional convention's proposals. At one stage it was considered and rejected, but it did not appear in the final scheme. Looking at the origins of why the Labour party became attached to the referendum, it was always our concern that it had the wobbles over tax. I am not claiming that it was over the principle that a Scottish Parliament should have tax-varying powers, because I have no doubt about the commitment to that principle by members of the constitutional convention. However, in the two and a half years leading up to the general election, the word "tax" seemed to make the Labour party appear like a rabbit caught in headlights. It was a word to which the focus groups reacted badly. On this matter the trumpet sounded an uncertain note.
  The Labour party seemed to wobble in the face of the tax offensive by the former Secretary of State, Michael Forsyth, although it had no need to because we have seen the effectiveness of his tartan tax campaign. I suspect that, although Michael Forsyth was making no headway in Scotland, the Labour party strategists were alarmed that it

  749
  might rock middle England. It was plausible that the carefully structured strategy of not frightening the voters of middle England by not talking at all about tax could have been undermined by Tory spokesmen saying, "Look north of the border. Their proposals for tax varying"—although you can bet your life that the Tories would have talked about tax raising—"are the real Labour party proposals." The Labour party had to neutralise that and out of that came the two-question referendum. It was a policy born not of principle but of expediency. Perhaps in its campaigning strategy, it was for the Labour party a right expedient.
  The right hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Robertson) was quoted in Scotland on Sunday on 11 February 1996 as saying:
  "We have no proposals for a referendum because we want to legislate early and quickly for this outstanding commitment, and that is clear party policy."
  So clear that only months later it was changed.
  The story did not stop there. It was not only that on 27 June the policy was changed to a referendum with two questions. By late August, the Labour party had added not only a second question but a second referendum. The guiding hand of the then Member for Glasgow, Govan, hand in hand with the defeated Labour candidate in Edinburgh, West, Ms Lesley Hinds, managed to persuade Scotland's Labour executive into a double-lock mechanism, whereby a second referendum would be called by the Scottish Parliament before the tax-varying powers were ever used. That was such a significant event in the development of the Labour party's policy on a referendum that the now Prime Minister was moved to say:
  "I welcome the mature and sensible decision of the Scottish Executive Committee."
  So mature, so sensible that it was jettisoned less than seven days later. He went on to say:
  "what we've actually got now is a policy that is completely firm, as it has been all the way through."
  Just as former Tory Ministers shook in their shoes and looked over their shoulder when their position was described by Mrs. Thatcher as unassailable, so Ministers in the new Administration should watch out when their policy initiatives are described by the Prime Minister as mature and sensible.
  As convention partners, the Liberal Democrats in no way feel bound by Labour's tactical change. We believe that the establishment of a Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom represents—as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South said—the settled will of the Scottish people, and that a referendum is unnecessary. The convention comprised not only the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats but trade unions and representatives of Churches, local government, ethnic groups, women's groups and Gaelic culture groups in Scotland. It produced a clear consensus, which in many respects makes us different from Wales, where over the years there has not been the same popular consent. As has been pointed out, in the 1979 referendum, the provisions of the Wales Act 1978 won the support of only 20.3 per cent. of Welsh voters.
  The shadow Home Secretary said that support waned during the weeks leading up to the referendum in 1979. One of the reasons for that was perhaps that Conservatives in Scotland were told by no less an authority than Lord
  750
  Home that if they voted against the provisions of the Scotland Act 1978, they would get something better. He said that a Scottish Parliament without taxation powers would be a danger to the Union. It is important when one quotes history not to quote it selectively.
  In Scotland, we could readily concur with the proposition put by a senior Labour source in The Scotsman on 25 April last year that
  "a Scottish Parliament will be in the manifesto and the electorate can vote for it in the general election. That is all the mandate that is needed."
  Indeed, 65 out of Scotland's 72 Members of Parliament—I am not sure if one should include the hon. Member for Linlithgow, but 66 if one does—have endorsed the convention scheme. Even allowing, as the Secretary of State said, for the liberal on the corner of the road in Anniesland—I do not think that there are that many in Anniesland, to be honest—who voted Liberal Democrat because he did not like the Conservatives, and even allowing for those who must have voted for us for other good and valid reasons, 65 out of 72 Members of Parliament represents a considerable mandate.
  It is also important to remember that only 21 per cent. of the electorate voted for independence. Independence was a clear option. People may have voted Labour, Liberal Democrat or Conservative for a number of reasons—
  Mr. Salmond: It was 22 per cent.
  Mr. Wallace: Twenty-two per cent. voted for a single-issue party. I do not mean that in a demeaning way. The Scottish National party has a range of other policies, some of which we agree with, but it is a single-issue party. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) told people that if they wanted independence, they should vote SNP. They did not need to worry because the Labour party would make sure that there was not a Tory Government. England would deal with that and people could vote with head and heart for independence if they wanted. Twenty-two per cent. did so.
  Mr. Salmond: So, might the 13 per cent. who voted Liberal Democrat have been voting for federalism?
  Mr. Wallace: That might well be, or they might well have been voting along with the 45 per cent. who voted Labour and in favour of the Scottish Constitutional Convention scheme. It is nonsense to call for the option of independence on the referendum ballot paper. People had a clear option of independence on I May. The unequivocal option of independence was available in 72 Scottish constituencies on 1 May, and 78 per cent. of the Scottish people rejected it. When the full-time score is four to one, there is no case for extra time and no case for putting an independence option on the referendum ballot paper.
  A more serious objection to the Bill relates to the second question. It was Labour's concern about tax which prompted the whole exercise. My party does not shy away from the taxation issue. We believe that taxation responsibility is what establishes the link of accountability between those elected to the Scottish Parliament and those who elect them. During the election campaign, much play was made—the shadow Home Secretary did it again

  751
  today—of the Prime Minister's reference to an English parish council. I understood the Prime Minister to be saying that if an English parish council could have taxation powers, how much more compelling was the case for giving a Scottish Parliament such powers.
  Taxation powers are the powers that translate an assembly into a Parliament. If the Prime Minister believes that, why is he prepared to countenance the possibility of a Parliament without taxation powers—a possibility opened up by the two-question referendum? In Friday's debate, the Secretary of State for Scotland said:
  "it is odd that a directly elected Parliament with legislative powers should in some way not be trusted with the discipline and responsibility of financial powers, when such discipline and responsibility apply to every other tier of local and national Government. That is an odd non-sequitur."—[Officia/ Report, 16 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 279.]
  Yet I understood the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, the hon. Member for Central Fife (Mr. McLeish), to say at the weekend that in the event of a yes, no vote, the Government would legislate for such a non-sequitur Parliament.
  To avoid such a non-sequitur, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will seek to amend the Bill in Committee. We believe that we could consolidate the question so that the question of tax is not ducked. The question could be along the lines, "I agree/do not agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament with tax-varying powers." Even at this late stage, I ask the Secretary of State to consider such a proposition. It removes the possibility, however remote—I share his expectation that there would be a vote for taxation powers, but even the Minister of State has accepted the possibility that there might not be—of his having to face the prospect of introducing a Bill to establish a non-sequitur assembly with less power in one critical respect than an English parish council.
  I remind the House that, in moving the Government of Ireland Bill in 1912, the then Liberal Prime Minister Mr. Asquith said:
  "However well we may transact … our common and Imperial affairs, we must perpetually bungle and mismanage the affairs of each unit."—[Official Report, 9 May 1912; Vol. 38, c. 700.]
  We continue to bungle and mismanage the affairs of Scotland and Wales. The very fact that we have in one Bill a referendum provision for Scotland and for Wales, when there are different circumstances in each, shows an insensitivity all too typical of the House in dealing with Scottish and Welsh matters. We have already said that it is not unreasonable, given the different history of the issue in Scotland and Wales, that there might be different solutions for Scotland and Wales.
  As we cannot vote on our reasoned amendment, we shall carry forward our opposition to the principle of a Scottish referendum to the debate on clause 1 stand part in Committee. We shall seek to amend the second question in the way that I have outlined.
  If, however, we do not succeed in persuading the House of the wisdom of our views, there is no doubt, and let there be no doubt, that the Scottish Liberal Democrats will campaign for a yes, yes outcome in the referendum. At the end of the day, for Scotland the referendum Bill is merely a surmountable hurdle on the road to achieving in this Session a much greater prize—the home rule Parliament for which my party has campaigned for the better part of a century.
  5.49 pm
  Ms Rosemary McKenna: First, I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) on her excellent maiden speech. She certainly set a very high standard for the rest of the new Members for Scotland on the Labour Benches to match.
  I greatly appreciate being called to make my first speech in the debate on the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill. It is the start of the parliamentary route to a Scottish Parliament for which I campaigned for many years prior to the Scotland Act 1978 and have actively pursued ever since. Today also marks the beginning of the most exciting changes to the constitution in centuries.
  I want to begin by paying tribute to my predecessor, Norman Hogg, who was Member of Parliament for the constituency from 1979. He was considered an extremely diligent and respected parliamentarian in the constituency and in the House. I am certain that he will continue to contribute to public life in some way. He is an Aberdeen man and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South said, in the true tradition of Aberdeen people, he will be back at some time in the future.
  For me, the past two months have been incredibly hard work and something of a whirlwind; I was selected on 1 April and elected on 1 May. That success was due entirely to the hard work of my family and colleagues in the constituency and, of course, the Labour party manifesto on which I stood. It included a commitment to the Scottish Constitutional Convention scheme for a Scottish Parliament. It is a well-thought-out and carefully constructed scheme.
  When Norman Hogg was elected in 1979, I was the chair of the East Dunbartonshire constituency party of which Cumbernauld was a part. My hon. Friend, the newly elected Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), was the election agent when we won what was then the most marginal constituency in Britain—a three-way marginal. It is a great delight that my hon. Friend and I have been elected together to make up the 101 Labour women Members of Parliament.
  The House might be interested in an experience we had on our first day in London. With my hon. Friend the new Member for Ayr (Mrs. Osborne), we hailed a taxi and asked a London cabbie to take us to the House of Commons Members' entrance. Once we were settled, he said, "You the wives of MPs then?" That was the first lesson for that London cabbie and I think that there might be a few more lessons to be learnt, not only by everyone in the House, but in London.
  The sitting Member who was defeated in 1979 by Norman Hogg was none other than the current hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), who as Margaret Bain had won the seat with the slimmest of majorities-22, if I recall. She won it from the former Conservative Member, Mr. Barry Henderson. It was an incredibly hotly contested election. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Moray and Mr. Henderson, who were excellent former Members for the constituency. Of course, part of the constituency, Kilsyth and the surrounding areas, was ably represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). The redrawing of the boundaries meant that the constituency of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth was created. It has been as it is now since 1984 and the people have had the good sense to return consistently a Labour Member of Parliament.

  753
  The constituency is at a very vulnerable stage in its development. Cumbernauld is one of Scotland's highly successful new towns—some would argue it is the best. It is vital to Scotland's economy because of its ability to attract quality inward investors, who provide quality jobs not only for the people of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth and villagers of Banton, Croy and Queenzieburn, but for many others in the surrounding communities.
  The development corporation, on which I had the honour to represent the people of the town for about 12 years, has been wound up—in fact, my term of office terminated the day before I was selected as candidate for the constituency—which means that we can no longer enjoy special development status. I think that it is appropriate that, after 40 years, Cumbernauld is no longer considered a new town.
  The change came at the same time as the previous Government's botched reorganisation of local government. As a result, we were gerrymandered into Lanarkshire and not Dunbartonshire, our natural home. Hon. Members will recall that that was done solely in an attempt to create a Tory council in East Dunbartonshire. We all know that that try failed miserably, since there is not one Tory council in Scotland—a forerunner for the results on 1 May. It is quite clear, however, from the attitude of some Conservative Members that they have still not learnt any lessons from the people of Scotland.
  The people in my constituency are rightly concerned that we should continue the momentum of development, particularly in terms of high-quality employment, the quality of shopping provision and commercial development in the Cumbernauld and Kilsyth areas. I assure them that I will work tirelessly to meet their high expectations. I am certain that the Government's proposals will contribute significantly.
  A decision will be taken shortly on the route of the M80, the final link in the motorway network of central Scotland, which will join the M9 and the M876 to the north and the M73 and the M80 to the south. I made it clear throughout the election campaign that I believed that it would be of tremendous economic importance to the entire area if a bypass that achieved several aims, including retaining the existing road as a relief route in the event of an incident, was built—in effect, two roads for the price of one. The upgrading of the existing road would leave Cumbernauld, with a population of 50,000, as the only town between Glasgow and the far north of Scotland without a bypass. I will continue to have discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary with responsibility for transport about that.
  Many hon. Members have referred to the sporting achievements of their constituencies, particularly those of their football teams. My constituency has a superb record both at national and international level in many sports, including swimming, wrestling, gymnastics and the special Olympics to name but a few. The football team, Clyde, has still to gain some honours. Since it came to Cumbernauld it has made slow progress—some might say very slow progress.
  The Bill marks a milestone in the renewal of democracy in Britain. We have become the most centralised state in Europe. Politics have been discredited and politicians are regarded sceptically by our young people. Our young people voted for the Government, however, because we
  754
  offered them hope for the future not only about jobs, but through our promise to change the way in which the country is governed. We promised to return the decision-making process to the people, to involve them in the debate about the future direction of the country and to clean up politics.
  Over the past few years, I have spoken frequently to groups of young people in my role as president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. The one thing that really caught their interest was when I spoke about the proposals for a Scottish Parliament, particularly the form and nature of that Parliament: elected by a form of proportional representation, inclusive, consultative and with the commitment of the Scottish Labour party and the Scottish Liberal Democrats to field candidates on the basis of 50 per cent. women and 50 per cent. men. That is an important part of the proposals and one that we must never forget.
  Young people are put off by the yah-boo behaviour that we often witness in the House—particularly the other night from Opposition Members—but they are excited by the prospect of having a decision-making body that takes on board the views of the many. They are interested in new politics, and the referendums will begin to show them what that really means.
  Like many other hon. Members, I have been a member of the Scottish Constitutional Convention since the beginning and have sat on the executive all that time, representing Scottish local government. I am convinced that the Scottish people want a Parliament. They certainly voted massively for parties offering them a devolved Parliament, so I have no fears of asking them to endorse that view by referendum, which I am certain they will.
  I say to the people who say that we should have the independence option on the ballot paper that the time to vote for independence was on I May, when the people returned only six hon. Members with independence as their option, clearly rejecting that view. To the people who say that we do not need a referendum, I say, "Why not?" A yes, yes vote will give the Scotland Bill the democratic legitimacy to ensure its safe passage through both Houses of Parliament, which should not ignore the will of the people. This is about constitutional change and the people have the right to express their views. I believe that there will be a substantial yes, yes vote.
  I thank the House for listening with courtesy to my contribution and I hope to be involved in many debates in future.
  6.1 pm
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I congratulate the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Ms McKenna) on her admirable maiden speech. The House probably heard more of the charm and the taxi driver more of the tenacity, but we have enjoyed listening to her and I am sure that she will make many other fine speeches. May I add that it was also a great privilege to be present to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg)?
  The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth paid a particularly gracious and well-deserved tribute to her predecessor, Norman Hogg, a much respected former Member of the House. He was particularly appreciated for the firm impartiality that he displayed in the Chair.

  755
  He was one of the most senior members of the Chairmen's Panel and, in that role, had to preside over a number of Bills with which he did not, I am sure, entirely agree, but his impartiality was never in doubt and he will be much missed here. I hope that the hon. Lady will not take that amiss.
  It is important that Conservative Members take careful stock of what happened on l May. We have to recognise that, for the time being at least—I am convinced that it is only for the time being—we are an English rural and suburban party, in the main. There is, therefore, no point in spitting in the wind or in pretending that what has happened has not happened. We have to approach the Bill and the legislation that will follow with realism as well as determination.
  I do not begrudge the Labour party its sense of euphoria at its victory. That is entirely natural. We felt something of that in 1983 when we had a very large majority, but the seeds of our downfall were sown in that very large majority. The man who made the most sensible comments, Lord Pym, then Francis Pym, was promptly sacked for his pains. He warned of the dangers of arrogance. I hope that the Labour party, when it has got over its sense of euphoria, will not lapse into arrogance, because that will damage not only the Labour party, but this Parliament.
  I approach this Bill in, I hope, a spirit of realism, but as one who believes passionately in the United Kingdom. I have certain Scottish credentials. My family is Scottish in origin, and my wife is an Aberdonian. At the general election, my son had the great privilege of contesting the seat held by the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Mr. Graham). No young politician could have had a more gracious opponent than him, and I thank him for the courtesy that he showed my son during the election.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I met the hon. Gentleman's son on a couple of occasions and I found him to be pleasant company. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that his son has expressed a desire to stand for the Scottish Parliament on behalf of the Scottish Conservative party?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: It is a very unwise father who seeks to determine his son's career; all I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that my son is a realist, as I am. He believes, as I do, that there will be a Scottish Parliament and it would be entirely understandable if he aspired to be a Member of it. If that were his ambition, he would have my total support.
  As I say, I accept that there will be a Scottish Parliament, but I am a passionate believer in the United Kingdom and I beg the Under—Secretary of State for Scotland and all his ministerial colleagues to think carefully about the point that I raised in my intervention during the speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is all very well saying that only 22 per cent. of people voted for independence on 1 May. In a general election, there are a range of reasons why people cast their votes, and we all know that. The overriding case for any referendum is that there is a specific question before people and they vote on it. I agree strongly with the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), whom I am
  756
  privileged to call a friend, that it would be far more sensible to have this referendum after legislation, but I fear that we are not going to have that option and that is why I make the points that I do.
  We should give the people the opportunity to demonstrate their affirmation of the United Kingdom. I believe that at least 78 per cent. would do that, but I do not know. No hon. Member knows. If Scotland voted by a majority to be independent, of course it would become independent. That would be disastrous not just for the United Kingdom, but for Scotland. The United Kingdom is much greater than the sum of its parts. I was here and opposed the devolution legislation in the 1970s, and I have always opposed such legislation. Were the parties more evenly balanced now, I would be taking a different line because I would think that we could overturn the Bill. I know that we cannot in this Parliament. I have to be a realist, so I want to try to ensure that the Scottish Parliament does not lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom.
  I take my example from a wise old Conservative whom I got to know when I first came into the House, the late Sir Derek Walker-Smith, who became Lord Broxbourne. He fought with passionate intensity the legislation that took Britain into what was then the Common Market, but the moment the decision was taken, he became one of the first Members of the delegated European Parliament. He said that he was going to try to prevent what he had forecast coming to pass. He made a significant contribution as chairman of one of the legislative Committees of that Parliament and was entirely positive in his approach. I would like to emulate that approach now. If we are to ensure that the Parliament does not become a fragmentary influence and lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom, we shall have a much better chance of success if in the referendum there has been a conclusive affirmation of belief in the United Kingdom by the people of Scotland.
  I therefore beg Ministers to think carefully about the inclusion of a third question. I know that I would have the support of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), but for different reasons. He would be campaigning vigorously to try to increase the independence vote—that is an entirely fair and proper thing to do in a democratic debate—while we would be campaigning with vigour and, I hope, clarity to demonstrate the true advantages of the United Kingdom.
  I must not stray into the subject of last Friday's debate. We are dealing now with a specific issue and a specific Bill. Sadly, I could not take part in Friday's debate because I was at the funeral of our late colleague, Michael Shersby. Had I taken part in it, I would have developed my arguments in detail.
  Suffice it to say that I implore Ministers and all supporters of the Government to think again about the adamant refusal to include a third question. Let us face the reality; let the Scottish people make their decision and show how strongly they believe in the United Kingdom. If they do that with an affirmative answer to that question, which I believe should probably be the first question but which, with equal logic, could be the third, I do not believe that the establishment of a Scottish Parliament need necessarily lead to what many of us previously forecast. I should then be happier if a member of my family became a Member of it.
  6.11 pm
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) and for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Ms McKenna) on excellent maiden speeches. The fact that they have both been schoolteachers is a testament to the ability of teachers to make themselves heard. Certainly, the ability to project one's voice to the back of the room will be a great advantage. I look forward to hearing them bring to other debates experience which, as they said, was of no small assistance to them in describing the problems of their constituencies and the challenges that lie ahead.
  I should particularly like to record our respect and support for my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South. The nature of the difficulties of adjusting to this place will be greater for her, but it is important that she, like the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), will be blazing a trail for people with disabilities and those who have been denied access to too many opportunities. By coming here and making a clear statement about the inclusive character of this Parliament, she will help all those concerned with people who have disabilities. Her speech and her positive approach are examples to us all.
  I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Dewar) on his appointment as Secretary of State for Scotland. His long acquaintance and association with the cause of devolution is of great assistance in hammering home this case. It is clear that, no matter what the Government do, they will be accused of backsliding on devolution. One could say that we should have passed the Bill before Whit, that we could have delayed the Whit recess and spent the week here. Perhaps then the scribblers at The Scotsman, or at least the scribblers in its letters column, would have been silenced.
  The Bill is, however, the first legislative proposal since the general election, which shows the high priority given to what I hope will be a long-term programme of decentralisation in the United Kingdom. It certainly gives the lie to the notion that, without a large separatist vote, there would be no guarantee that the legislation would be brought forward.
  There was not a large separatist vote. I use the word "separatist", because I do not think it is right for any particular party to claim ownership or copyright of the word "nationalist". When we are dealing with legislation of this character, we draw a distinction between devolution and separatism. For the purpose of today's debate at least, I shall refer to such people as separatists or secessionists.
  The Labour party had a difficult time last summer at the time of the initial decision—or perhaps we should say "instruction"—to have a referendum. I remember many of my colleagues being extremely concerned about it. I felt that there was a case for a pre-legislative referendum. I remember discussing it with Bruce Milian, the former Secretary of State, after the 1979 general election. He felt that the obstructionism and so many of the difficulties placed in the way of the devolution proposals at that time could have been avoided had there been a clear expression by the Scottish people during the early stages.
  It is disingenuous of people to say that they do not know what the proposals are. Frankly, the proposals have been around for a long time. I happen to believe that the
  758
  work of the Scottish Constitutional Convention has brought the proposals to the Scottish people, who are now being given the chance to pass judgment on them as much as on anything else. When people read the White Paper, they will see that it closely shadows the convention's proposals. My first point, therefore, is that a pre-legislative referendum will assist our handling of the matter.
  Secondly, let us consider the question of the Parliament's tax-varying powers. We were told by the former right hon. Member for Stirling that the Scottish people considered tax-raising powers an anathema. When the Secretary of State of the day raises a question of that character with the rigour and force that he did, it is only reasonable that, if we are to have a referendum, we say that the two questions—the principle of the establishment of a Parliament and the question of its tax-varying powers—should be considered together.
  If any part of this country is to be governed by a different set of arrangements, it is only reasonable that the people who are to be most directly affected should have the opportunity to speak and be consulted. Before the constitutional changes are made, it is advisable that, after due debate, the people should be allowed the final say on the principle.
  That is now becoming the consensus when we consider matters relating to what might come out of the intergovernmental conference and developments in the European Union. It will certainly reinforce the hand of the legislators if support for a Parliament is substantial. It has to be said that it will give some power to the elbow of those who oppose it if the majority is small. Nevertheless, the principle is that, before constitutional change is effected, the people should have the right of veto.
  The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) spent some time on the issue of a third question, on the establishment of a separate Scottish state. There seem to be two sets of arguments in favour of that proposal. The first is that, because the subject under consideration is a Scottish Government, all options should be offered to the people. Such an argument is usually made by separatists, and it is an understandable ploy.
  Separatists know that, if they are to separate from the United Kingdom, they will first have to secure a majority of Scottish seats in the House. Although only time will tell, I should think that it would be easier to secure a majority of the Scottish seats than it would be to win a majority of Scottish votes. The United Kingdom does not have proportional representation, and constitutional change will occur if a majority of hon. Members is in favour of it. After such a majority, as I said, it would be desirable to hold a referendum.
  If we included a third question in the referendum, however, we would be giving the nationalists what they want, without their having to secure the necessary electoral support in a general election. Therefore, I do not think that anything would be achieved by allowing separatists to include such a question, because—as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said—ultimately that third question was the only distinctive offer that they made to the Scottish people.
  At the general election, the only difference between the agendas, manifestos and wish lists of the separatists and those of the other Scottish parties was their promise that,

  759
  if they won a majority of parliamentary seats, they would hold a referendum to determine whether a majority is in favour of Scotland separating from the United Kingdom.
  I do not believe that we should hold a referendum only to show the weakness of the nationalists' case—after which, presumably, they will go away. Those who want a separate Scottish state will be in the House as long as there are politics in the United Kingdom, and it is nonsense to think that they would be obliterated by a referendum. There will always be a place in Scottish politics for the greeting tendency and a last home for the disaffected and alienated, and they will probably find that home within the ranks of the separatist party.
  We should realise that the separatists' fortunes will rise and fall. Labour Members should ensure that the proposals for a tax-varying Scottish Parliament are coherently presented to the people in the September 1997 referendum.
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution is on the Treasury Bench. He may wish to investigate a statement that votes will be counted on the Scottish local government level. The last time that votes were counted on a local authority level—the example that was provided—was by using the upper-tier authorities. There are now, however, about 50 authorities. Would it not be simpler to count votes on the basis of Scottish parliamentary constituencies, which is the usual system for ballots of national significance?
  We are debating a great constitutional experiment, which has an element of risk. Labour Members are, however, confident that we will win. Nevertheless, some—such as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—will, as ever, work quietly and effectively to try to secure a "no" vote in the referendum. There may be some risk, but there is risk in any great political experiment. I think that we will be successful in securing two "yes" responses to the questions.
  Although I may be wrong, I think that establishing a Parliament in Scotland is more certain than establishing an Assembly in Wales. The decentralisation debate in Wales seems to be much less advanced than it is in Scotland.
  Mr. Dalyell: For reasons that I gave in Friday's debate, I make it clear that my personal vote on the second question would be yes.
  Mr. O'Neill: Yes; and I think that my hon. Friend would not be wildly enthusiastic about the first question. Given his ability to campaign and to make his political presence felt, despite the loneliness of the cause that he might be pursuing, I suspect that we may cross swords, as we have done on other issues. Nevertheless, I do not think that that will affect our friendship, which has lasted the best part of 30 years.
  The establishment of a Scottish Parliament will strengthen the Union, and show that it is possible to change our constitutional arrangements. It will also show other parts of the United Kingdom that it is possible to institute some form of decentralisation, and that decentralisation will not necessarily take the same form in every part of the United Kingdom.
  760
  The decentralisation process will demonstrate that some decentralisation will be available to the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, and it will create a dynamism that will establish a more credible democracy and a more accountable system of government and administration. It is very exciting that, in the early days of the new Government, we have an opportunity to speed that process on its way.
  6.25 pm
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to make my maiden speech. It is a daunting prospect, not least because I follow the exemplary and entertaining speeches of the hon. Members for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) and for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Ms McKenna).
  I am more than happy to pay the warmest tribute to my predecessor, Sir Anthony Grant, who was the hon. Member for South-West Cambridgeshire. Hon. Members will be aware of his distinguished 33-year record of service to the House, where he served as both a Front Bencher and a Back Bencher. He piloted through the House private Member's legislation, such as-most recently, in the 1996–97 Session—the Treasure Act 1996.
  Today—which is the day of elections to the 1922 Committee executive—is an apt moment for Conservative Members to recall with affection Sir Anthony's wit, wisdom and many years of service on that executive. The House will not be surprised to hear that he was held in equally high regard and affection within his constituency, because of the prompt, courteous and effective way in which he dealt with constituents of all political views.
  As one of my predecessors said, Cambridgeshire is "a county of villages". South Cambridgeshire is a most beautiful part of a most beautiful county. The southern part of Cambridge city and the countryside around it, which I have the honour to represent, combines natural beauty with economic and intellectual dynamism. It is a working countryside with a thriving agricultural sector, yet many new and innovative companies and industrial firms are finding a home there. It is overwhelmingly a small business economy, which is why, in the past five years, unemployment in South Cambridgeshire has been halved.
  The proximity of Cambridge—as a centre for employment, based on scientific and technological advances—combines with a relatively unspoilt character to make South Cambridgeshire a magnet for new development. It is therefore no wonder that South Cambridgeshire is the fastest growing district in England, especially when one considers the opportunities of living in such beautiful villages as Grantchester, Orwell, Duxford and Dry Drayton. I could continue that list—perhaps I should, because other villages may be jealous—but I will spare the House a list of the many beautiful villages in South Cambridgeshire. They occupy, however, a position both geographically and economically advantageous.
  I look forward to participating in many debates in the House, and I will do so on the basis of experiences from within a constituency that, in its understanding and its experience, has so much to offer.
  In science, we have at Hinxton the human genome project which will lead to the largest genetic sequencing laboratory in Europe—indeed the world. In health,

  761
  in Addenbrooke's and Papworth hospitals we have two of the leading hospitals in the world. In agriculture, we have the plant breeding institute, which is the source of the well-known Maris plant varieties. In education, we have not only the colleges of Cambridge university, but two of the leading further education colleges.
  It is a great honour to represent a constituency in which is blended the best of what is new—in science, in industry, in health and in education—with the best of our inheritance in environment and in history. Cambridgeshire, as Rupert Brooke wrote, is
  "the shire for Men who Understand"—
  and, I should add promptly, for women too.
  I speak in this debate only too aware of the inheritance given to us in our United Kingdom. Most of us are, in a personal sense as well as in a constitutional and historical sense, products of the Union. For nearly three centuries, this House has been the representative institution of the people of Scotland just as much as of the people of England. We are intermingled, in history and in nationality. I am the grandson of Scots as well as of English. My inheritance is bound up with the Union, and I have every right to defend it.
  It is ironic that the Government's first legislative initiative is to introduce proposals that, essentially, are those on which their predecessors foundered in 1979. I submit that the Bill is flawed, for several reasons. The House is being asked to approve or disapprove a popular vote on a major constitutional change before it has been given an opportunity to see the character of the proposals in detail.
  The details within the proposals are likely to be deeply significant. Which powers are proposed to be transferred, and with what expenditure and tax revenues? What are the implications of two fiscal regimes within one economy, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) asked? What would be the mechanisms for resolving conflicts between the Westminster Parliament and a Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly?
  We do not know in detail the character of the proposals; nor do we know whether those issues will be fully clarified before a referendum is held. Unfortunately, it would be only too characteristic of the Labour party to wish to proceed on the basis of generalities, without regard to all the practical issues.
  I contend that it would also be wrong to proceed to a referendum on the basis of a White Paper alone. White Papers are proposals, but they are subject to many changes. I have had experience of writing White Papers, and I would never have been so rash as to assume that they would represent the last word, still less to seek to subject them to a popular vote before they had even been fully debated in the House.
  That point brings me to a flaw that goes to the heart of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to seek to legitimise the Government's proposals in advance of their presentation to the House. Such a referendum is a constitutional aberration. As Mrs. Thatcher said, nothing should be permitted under our constitution which conflicts with the principle of the sovereignty of Parliament. I suspect, however, that the Government will argue that a referendum would be a mandate for legislation. That is wholly wrong. If the Government wish to legitimise
  762
  constitutional change through a referendum—and there is a perfectly good case for doing so—it should be post-legislative, and not prior to legislation.
  In 1975, the previous Labour Government undertook a referendum. The then Leader of the House admitted that the purpose of the referendum was to determine the policy of the Government, as
  "Parliament, of course, cannot be bound by it."-[Official Report, 11 March 1975; Vol. 888, c. 293.]
  Is this proposed referendum, therefore, equally nothing but a device to decide Government policy? On the issue of a tax-varying power, perhaps it is, but the Government pretend otherwise, as they insist that all their Members must campaign for a "yes" vote. Ominously, the Secretary of State for Scotland is already talking of a final decision by the people, before the Bill has gone through the House. It is an unconstitutional pretence that a final decision can be made on an issue of such constitutional importance before the devolution proposals have even been presented to the House, let alone have passed into legislation.
  The flaws in the Bill are many, given that it is a Bill of relative simplicity. Its simplicity belies its significance or the impact of its failings.
  The Bill fails to offer a vote to the people of England on an issue of great constitutional importance for the continuation and structure of the Union. It fails to provide for a vote for the many Scots and Welsh who have a legitimate interest in the future of their countries and of the Union, but who live in England and are not resident in Scotland or Wales. It provides no safeguard to ensure that the vote in the referendum would represent a sufficient majority of those eligible to vote. The Secretary of State for Scotland appealed on one occasion earlier in the debate to the precedent of 1979—unwisely from his point of view, I suspect, as that precedent would act against him.
  We are therefore left with the proposition that a minority of the potential electorate in only two out of four parts of the Union may be invited to decide the future of the Union, without regard to the people of England or to the many Scots and Welsh people living in England. That would be deeply resented by those so excluded.
  The people of South Cambridgeshire will not be indifferent to an outcome in which they are to be ruled by laws made by Scots and Welsh representatives, while their own representatives have no say over the same laws in Scotland and Wales. They will resent the introduction of a referendum as an apparent attempt to bind Parliament, and as a device that should be alien to our constitution.
  We have heard much from Labour Members of their mandate. I fear that we shall hear them stretch the issue of a mandate beyond breaking point as a concept. They have already applied it to decisions going beyond the terms of their manifesto. They will no doubt apply it to their devolution proposals, on which so many questions were and are still to be resolved.
  I, too, come to this House with a mandate. I am pledged to oppose the breaking up of the United Kingdom. I am pledged to defend the sovereignty of Parliament, and not see it surrendered or undermined. Most of all, I am pledged to serve the interests of my constituency to the best of my ability and judgment. It is a privilege to represent South Cambridgeshire in this House and to follow Sir Anthony Grant, whose example has always

  763
  been one of service and dignity. In defence of our constitution, therefore, I urge the House to support the amendment in the names of my right hon. Friends.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: It is a privilege to follow and to congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who was making his maiden speech. It was also a privilege to listen to his very reasoned argument. If he makes such reasoned arguments in future, the House will, I am sure, listen to him with great diligence. I knew his predecessor quite well. I shared almost 30 of the 33 years he spent in the House, so I understand and appreciate the compliments his successor paid him. I offer the hon. Gentleman best wishes.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Ms McKenna) and for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) made wonderful maiden speeches. I am glad that the electorate of Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney do not have the habits of the electorate of Aberdeen, South. I am only the fourth Member to represent Merthyr Tydfil since 1900, and only the third to represent Rhymney since 1929. We have a sense of political longevity, so it has been hard to present myself as new Labour.
  It was even harder when, during the election of the Speaker, I sat next to a new Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies), who rather unkindly reminded me that the last time we met was when I presented him with his investiture mug in 1968 at Birchgrove junior school in Cardiff. It made me feel that I would have some difficulty presenting myself as new Labour.
  Listening to the speeches and the many references to constituencies prompted me to think about those who have represented my constituency. Of the four representatives for Merthyr whom I mentioned, two—Kier Hardie and S. 0. Davies—were strong supporters of some form of home rule. My predecessors in Rhymney offer an interesting diversity. The first was Aneurin Bevan—the scourge of any form of devolution or any suggestion that anything but the United Kingdom Parliament mattered. He was followed by Michael Foot, who was a passionate supporter of devolution.
  We all share a feeling of the importance and power of this House of Commons. I would not support measures that damaged the integrity of the United Kingdom. I am not a separatist, and I shall not vote for anything that looks like separatism. The separatist vote in my constituency was minimal at the election. I do not come to the House to support any proposal that could lead to the break-up of the integrity of the United Kingdom or the United Kingdom Parliament.
  I very much support the referendum. It is odd—we have to admit this among ourselves—that the Labour party, when in opposition, arrived at the decision to have a referendum in such a convoluted way, but a referendum is desirable and essential for Wales.
  It has been fashionable in some quarters in Wales to deride the proposed Assembly as a feeble institution. It is certainly not true that, because it will not have tax-raising and legislative powers, it will not be an important constitutional change. It is a change of enormous
  764
  significance, and we would be foolish to pretend otherwise. A proposal that will transform the character of the civil service in Wales cannot be seen as a minor constitutional step. It is a serious step.
  I had the privilege of serving as a Minister in the Welsh Office. The civil service that has developed since the establishment of the Welsh Office and the appointment of a Secretary of State for Wales in 1964 was designed to serve Westminster, Whitehall and Cabinet government. The new proposals are that the Welsh civil service will serve a different body, with the open system of decision making that I assume will characterise the Welsh Assembly. That is an area of profound change and significance.
  Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. He has great experience of the civil service. What is his judgment about the civil service having two masters—in our case, one in Edinburgh and one in London?
  Mr. Rowlands: It will be very important to make it absolutely clear in the detailed legislation where responsibilities lie and who will be responsible to whom. If not, the system will fail. As a veteran of the 1970s legislation, I assure my hon. Friend that—if I understand the speech made on Friday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales—it will be clear that the Welsh Office civil service will be answerable directly to a Welsh Assembly. That will be a profound change. It is not a minor administrative decision. We must be frank that, if we set up a directly elected Assembly in Wales, there will be competition between Westminster Members and Assembly men and women. It would be very strange if that did not happen.
  The change is not one of minor practicalities, even leaving aside the question of the roles of the Secretary of State and of Westminster Members of Parliament. It is important to clarify whether the questions that we are now entitled to debate will be disallowed in this House as infringing the responsibilities and powers of the Welsh Assembly if certain functions are transferred.
  I use those illustrations to show that the establishment of a Welsh Assembly is not a minor step. It is not a modest step forward—it is a change of considerable constitutional and political significance, which requires the consent of the Welsh people.
  The second reason why I believe in a referendum is that, until now, that consent has been withheld—and not just in the 1979 referendum. One interesting feature emerges when we make a historical assessment of the debates in the 1950s and 1960s, as I have done. A gulf grew up between what are now called the chattering classes—I belong to those chattering classes, but I think that that pejorative description is a good one—who have promoted the case for a Welsh Assembly for 30 or 40 years and the large silent majority, who have shown considerable scepticism about the issue. We would be foolish to forget that gulf.
  I was a member of the Welsh parliamentary Labour party in the 1960s and was among those arguing for a Welsh Parliament or Assembly—an elected body of some kind for all Wales. I was slightly contemptuous of those whom we saw as the old guard—lori Thomas, Elfed Davies and the Monmouthshire mining Members—who

  765
  bitterly opposed the commitment of the Labour party in Wales to any form of devolution. I have to confess, on reflection, that they were in closer touch with grass-roots party opinion, and probably with Welsh public opinion, than the likes of me. It is salutary for us to remember that. The consent of the Welsh electorate is all the more necessary, making the case for a referendum even stronger.
  I share some of the reservations expressed about the process that we have adopted. I hope that this is not a nit-picking parliamentary point, but I am a passionate believer in this place—that is why I have spent so much time fighting to get here and stay here—and I find it strange to bring forward a Bill with a reference in the schedules to Government proposals that we have not seen. There is no White Paper. Before all the stages of the Bill are completed, we must have that White Paper. In parliamentary terms, it would be better for us to have the detailed proposals alongside the Bill.
  I have supported two referendums in my parliamentary lifetime. The Referendum Act 1975 was explicit, referring specifically to proposals already laid before the House in the White Paper and the renegotiated settlement on the European Community. In 1979, an Act of Parliament was submitted to the electorate, so it was again clear what we were deciding to have a referendum on. I understand that, for a variety of reasons, my right hon. and hon. Friends have chosen a different process, but before all the stages of the Bill are completed, we should see the White Paper.
  I shall not oppose the Bill, but I find it necessary to set out my reservations. By choosing pre-referendum rather than post-referendum legislation, we may create difficulties for some of our colleagues. As the Bill will allow counting, and presumably totals, on a county or borough basis, some hon. Members representing Wales and possibly Scotland may find that the verdict of their electorate is contrary to their personal view. They are interesting dilemmas, but they may create problems, as some of our colleagues may support the legislation in the House and then find that their constituents are not so keen on it.
  Mr. Salmond: That is an interesting scenario. Of course, it could apply to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). As the hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member, how would he expect his hon. Friend to move under these circumstances?
  Mr. Rowlands: My knowledge of my hon. Friend is so considerable that I would not attempt to speak for him. I am sure that he will explain his position clearly.
  Mr. Dalyell: The House will forgive me if I display a little curiosity as to how my constituent, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), the leader of the Scottish National party, will vote.
  Mr. Rowlands: I am sure that all will be revealed.
  Having chosen the order in which the process is to be conducted, some hon. Members will face a dilemma of Burkean proportions in their approach to the legislation.
  I support the Bill, because I support the referendum. I am one of that small, dwindling, enthusiastic band who voted for the devolution proposals in the House in 1978 and voted in the subsequent referendum. It was a painful
  766
  process for me, as someone who has now achieved 77 per cent. of the vote in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, to find myself so overwhelmingly in a minority in 1978.
  I would support devolution proposals for Wales of the kind that were introduced in the 1978 Bill. However, I await the Government's detailed proposals with great fascination and interest. Clearly, in some respects they will be different from those introduced in 1978. I shall exercise the same right to say yes or no as, I am glad to say, the House will give my constituents.
  6.52 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) mentioned Keir Hardie. It was Keir Hardie who said in 1885 that a Scottish Parliament was "just round the corner". It has been some time coming, but we hope that progress is on its way.
  We have heard some good and interesting maiden speeches this evening, to which I shall briefly refer. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) made a most effective maiden speech. Although he is new to the House, he is clearly not new to the political process. Indeed, he said that he had written some White Papers. I had an overwhelming temptation to ask him which ones. That would have been totally out of order, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, but I am sure that we can look forward to hearing many more speeches from him in the course of our proceedings.
  I do not know South Cambridgeshire nearly as well as the hon. Gentleman does, but he will forgive me if I am tempted to say that I am not absolutely certain that the pikes will come out of the thatch in Cambridgeshire to resist these constitutional proposals. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will prove me wrong.
  The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Ms McKenna) made an equally effective speech. She comes to the House with a formidable reputation in Scottish local government, but nowhere in her curriculum vitae did she say that she did impressions of London taxi drivers. She revealed an entirely new facet of her character this evening.
  The hon. Lady made a most gracious maiden speech. I am sure that she will argue with as much determination for increased funding for Scottish local government inside the House as she did outside it. She paid a well-meant tribute to her immediate predecessor, Norman Hogg, a man with whom I disagreed on just about everything except that we should conduct our differences with good humour. She also referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). If the hon. Lady conducts herself in the House in the same way as the two hon. Members to whom she referred, she will add a great deal to our proceedings.
  We also heard a remarkable maiden speech from the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg). Maiden speeches that combine humour, constituency knowledge and a touch of controversy are by far the best, and the hon. Lady's speech did just that. She said that Aberdeen, her native city, had won Britain in Bloom as many times as Ireland had won the Eurovision song contest. She also displayed a great knowledge of her constituency.
  The hon. Lady referred to her very many predecessors in controversial and humorous terms. She said that the Secretary of State for Scotland was responsible for

  767
  starting the instability in Aberdeen, South, and perhaps more, who knows? She mentioned lain Sproat. During the previous Parliament, kin and I were told by a genealogist in the south-west of Scotland that we were remote relatives. I do not know which of us was more alarmed—however, he was one of the more effective Ministers in the previous Government.
  The hon. Lady also mentioned Gerry Malone. The hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) will be interested to know that a couple of days ago, a senior Conservative told me that a friend of his and his wife had been anxiously pondering over whether to vote for Gerry Malone in his constituency or against the Scottish National party in Inverness. They finally decided to cast their votes against the Scottish National party and not to vote for Gerry Malone, who lost by two votes.
  The hon. Lady also said that Raymond Robertson was extremely polite to her in defeat. The fact that she mentioned politeness and Raymond Robertson together is a great testimony to her diplomacy, and I am sure that she will bring that characteristic to our debates. She made a splendid and remarkable maiden speech and we all look forward to hearing many more such contributions.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland made a graceful opening speech. I was particularly impressed by the way in which he repelled the last-ditchers in the Conservative party one by one and helped them dig themselves in deeper as they intervened.
  I should mention that after a forceful start, there are now only four Members on the Conservative Benches defending the essential unity of the United Kingdom. I understand that considerably more of them are voting for the new 1922 Committee. That demonstrates that internal warfare is now more important to the Conservative party than the future of the United Kingdom.
  None the less, the Secretary of State for Scotland was extremely deft in the way in which he repelled Conservative Members' attacks. He made the point that he had a record on devolution stretching back to the 1950s. Some of his ministerial team have track records stretching back to the 1970s—on the other side. We shall see how that is played out during the passage of the Bill.
  I was rather alarmed by the Secretary of State's revelation that the Bill gives 123 Scottish peers the right to vote in a referendum. I had not noticed that aspect. It could be interpreted as a rather underhand attempt to get the support of the former leader of the Liberal Democrat party, who is soon to be ennobled and no doubt is anxious to have his say in the referendum vote.
  The Conservatives' response to the legislation showed that they had learnt very little from the election campaign. Indeed, the speeches seemed to pick up very little—even from the recent Scottish debate. They were very much a statement of the positions that we have heard for far too long in the House and elsewhere.
  I was somewhat relieved that at least the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), did not go down the road of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who I see is back on the Front Bench. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the argument for a special
  768
  blocking mechanism, a threshold, a 40 per cent. rule, or a 50 per cent. rule, as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has suggested, is one of the most offensive arguments and anti-democratic notions that could disgrace the House. To argue that for Scotland and Wales while simultaneously not being prepared to say that it would apply to a referendum on Europe is most insulting behaviour to the people of Scotland and Wales, and in large measure explains the Conservative party's reduced position in both those nations.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: It has not reduced, it has disappeared.
  Mr. Salmond: I was being polite. This is my latest phase, as hon. Members will recognise. I shall move out of that phase to turn to what I think about the Bill.
  There is an inconsistency at the very heart of the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill. Two legitimate positions can be adopted in looking for consent from the people. The first is to say that the general election provides the mandate and thereby the authority for the Government to proceed with their programme—or, indeed, for a political party to proceed with its ideas.
  If the new Labour party had taken such a course and said that it had won a considerable victory and therefore had the majority to go forward with its legislative programme, I do not think that anyone could reasonably have gainsaid that as a substantial mandate for applying its ideas on the constitution. At a later stage, depending on the judgment, degree of controversy and the number of changes made to the proposed legislation, it might be appropriate to subject that mandate to a post-legislative referendum, as in the 1970s. That is one way of addressing legitimacy, mandates and consent, and it is consistent.
  The second position is to say that the general election did not produce a mandate on the proposals, there is some uncertainty, many other issues clouded the general election environment and the issue was not finally settled. That is the course to be taken by the Government, as explained by the Secretary of State. There is therefore no substantial or democratic argument for excluding the option of independence from the ballot paper. The option of independence is supported by many people in Scotland. We have been through the argument in democratic terms many times, when Governments have either refused to consult the people of Scotland or said that the people of Scotland did not have a decisive view one way or the other.
  The Secretary of State was kind enough to say in his opening remarks that my cuttings file was more extensive than his. I suspect that it is not that my file is more extensive, but that we keep different quotations. I have kept a number of quotations about the Secretary of State and his previous support for a multi-option referendum.
  On 13 April 1992, The Daily Telegraph reported that the Secretary of State, then the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden, said:
  "the party's 49 Scottish MPs would campaign"—
  I assume that he was committing the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) to such a campaign at that stage—
  "for a multi-option referendum on the country's political future, something which had been endorsed at the meeting of all Scottish Labour MPs."

  769
  In a speech to the Scottish Trades Union Congress in Dundee, the Secretary of State repeated that call. The Scotsman reported:
  "Calling for the democratic case for a referendum to be shouted from the rooftops, Mr. Dewar said that the Government should not take refuge in a rigged referendum on proposals which did no more than tinker with the present problem."
  After the 1992 election, in which, incidentally, the Scottish National party got fewer votes and won fewer seats than it has now, such a view was widely shared across the parliamentary Labour party. The late John Smith said in the Daily Record in July 1992:
  "The Labour Party must keep the Scottish issue at the centre of the political stage. That's why we are campaigning for a multi-option referendum."
  The Scottish TUC supported the argument for a multi-option referendum. A new political grouping, Scotland United, was formed, which argued forcefully for and mobilised opinion on the case for a multi-option referendum. Indeed, Scotland United's campaigning document, "What Price Democracy?", noted:
  "one of the big problems with the 1979 referendum was the absence from the ballot paper of the independence option, which meant that a significant section of the Scottish population was denied the opportunity to vote for their preferred option."
  Such a democratic viewpoint was well reflected in early-day motions such as one tabled by William McKelvey, the then hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, on 8 December 1992. The option to hold a multi-option referendum on the governance of Scotland was supported by 26 hon. Members across the parliamentary Labour party—many of whom have been present in this debate. One amendment to the early-day motion was tabled by David Shaw, the then hon. Member for Dover, who managed to introduce the subject of Monklands district council into the issue of a multi-option referendum, but managed to acquire only one signature, his own.
  The argument for a multi-option referendum was widely supported because it was felt to be fair that a proper test of opinion, if a test of opinion were required, should reflect the three major constitutional options that were on offer to the Scottish people.
  Hon. Members may not be aware that there are a number of constitutional precedents on the question of a multi-option referendum, including those set by the House of Commons. In Newfoundland in the late 1940s, for example, a constitutional convention met. It decided that only two options for its constitutional future should be presented to the people of Newfoundland. However, the Attlee Privy Council—the Privy Council of a Labour Government with a landslide majority—decided that that would not be fair. In their response to the Newfoundland constitutional convention, the Government stated:
  "The Government have come to a conclusion that it would not be right that the people of Newfoundland should be deprived of an opportunity of considering the issue, and they have, therefore, decided that confederation with Canada should be included as a third choice on the referendum paper".
  The option of confederation with Canada eventually came top of the referendum, even if the majority in favour was less than the majority in favour of devolution in the 1979 referendum in Scotland.
  Both in terms of previous support for the democratic option of allowing people in Scotland the free choice between independence, devolution and the status quo,
  770
  and in terms of precedents and proceedings in the House, there is substantial support for the idea that a multi-option referendum is not just feasible but desirable when there are distinct blocs of support for constitutional options.
  I have heard the Conservative party in Scotland say that it was greatly encouraged during the general election campaign by an opinion poll that showed that support for the status quo in Scotland had reached 30 per cent. That point has been made many times as the Conservative party ranks have delved over the entrails of electoral carnage. They have said, "Well, there is still hope because support for the status quo reached 30 per cent. in an ICM poll." ICM is a reputable polling organisation, although I should mention that it was the same polling organisation that gave Labour a 5 per cent. lead across the United Kingdom during the election campaign. None the less, the poll indicated that there was a bloc of support for the status quo.
  I would be encouraged by a poll on the referendum in The Sunday Times, which showed that the number of those preferring independence and of those preferring devolution was tied at 35 per cent. I would argue that most polling on the independence question has shown such a level of support over recent years. The essential truth is that I do not know, and no one in the House basically knows, what the preferred option of the Scottish people would be after a referendum campaign offering all the constitutional options. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) shakes her head, which is interesting. Some results of opinion polls are consistent. For example, no opinion poll in recent years in Scotland that has laid out the three constitutional options has shown a majority in favour of devolution.
  Ms Rachel Squire: The people of Scotland have just had a referendum that gave them the three options of the status quo, devolution or independence. It was called a general election, it was held on 1 May and a majority of the Scottish people voted for devolution.
  Mr. Salmond: Then why are we having another referendum? The hon. Lady says that the general election gave a mandate. If the general election gave a mandate, Labour should go ahead and legislate for its devolution proposal. If the general election did not provide a mandate and the Labour party wishes to consult the people, it should consult the people democratically on the major constitutional options that are available. The hon. Lady and the new Labour Government cannot have the argument both ways. Given that the Government have chosen to go through the consultation process, it is an early blot on their record not to make the democratic choice available to the Scottish people. I suspect that Ministers in their quieter moments, even in the midst of their euphoria, know that to be true.
  The Government's proposals have not been furnished for this debate, and one of the few reasonable points that have been made by Conservatives today is that the Bill mentions Government proposals that have yet to be published. I await the White Paper with interest. I hope that it is constructive and that it will be published soon. I was encouraged by the remarks of the Secretary of State for Scotland when he referred to the Claim of Right. He was a signatory and co-author of that document as the leader of the Labour party in Scotland.

  771
  Hon. Members will remember that the Claim of Right referred to the
  "sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine a form of Government best suited to their needs."
  It did not suggest that
  "sovereignty resides with English Members of Parliament and that's the way it will stay."
  There is an essential difference between those two attitudes to sovereignty, and I was encouraged because the Secretary of State seemed to indicate that he was staying true to the Claim of Right. If that is the case in the White Paper, and if it does not obstruct democracy, the Scottish National party will not obstruct the White Paper.
  7.12 pm
  Mr. David Stewart: It is with a mixture of trepidation and awe that I prepare to make my maiden speech this evening. I thank hon. Members and officials for their help in the past few weeks. I also add my congratulations on the three contributions from the other hon. Members who have made maiden speeches. They are a hard act to follow. I also wish to thank the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) for his remarks about Conservative voting behaviour in my constituency, which I shall bear in mind.
  Sir Winston Churchill described his maiden speech as a terrible, thrilling yet delicious experience. Disraeli's maiden speech in 1837 took three hours to complete and, at the end, he was shouted down. I assure hon. Members that I shall not take three hours, but whether I am shouted down is a decision for them.
  I shall start by paying tribute to my predecessor, Sir Russell Johnston, who was the Member of Parliament for my constituency from 1964. Sir Russell Johnston was an intelligent and articulate Member, who was steeped in the history and culture of the highlands, and it was my privilege to meet him during the 1987 election campaign. He is a man of great integrity and conviction, interlaced with a dry sense of humour. He has fought for highland interests for 30 years and achieved many great successes. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to pay tribute to Sir Russell Johnston on his retirement from the Commons and to send their best wishes to him on his elevation to the other place.
  The highlands have a rich and proud history of political radicalism. Honesty, fairness, social justice and a strong sense of community are our values. They are old and enduring values in the best highland tradition. An early champion of the highlands was Charles Mackintosh, who made his maiden speech in 1874. He was a rarity as a radical crofting Member of Parliament who piloted crofting legislation through the House, which changed the rights and responsibilities of tenants against the powerful interests of large landowners.
  As a highlander, I am proud to be the first Labour Member to represent the constituency of Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber. It is a unique constituency because, during the election campaign, it was the only four-way marginal in the United Kingdom. It has the highest mountains and the deepest lochs. It has the beauty of Glencoe and Loch Ness and the isolated splendour of the
  772
  islands of Rhum, Canna, Muck and, of course, Eigg, which chose self-rule instead of the dead hand of absentee landlordism.
  The constituency is of tremendous size—750,000 hectares. It stretches from the North sea to the Atlantic. Tourism is very important. It is responsible for 20 per cent. of the highlands' gross domestic product and it supports more than 20,000 jobs throughout the highlands. That is why transport is so important in my constituency and why I shall campaign for a reduction in the price of petrol and diesel, which is extortionate in the highlands and islands.
  Inverness is the capital of the highlands and has seen some historic events, although some hon. Members may not be aware of them. For example, Inverness is the only place in which the full Cabinet has met outwith the Cabinet Office. In 1921, the Cabinet met at the conference that agreed the treaty that created the Irish Free State. Members present included Lloyd George, the Prime Minister, Austen Chamberlain and Winston Churchill. This evening, I extend an invitation to the current Cabinet to visit Inverness without the need to sign a treaty.
  Several members of the Cabinet visited the constituency during the general election campaign. I pay tribute to everyone who did so, especially the Prime Minister. Not many hon. Members will know this, but he played in goal for my local football team, Inverness Caledonian Thistle. Shortly afterwards, the team won the third division championship. Something obviously rubbed off. I must report to the House however that, since 1 May, my team has lost three games in a row. The Inverness provost, Allan Sellars, remarked to me at a recent game that that had never happened under the Conservatives.
  My constituency is also the stronghold of the world's oldest team sport—shinty. Legend has it that the game was played by saints and scholars, which suggests that the House has never had a shinty team. Although annual matches are played by exiles at Stamford Bridge, the venue is closer to the heart of my hon. Friend the Minister for sport than the noble and ancient game of shinty. In antiquity, shinty replaced clan warfare as a way to settle internal disputes, so I warmly commend it to the Conservatives. The Camanachd cup final will be played on 7 June at Fort William, itself a cradle of the game. This year's finalists are the ancient rivals, Kingussie and Newtonmore, which is a heartland of the sport and now a haven for skiers who flock to the Cairngorms.
  I welcome and support the Bill, which will pave the way for a long-awaited Scottish Parliament, a new dynamic Parliament with more young people and more women, which will tackle the chronic problems of the highlands—low pay, poverty, a lack of housing, poor bus services and growing hospital waiting lists. Those are the failures of the past 18 years. We need a new approach.
  People might ask what a Labour Government will do. Let them come to the highlands and see the faces of the unemployed young people who have been cast aside like unwanted pieces on a chess board. People might ask what a Labour Government will do. Let them come to the highlands and see the low-paid hotel workers in Nairn and Aviemore. People might ask what a Labour Government will do. Let them come to the highlands and see the quango state in operation—that system of patronage that would bring a blush to the cheeks of a mediaeval monarch.

  773
  The Labour Government offer the prospects of radical change for the highlands. In 1964, with two Labour Members of Parliament in the highlands and islands, Harold Wilson made his historic pledge to establish a Highlands and Islands development board, which stopped the depopulation of the highlands and transformed the area. In 1997, with two Labour Members of Parliament in the highlands and islands, we can bring power back to the highlands, by creating a Scottish Parliament—the dream of Keir Hardie, and the unfinished business of John Smith.
  I was privileged to meet John Smith in the highlands. I remember his speech in Ullapool one warm spring evening, when he spoke with passion about creating the Scottish Parliament, and about his dream of being the first highland Prime Minister. His tragic death brought an end to the latter goal, but now the torch has passed to the present Prime Minister and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  It is time that we seized this historic opportunity. We owe it to the people of Scotland to deliver a powerful Scottish Parliament. As a highland Member, I pledge to do everything in my power to fulfil the demand of a double yes vote during the referendum campaign. If it is the will of the Scottish people, the creation of a Scottish Parliament will light a fiery cross from mountain to mountain through the highlands, signalling a new era of hope and opportunity.
  7.20 pm
  Mr. Richard Livsey: It is a great privilege to follow the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart), who gave such an eloquent maiden speech. I appreciated the delightful highland tones that came through—something with which I am familiar.
  I also thank the hon. Gentleman for his fulsome tribute to my former colleague, Sir Russell Johnston, who served the House so well. The hon. Gentleman arrives with a true radical highland pedigree, and I can see that he has a great future in the House. I was delighted to hear his speech, as I was to hear the other maiden speeches that we heard this evening. The new Members have made a great contribution.
  My Welsh constituency, Brecon and Radnorshire, is the third largest in Britain. The hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber probably represents what is, in geographical terms, the largest, and much of what he said about transport and remoteness applies as much to my constituency, where there are many problems similar to those that he described.
  Devolution for Wales is fundamental to the good governance of Britain—of the whole United Kingdom. Liberal Democrats regard that as most important. The previous Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, Jonathan Evans, whom I defeated at the general election, did much good work for Wales during his tenure as a Welsh Office Minister. However, he stood firmly for the status quo on devolution.
  My predecessor believed that the status quo was satisfactory, and he was swept away in the general election on 1 May 1997. The result was the 40th to be declared in Wales. I was the person who removed the last Conservative Member of Parliament from Wales, and with him much of what I would describe as the "incredibility" of Conservative policy on the status quo.
  774
  The result was declared on 2 May, which, by happy coincidence, was my birthday. In my acceptance speech, I asked Jonathan Evans what he thought of proportional representation now, when his party, having polled 19.5 per cent. of the votes in Wales, had no Members elected to the Westminster Parliament, whereas the Liberal Democrats, who had polled 12.3 per cent., had two, and Plaid Cymru, with 10 per cent. of the votes in Wales, had four. That is a real conundrum, which constitutional reform will have to put right.
  The people of my native Brecon and Radnorshire want a fair outcome on devolution, and we have now reached something of a constitutional crisis, with no Conservative Members in either Wales or Scotland. The status quo has been totally eclipsed, and the arguments advanced by Conservative Members today are dead and buried; they were eclipsed at the general election. Conservative Members must, as some Conservatives in Wales are already doing, go back to the drawing board and have second thoughts. Some are now talking about the possibility of supporting a Welsh Assembly.
  I believe that the people of Wales need a Welsh Assembly, and my party has been campaigning for a Welsh Parliament for the past 100 years. We are now on the threshold of achieving a modest level of democratic accountability in Wales; at the moment, there is a huge democratic deficit there, because Wales has been largely ruled by quangos spending up to 40 per cent. of the Welsh Office budget, to which the Conservatives have appointed members of their own party who have not been at all representative of the democratic situation in the country.
  The Government's proposals for a Welsh Assembly are not exactly earth shattering. Liberal Democrats in Wales would like to see the creation of a Sennedd, with more teeth than the proposed Assembly. Our litmus test would be, first, that the Senate must be able to legislate; secondly, that it must have tax-raising or lowering powers; and, thirdly, that it should have true proportional representation.
  We would like a 75-Member Assembly. According to the formula proposed by Labour, 40 Members would then be elected by the first-past-the-post system, and 35 would be chosen on an additional Member basis. That would give a precisely proportional system, reflecting the votes cast in Wales. I do not think that the 60-Member Assembly proposed by Labour would fall within the inclusive spirit that Welsh Office Ministers claim the Assembly will embody, so I hope that there will be scope to amend the proposals when the Bill for Wales is introduced after the referendum.
  The test that Liberal Democrats will apply in Wales will be whether the Assembly allows fair representation in terms of geography—balancing the north, south, east and west—in terms of the political balance of parties, and in terms of gender, as judged by the number of men and women within it. If the Government genuinely wish to produce an inclusive Assembly, clearly the proportionality of the voting system must be addressed further.
  The idea of introducing a referendum for Wales has the wholehearted support of Liberal Democrats there. I believe that the Secretary of State and his Ministers are men of honour, and we have no difference of opinion about the question that will appear on the ballot paper in Wales. We are indeed in favour of a Welsh Assembly, and it is entirely right that we should support its creation.

  775
  As a party, we shall campaign for a yes vote, and we shall be happy to do so. I can therefore leave Welsh Office Ministers in no doubt that that will happen.
  The chances of establishing a Welsh Assembly have been few and far between, especially in this century. We must therefore grasp the opportunity now, and we must show leadership. In my experience of life, nothing worth while is ever gained without courage and resolution, and that is what we shall demonstrate in the referendum campaign.
  Welsh Liberal Democrat Members will not vote against the Bill. The proposed devolution of power to a Welsh Assembly needs all the help that it can get, and. my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Opik) and I will campaign for a successful outcome. However, we feel that it was unwise of the Government to decide on a Bill combining the Scottish and Welsh referendums. The Bill is hybrid, and includes the proposals for both countries. That creates difficulties in that the questions in the Bill are different, and the subsequent legislation may be different, too. It must be noted that the proposals for Scotland create difficulties for my Scottish colleagues. I am sure that they will continue to make their position clear, both in the debate and elsewhere.
  Naturally, for the sake of consistency, Welsh Liberal Democrats would wish to give a Welsh Sennedd the same powers as those conferred on a Scottish Parliament. Undoubtedly, we will try to amend the subsequent Welsh Bill to that effect. In the meantime, it is our considered view that it is vital to secure a yes vote for a Welsh Assembly in the referendum. Wales needs and deserves that outcome.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. John Home Robertson: It is a pleasure to welcome back the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey). I remember spending a happy week in beautiful weather in Brecon and Radnor at a by-election. I was sorry he won that time, but I was one of those who rejoiced when his result was announced on 2 May to complete the establishment of Scotland and Wales as Tory-free zones.
  This has been a remarkable debate, and I join others in paying tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Ms McKenna) and for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) for their excellent maiden speeches. They have made their mark already, and I look forward to working with them in the future, particularly as we work towards the establishment of a Parliament for Scotland.
  When a constitution appears to have fallen into decay and when people begin to hold the democratic system to be a matter for despair—if not contempt—there are serious problems in the fabric of our state. Until 1 May, too many young people in particular felt that the democratic system was not working—that it did not matter what happened, we would always have a Tory Government who would be able to ride roughshod over everybody else. There is now an atmosphere of hope generated by the general election result and we have to take that forward.
  We need a change in our constitutional arrangements to ensure that the democratic system works, and is seen to work, effectively and fairly, around the country. It is
  776
  not a time for separatism—that idea was defeated at the election. However, it is a time for radical constitutional change. I welcome the fact that this Bill is the first to be presented to Parliament by the Government, and that it is designed to start the process of establishing a Parliament for Scotland. The Parliament will take democratic control of the £15 billion budget of the Scottish Office, as well as a swathe of legislative and administrative responsibilities. Furthermore, the Bill will give appropriate discretion on the Budget to that Parliament in the future.
  Above all, I welcome the fact that the Bill provides a mechanism that will entrench the position of the Scottish Parliament for all time. I am worried that Conservative Members are already looking for alibis and ways to nitpick to allow them perhaps to sidestep the result of a referendum in the future. They will not be allowed to get away with that.
  In making this plea to the House, I should perhaps ask for a number of other offences to be taken into account. I was the constituency delegate—rather a young one, I have to say—to the Labour party conference in Blackpool in 1976 who moved the motion that committed my party to the principle of home rule for Scotland. It has been a long time waiting, but I am delighted that we are now getting rather nearer to it. I certainly campaigned for a yes vote in the 1979 referendum, and it is worth remembering that we won that referendum with a majority of 77,435—good enough in any other circumstances, but the incoming Tory Government were not interested in such results. Furthermore, I have raised this issue again and again—along with a number of colleagues—and used all the devices available to a Back Bencher ever since the disastrous day when Margaret Thatcher came to power and introduced more and more centralised government in this country.
  The commitment to Scottish home rule goes with the job of being the Member of Parliament for East Lothian—with one or two aberrations, such as the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who passed through my constituency briefly in 1974.
  Mr. Wallace: Is it not possible that, in 1974, even the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) as in favour of home rule?
  Mr. Home Robertson: I should have checked the cuttings, but I have a suspicion that the right hon. Gentleman has shifted his ground on that issue, as he has on others. We should pursue him on that if he serves on the Committee—or if he ends up as the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, as some have threatened. We shall draw a veil over that visitor to Berwickshire and East Lothian.
  My immediate predecessor, John Mackintosh, was one of the most powerful advocates of a Scottish Parliament in the 1960s and 1970s. I vividly remember sitting in the Public Gallery, watching him stand in this very place making the case for Scottish home rule all those years ago. We have been stuck for far too long and it is time to get on with the job.
  The Member who represented East Lothian in the last Scottish Parliament in 1707 was the great Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun, who gave eloquent and accurate warnings of the perils of the "incorporating union" which has left Scotland as a jurisdiction without a legislature

  777
  for the past 290 years. The experience of centralised and uncontrollable government at the Scottish Office in the past 18 years must make a conclusive and irrefutable case for home rule in Scotland now—the sooner, the better.
  The quaint fiction that this Parliament can be an effective protector of the rights and interests of people in Scotland was finally exposed when this House of Commons voted overwhelmingly to impose the poll tax in Scotland in 1987. I have had private conversations with English Conservative Members of Parliament—some who are still in the House, and others who have departed—and I have asked them how they could possibly have voted to impose such an unfair and unworkable tax on my constituents in East Lothian which would not apply to their constituents south of the border. The reply was always the same—they did not know what they were voting for, but trusted the then Secretary of State for Scotland and voted in accordance with the Government Whip.
  That was the worst measure, but there have been plenty more—the centralising of the NHS in Scotland, local government reform and the endless catalogue of quangos. It has always been absurd to put exclusively Scottish business through the House, but the experience of the Thatcher years has demonstrated that it is dangerous. A nominally democratic system allowed a minority to treat the nation of Scotland with absolute contempt and nothing like that must ever be possible again. That will change when we implement the package of reforms agreed by the Scottish Constitutional Convention.
  I have some anxieties about the Bill. It may be difficult to persuade people to come out to vote when there is no noticeable opposition. At the general election in Scotland, 60 per cent. of the voters supported parties committed to Scottish home rule within the United Kingdom; 22 per cent. voted for total independence; and 17 per cent. voted for the status quo.
  With great respect to Conservative Members and to the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh), who is in his place representing the Scottish National party, the Conservative and Scottish National parties were the single-issue parties at the general election in Scotland. The Scottish National party's single issue was independence, while the Conservative party tried to make the present state of the United Kingdom the single issue that it hoped people would endorse. Both those extremes were rejected overwhelmingly, and there is a consensus for what John Smith referred to rightly as
  "the settled will of the Scottish people."
  That is not controversial, and since there is no credible challenge to this proposition—not even from the ranks of what is left of the Conservative party in Scotland—it may be difficult to galvanise people to come out again to vote for the obvious, particularly when the concept of a referendum as a constitutional device is not a familiar one in any part of the United Kingdom. There have been only two referendums in Scotland hitherto, and the result of one was overturned at the whim of an incoming Conservative Government—which, perhaps, does not bode awfully well.
  As we proceed with this referendum—and since the Government have plans for other referendums on the European single currency and on electoral reform—perhaps the time has come for a new statute to establish the position of referendums in the British constitution. Should it be entirely up to the Government—of whatever
  778
  persuasion—to decide what use should be made of referendums, or should there be an overarching constitutional provision to deal with that matter? What guidelines should there be on the conduct of referendums and the drafting of the questions?
  I have one detailed point for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I hope that the questions on the ballot paper will clearly require a yes or a no and are as clear as possible. Above all, what is the real significance of the result of a referendum? At present, as I understand it, a referendum result can only be advisory and for the consideration of this sovereign Parliament. Should we be making it binding on Parliament or on future Governments? There is a case for considering that option and finding a device for doing so, particularly as Conservatives are already considering ways in which they can shrug off the result of this referendum.
  I confess that I am not an enthusiast for the concept of referendums, but I fully endorse this one as a mechanism to entrench the position of Scotland's Parliament for all time. I support the Bill and urge people throughout Scotland to turn out in numbers and to vote yes to both questions when the referendum takes place.
  7.40 pm
  Mr. Donald Gorrie: Before I get into the argument, it gives me great pleasure to pay tribute to my predecessor, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton. He is widely liked as an individual and, although it is a trite remark, he is almost universally regarded as a very nice man. He was particularly noted for his politeness, whether it took the form, on occasions, of giving lifts to Opposition canvassers on rainy evenings, or of insisting on opening the door for his female departmental chauffeur. He did extremely well to hold his seat for so long against repeated and energetic campaigns by my party. At the count in Edinburgh, where six constituencies held their counts, he was largely regarded as having made the best speech of the evening, which is a great testament to his character on an evening when he lost.
  Also, it gives me great pleasure to pay tribute to my constituency. I have wooed it long enough. This was my fifth attempt to win it and, counting local and national elections, I think that my score is won 14, lost eight, so I have shown my enthusiasm for west Edinburgh. It is an area that is steeped in history. We learned some of that again recently when a splendid Roman lion in stone was dug out of the River Almond, which reminds us of the time when the Romans tried unsuccessfully to keep the Picts at bay. We have fine mediaeval churches and tower houses. We have two schools that are more than 350 years old and many fine modern schools. We have stately homes and housing estates that are less stately. We have the Union canal, from the heyday of Scottish industrialisation, which is shortly to benefit from a great injection of money from the millennium fund. We have the Forth road bridge—I suppose that I claim half and Fife presumably claims the other half—which is a great icon of British Victorian development. There are many things in the past of which we can be proud.
  Politically, in the days when Mr. Gladstone represented Midlothian, a good deal of what is now west Edinburgh came into his constituency. He campaigned for Irish home rule with great vigour until an advanced age. I hope that we can achieve Scottish home rule more rapidly.

  779
  My constituents would greatly benefit from a Scottish Parliament, because the present Government system has let them down. In many parts of my constituency, houses desperately need investment. We have schools that need investment and more teachers and equipment. We have colleges where young people do not have enough resources and have a bleak outlook for getting a career that they would like to pursue. We have a fine hospital, for which local people have fought several successful campaigns against the local health board, which tries to remove all the best facilities. The hospital needs greater investment and, like other hospitals, needs many more nurses and doctors who need to be better paid.
  We have problems that other areas may also have. The successful edge-of-town shopping centre has caused the ruination of many of our suburban shopping centres. We have a desperate need for investment in public transport, both railway and busway. The council is trying to do something about that, but there is a need for Government assistance to oil the wheels, metaphorically speaking, making it easier for public and private money to come together, rather than operating in the convoluted way that was determined by the previous Government.
  We have the greatest traffic problem in Scotland—not as great, perhaps, as some such problems in England, but the situation is bad and needs attention, again at central Government and local government levels.
  Above all, we do not need a second Forth road bridge, which was threatened by the previous Government, or the so-called Barnton bypass, which was almost universally condemned. I hope that the Scottish Office will rapidly show that it is not pursuing those foolish ideas.
  We need a system in which communities can be helped to revive themselves. A Scottish Parliament would give a great opportunity for doing things better and for helping people to help themselves, instead of having a begging-bowl mentality and blaming London all the time, which is what we tend to do.
  On the Bill, there are two main issues: one is home rule; the other is whether we need a referendum. On home rule, I agree with those who think that sovereignty lies with the people and not with Parliament. Whether they are Scottish people, English, Welsh or Irish, they have the sovereignty and we are merely lent it to look after for a short while.
  This House is an example of how not to run the affairs of Scotland. We really must invent a Scottish Parliament that conducts its affairs better than this. It is a travesty of democracy that the system here—put into effect conscientiously by the various people occupying the Chair—does not allow those parties that provide all the Opposition Members in Scotland and Wales to speak to and vote on the amendments that they have tabled on this vital issue. In what other democratic body would that be allowed? The whole thing is a travesty.
  Having been here such a short time, it might be wrong of me to say so, but my enthusiasm for a Scottish Parliament increases with every day that I spend at Westminster, and that is partly due to listening to the English Conservatives.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: We cannot listen to any Scottish or Welsh ones.
  Mr. Gorrie: Bring them back. All is forgiven.
  780
  A Government health warning should be attached to English Conservatives, because listening to them gives any red-blooded Scotsman a heart attack; they simply do not understand. I am sure that they are worthy representatives of the shires and suburbs, but they understand nothing about Scotland. Occasionally, they go there to shoot grouse. If they read a book, they occasionally come to the Edinburgh festival, perhaps, but they understand nothing whatsoever about Scotland. They display the sort of arrogance that previous British people perhaps displayed to some of their colonies. Their conversations are similar to the conversation that Edward II had with some of his cronies when riding away from the battle of Bannockburn and planning the following year's invasion. He took 10 years before he was compelled to make peace. I hope for their sakes that the Conservatives will learn a little quicker.
  On the referendum, I must make the following points, which my colleagues have already made to some degree. It is wrong to combine the Scottish and Welsh referendums in one Bill. It is a marriage of inconvenience, because the positions in Scotland and in Wales are quite different. The form of Parliament proposed for Wales is totally different from that proposed for Scotland, and the local political position and level of support for the concept are different. The Welsh have not had a convention that has come up with an agreed scheme.
  It is unnecessary to have the referendum. In 1992, the Conservatives marginally improved their position in Scotland, in terms of both seats and votes, and they hailed that as complete support for the status quo. On this occasion, they have suffered the greatest defeat anywhere, in my limited knowledge of political history. At least the Canadian Tories held two seats; in Scotland and Wales the score was 112–0: there are 40 Welsh and 72 Scottish seats, and the Tories hold none. Surely that teaches us something and gives us a message that the Government can go ahead with their legislation for the convention scheme.
  We are against the second question, which is remarkably foolish and will be read by many people as, "You really do want to pay more taxes, don't you?" However it is worded, that is how it will be seen and there is a great risk that it will be lost.
  Logically—this will appeal to the Secretary of State, who is an intelligent man—the second question opens the door to the Scottish National party, because if, as he said in his speech, the referendum is to endorse the Scottish convention scheme, that is a reasonable proposition; but to ask whether there should be tax-raising powers is to consult on a scheme that no one is proposing, in which case the argument against the SNP having its scheme on the ballot paper disappears entirely. The second question is logically unsound and politically idiotic. The convention scheme was a great example of co-operation and I hope that it will lead to better politics.
  My final reason for opposing the referendum is the way in which it was imposed on us by diktat from London; it was the worst sort of old-style politics. We are trying to achieve a new politics of co-operation in Scotland. I have co-operated with many Labour Members, and I have greatly admired their efforts in the Scottish convention. I hope that that can continue.
  We may argue about the small print, but we must get it across that the ideal of people running their own affairs is a great ideal and a great moral cause. We need

  781
  somebody with Gladstone's eloquence to get that across. Wallace and Bruce did not make speeches before their battles about whether there might be three groats more in the tithes. That is not what we are concerned about: we are concerned about the great cause of whether people can run their own affairs, as we believe they should.
  7.52 pm
  Dr. Lynda Clark: It is a great privilege to be able to make a contribution to this debate, especially in view of the wisdom and passion of those who have spoken before me. I hope that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) will continue the tradition of giving people a lift home on rainy nights; if ever I need a lift, I shall certainly approach him.
  I should say at the outset that this is a maiden speech. I mention that partly to get my plea in mitigation in early, and partly because I have discovered that the word maiden can be defined as a Scottish beheading machine, similar to the guillotine. That raised some anxiety in my mind; I was reassured when I found no mention of it in "Erskine May", but I wondered whether it might be in some Scottish appendix that I had not yet found.
  It is customary for a new Member to refer to her predecessor; I am pleased to follow that custom. My predecessor, Mr. Malcolm Rifkind, was fortunate enough to enjoy a high reputation in the House and an international reputation as Foreign Secretary in the previous Conservative Administration. We share a common history and training as members of the Faculty of Advocates. As a Scots lawyer, I hope that brevity has been inculcated into me.
  I pay tribute to Mr. Rifkind's illustrious career and long service as a constituency Member of Parliament. I wondered whether I should apologise to Conservative Members for having reduced their options in their desperate search for a new leader.
  On one matter, I am pleased to adopt Mr. Rifkind's words. Quoting Victor Hugo, he said:
  "Nothing is so powerful as an idea whose time has come."— [Official Report, 16 December 1976; Vol. 922, c. 1831.]
  He was referring to devolution. I invite the House to ponder those words in the context of this debate. My predecessor was eloquent and learned and had a great respect for the traditions of the House; he was also justly proud of Edinburgh, Pentlands, my new constituency.
  It is my great good fortune to represent a constituency that stands only a few miles from the centre of Edinburgh and the likely seat of the new Scottish Parliament. In some respects, my constituency can be seen as a microcosm of Scotland, consisting of highland and lowland, town and country. The highland area takes the dramatic shape of the beautiful Pentland hills that cradle the urban lowland.
  In the urban areas there is a powerful juxtaposition of poverty and wealth, and my constituency has been described as one of the most deeply socially divided in Britain. Under the previous Administration, those divisions deepened and festered. It is part of the new Government's duty to help to heal those divisions. Every constituent from every area has something to offer and must feel included. For my part, I offer to serve the interests of all my constituents to the best of my ability.
  The Bill provides for referendums in Scotland and Wales, and I welcome both. Hon. Members will excuse me if I confine my remarks to Scotland, because I know
  782
  more about it. The time for devolution came many years ago—the principle can be defended on the grounds of historical precedent, democratic accountability, administrative efficiency and popular demand—but the opportunity was lost.
  There have been false starts, false hopes and false prophets, but now we are fortunate to have a new opportunity. Now is the time to let the people who live in Scotland make their voice heard again. This debate marks an historic opportunity. We are taking the first steps towards bringing about profound and necessary changes. We must not do that without full debate.
  Every generation must re-examine the principles of democracy and test their effectiveness. Every generation needs voices such as those of Thomas Paine, the Chartists or the suffragettes. Equality, fairness, accountability and effectiveness are the standards by which we must judge our democratic institutions.
  The Bill represents an historic opportunity for those governed in Scotland to judge their institutions and vote for a new Scottish Parliament with devolved and tax-varying powers. That means not only a transfer of governmental responsibilities, but that decisions that directly affect individuals living in Scotland will be made with reference to their elected representatives.
  I commend the Bill to the House. I support it because it honours the finest principles of democracy. In supporting democracy we help to establish a society in which other great principles of fairness and natural justice can flourish.
  7.59 pm
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: It is a privilege to make my first speech in such an important debate. I congratulate the hon. Members who have made such excellent maiden speeches. I pay tribute to the courage and determination of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie), who has arrived at the House after five attempts. Although it has not taken me five attempts, I know how he feels. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who made an excellent speech, to the Labour Members who spoke so well and to the hon. Ladies who have spoken with such wit, charm and wisdom.
  All those hon. Ladies on the Labour Benches present something of a problem to the hon. Ladies on the Conservative Benches because they get mistaken for Labour Members. Given what was said earlier, I am not sure whether it is worse to be mistaken for a Labour Member's wife or for a Labour Member. The thought of that persuaded my wife to stand for Gloucestershire county council rather than Parliament. Happily, 2 May provided an opportunity for a double celebration, at least in Tewkesbury.
  It really was a celebration, because it is a great privilege to represent such a wonderful constituency. Tewkesbury has many urban parts but the countryside has been described as
  "A place of gentle contrasts."
  My arrival in Tewkesbury was a more severe contrast than might have been thought. In 1471, there was a famous battle at Tewkesbury in the war of the roses. It was won by the Yorkists, as many hon. Members will know. I am glad to say that the 1997 battle of Tewkesbury was

  783
  convincingly won by a Lancastrian. It gives me great pleasure to serve as the first Member of Parliament for Tewkesbury as a seat in itself for more than 100 years.
  It is the custom of the House to pay tribute to one's predecessors. That may take me a while because the seat has been cobbled together from several different constituencies. Most of it was contained in the old seat of Cirencester and Tewkesbury, which was represented with such distinction by Nicholas Ridley. I pay tribute to his successor, my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who represented the seat with great distinction for five years. I thank him also for the help that he gave me. I am pleased to pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones), part of whose constituency I have taken. Last, but by no means least, I pay tribute to Paul Marland who unfortunately lost his seat, partly because of the boundary changes, and partly because of the swing against the Conservatives. I took quite a chunk of his seat, for which he does not thank me.
  We in Tewkesbury somewhat bucked the national trend. I like to think that that was at least partly due to the clear ideas that we put to the electorate. I stood on an unashamedly British ticket, fighting against European federalism and stressing the need for and benefits of preserving the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It has been said before, but it is my firm belief that the United Kingdom as a whole is stronger than the sum of its parts. Our strength has been built together. Thanks to the strength of the Union, and in no small part thanks to 18 years of Conservative government, the new Labour Government inherit a strong, prosperous, united nation.
  It is impossible to separate the Bill from the wider issue of devolution, and impossible to separate devolution from the prospect of the United Kingdom breaking up. Devolution could usher in the beginning of the end of the United Kingdom. I have no interest to declare as such, but I have something of a love affair with Scotland. It is incorrect to assume that English Members have no knowledge of Scotland. I have spent much time there and, indeed, worked there for a while. I have a great passion for Scotland. That is why I am so determined that it should remain part of the United Kingdom.
  I see great danger for Scotland in moving down the devolutionary road. Scotland could be left to fend for itself as a small country in a hostile European Union. The hard-earned freedom that it would have gained from the United Kingdom would soon be snatched away by the federalist tendencies of that body. In such circumstances, what strength would Scotland have to fight against the federalist tendencies that it once wanted to throw off?
  I am not convinced that the suggested great, demonstrable demand for devolution exists. Many people are making noises for it but they cannot necessarily claim to represent the views of the majority. I believe that many people in Scotland, as was acknowledged earlier, want to retain the status quo. They see no need for another layer of bureaucracy to be imposed upon them and certainly see no need for up to 3p in the pound more income tax to be levied on them.
  Many people in Scotland will be against devolution. Scots who live in Scotland can vote against it but what about Scottish people who no longer live in Scotland?
  784
  They may live in another part of what they consider to be their country, the United Kingdom. We have learned from the Government this week that such people will have no say. For whatever reason, they chose to live in another part of the United Kingdom, but they should be given some say in what happens to the United Kingdom. Tearing Scotland away from the United Kingdom, which is the prospect that we face, is surely a matter for all of us. The policy of allowing only people who reside in Scotland to vote is inconsistent with existing law, which allows British people who have left our shores to continue to vote in our elections.
  It has not escaped anyone's attention that the Conservative party has no representation in the House from Scotland or Wales, or, for that matter, from Northern Ireland. In general, although not this time, the Conservative party commands a majority of seats in England. It is in the interests of the Conservative party, especially with such a large hill to climb, to let the United Kingdom break up. In such circumstances, the Conservative party could enjoy almost perpetual government in England. I am not a member of a party that is interested in narrow electoral advantage. I belong to a party that believes in the wider interests of the United Kingdom. Those interests are not best served by going down the devolution route.
  We are at risk from devolution and from so rapid an introduction of the Bill. People in Scotland may be persuaded to vote for devolution as a reaction against what they may have regarded as an English conspiracy to govern them. I believe in democracy; that is one reason why I joined the Conservative party. If a significant majority of Scottish people, clearly and consistently—those two words are important—showed that they wanted devolution, we would, of course, have to accept that verdict. The danger with such a rushed Bill is that if only a small majority of people in Scotland voted in favour, the Government would rush devolution through. That did not happen in 1978, when a small majority—32.9 per cent.—voted in favour, against 30.8 per cent. who voted against. The then Labour Government had insisted that at least 40 per cent. of those entitled to vote had to vote yes. The legislation fell, and so did the Labour Government shortly after. That is perhaps what worries the Government.
  Given the precedents and the importance of the matter, is not it reasonable to ask the Government, before they set up a Scottish Parliament with tax-raising powers, to be absolutely sure that such an arrangement is preferred by a sizeable number of Scottish people, and not by only a small majority on a very low turnout?
  Much is at stake through the Bill, including 300 years of history, the economic strength that has been achieved and the future of the United Kingdom. The issues before us should not be hurried, nor should they be treated lightly.
  I conclude my remarks by thanking the House for extending its courtesy to me.
  8.9 pm
  Mr. John McAllion: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) on speaking with great distinction. Indeed, he made a funny speech. I am sure that he will make important contributions in future in this place and I look forward to hearing them.
  I congratulate especially those of my hon. Friends who made their maiden speeches this afternoon and evening. All of them spoke with great wit and with an obvious

  785
  pride and deep knowledge of their constituencies. Having sat in my place for the past four hours or so, it has become increasingly obvious that the new intake looks better than the old lags such as myself, and sounds better. We can look forward to a much better Parliament, I am sure, over the next five years.
  I offer belated congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on his appointment. They are belated congratulations only because this is the first opportunity that I have had to offer them. If my right hon. Friend were in the Chamber, he would probably be surprised to know that during the election campaign, in conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), I predicted his appointment. My hon. Friend said that I was talking through a hole that was not in my head. I, however, was proved to be right. My right hon. Friend will be even more surprised to hear that I warmly welcome his appointment. Of all the realistic contenders for the job, I am sure that most of my right hon. and hon. Friends recognised that my right hon. Friend would be the best appointee. We wish him all the very best in future.
  I commend the Government on the speed with which they have introduced the Bill. They have immediately honoured a manifesto commitment and, much more importantly, they have taken the first step towards re-establishing in my country, for the first time in nearly 300 years, a directly elected Scottish Parliament. I am greatly encouraged that an incoming Labour Government, after 18 long years of exile, should embark on a legislative measure that has long been a commitment of the Labour party. I am sure that the Bill will be a significant paving measure. We hope that that will be so and that we shall not witness the fate of the previous referendum introduced by a Labour Government.
  The report of the commission on the conduct of referendums describes them as having an uncertain place within our system of government and as having no established rules accepted by the main political parties for their efficient and fair conduct. Anyone who has listened to the debate will acknowledge that the truth of that is obvious. That is illustrated by two examples, and I shall remind the House of them.
  First, in the 1975 referendum on whether Britain should join the Common Market, each of the two umbrella groups formed at that time—Britain in Europe and the national referendum campaign—were given Government grants of £125,000, along with the costs of printing and distributing leaflets. By the time of the 1979 referendum on Scottish devolution, however, there was no recognition for any umbrella group. Indeed, there was no public funding or support for either side. That demonstrates an inconsistency of approach.
  Secondly, there is the example that was provided in 1979, when the infamous 40 per cent. rule was imposed on the yes side but not on the no side. In 1975 there was no such rule. Had there been a 50 per cent. threshold, as suggested this evening, the United Kingdom would never have joined the Common Market. Perhaps that is why the suggestion was put forward.
  The inconsistency of approach towards referendums persists. Back in 1975, it was the avowed enemies of Scottish nationalism who were pressing for an additional question on independence to be included in the then referendum. There were those, like the late Norman
  786
  Buchan, who thought that by including that question the Scottish National party would be embarrassed, yet in this Parliament the Scottish National party is arguing that the option should be included in the referendum. That shows that we can never predict what will come up in Scottish politics. I am sure that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) never thought that he would see the day when he would be following the constitutional footsteps of the late Norman Buchan. I do not know whether he or Jennie Buchan would be more worried about that. I suspect that Jennie would be more worried than the hon. Gentleman.
  Historically, resort to referendums has not been founded on constitutional principles when set against the background of the House. Instead, referendums have been political expediency. They have represented the necessity of holding together a divided Government party. In 1975, and again in 1978–79, the then Labour Government, including their Back-Bench Members, were deeply divided over whether Britain should belong to the Common Market and whether there should be Scottish and Welsh devolution. Referendums were the means by which the then Labour Government sought to escape the divisions within their own ranks.
  It was Lord Callaghan, a key player at that time, who described referendums as a rubber life raft into which one day the entire Labour party might have to climb. That just about summed up the experience of referendums in this place.
  The question before us in this debate is whether the past experience of referendums is about to be repeated in ' this Parliament. The answer, I think, is that it is not. The circumstances now are very different. First, the present Government are not divided. A Scottish Parliament based on a Scottish Constitutional Convention scheme is a manifesto commitment that binds every member of the parliamentary Labour party. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is in his place to hear me say that. We are equally bound by our manifesto commitment to support both the referendums that are referred to in the Bill.
  Secondly, the present Labour Government are not at the mercy of a Back-Bench rebellion. Given the majority that the Government enjoy they do not have to fear my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, whatever schemes he may dream up over the next few weeks. I hope that he recognises that reality.
  That does not mean that there will not be opposition. There must and will be opposition in any democracy, whatever a Labour Government propose. The official Opposition will continue to oppose any change whatsoever because they have yet to realise why they suffered an electoral wipe-out in Scotland and Wales. They are making the same mistakes in this Parliament that they made in the previous Parliament, mistakes which led to their defeat in those two countries.
  The Scottish National party will continue to press for the independence option to be included in the referendum. It is its right to do that, and in a sense it is its duty. In doing so, the Scottish National party will represent the views of 22 per cent. of the voters in the recent general election. The Liberal Democrats will continue legitimately to ask why there should be a referendum in any event. I am not unsympathetic to that line.

  787
  I think that everyone in his or her heart will recognise that in reality we shall be passing through the parliamentary motions. Such is the strength of the Labour Government that at the end of the day the referendum that will be held in Scotland this autumn will seek a double yes vote for a Scottish Parliament with tax-gathering powers.
  As for the other place, if its unelected Members try to frustrate the elected Members of this place or deny them the right to place this proposed legislation on to the statute book, I for one will look forward to an early Christmas so that there can be an early settlement of accounts with that group of aristocratic turkeys.
  I shall make one or two final points to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench. For a long time Scottish politics have been dominated by the idea of cross-party consensus. It has widely been assumed in Scotland that no one party will be able to deliver for the Scottish people. That turned out to be wrong. The 1997 election proved that idea to be wrong. The Government now have a Commons majority of such a size that they can deliver that which they wish. As always in Scottish politics, however, there is a twist in the tail. The Labour Government are locked into the commitment of a referendum involving all the people in Scotland. In such a referendum, the Commons majority that the Labour Government enjoy will count for nothing.
  At the election, Labour polled just 46.5 per cent. of the popular vote, not enough to carry the referendum that we shall hold in the autumn—and we are not even certain that all those Labour supporters will vote "yes, yes": a number of people in Dundee, for example, have told me that they will vote "no, yes", "yes, no" or "no, no", although they vote Labour in other elections. Labour Members must accept that we shall need the support of the other pro-home rule parties in Scotland if we are to carry the referendum that we are certain will be held later this year.
  I was greatly encouraged by the speech that the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Fife (Mr. McLeish), made at the launch of the cross-party campaign, "Forward Scotland" last Saturday in Edinburgh. In that speech, my hon. Friend reached out to all those outside the traditional Labour movement, asking them to come together in a national campaign that would win the referendum and lead to the establishment of a Scottish Parliament by a Labour Government.
  The contrast between my hon. Friend's approach in 1997 and the approach taken by a Labour Government back in 1979 could not be more stark. At that time, the Scottish council of the Labour party sent an instruction to all constituency Labour party organisations in Scotland, warning them against collaboration with any body other than the Scottish Trades Union Congress or the Co-operative party. Indeed, the then Secretary of State for Scotland went on public record as saying, "Labour will not be soiling our hands by joining any umbrella 'yes' group." That was sectarian and wrong, and led to defeat in 1979. I am delighted that my hon. Friends the present Ministers have learnt from that defeat, and have rejected such an approach for the current Parliament. We need a
  788
  result from the referendum, and the only way in which we can secure the result that we need is by reaching out to other parties in the home rule movement.
  The debate has been dominated by the dichotomy between those who think that setting up a Scottish Parliament will be the slippery slope leading to the break-up of the United Kingdom, and those who believe that such a Parliament will provide the means by which the integrity of the United Kingdom will be preserved. I take a different position from either of those groups: I want the Scottish Parliament proposed by the Scottish Constitutional Convention because I believe that it will be the best form of government for Scotland. I want it for its own sake, not because it will lead to one development or the other.
  I do not accept that—as one of my hon. Friends argued earlier—this is a matter for the chattering classes. Many people throughout Scotland feel deeply that home rule should be returned to their country. My favourite memory is of an elderly delegate who spoke at the STUC conference in 1993. He told the conference, "I wanted a Scottish Parliament when I was 20, and I still want it. I am hungry for it, and I want it before they stuff me in a wooden box and throw it on the fire." I hope for the sake of that delegate that this Labour Government's proposals are not too late, and that the Government remember his example and do not waste any time in securing the referendum, taking the Bill to establish a Scottish Parliament through the House and bringing democracy back to Scotland.
  8.22 pm
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: It is a great pleasure to be able to speak in the debate, all the more so because I think that I was the last Conservative candidate to be selected before the general election. I found myself unexpectedly transported from the northern hills, on which I had been walking, to my constituency. I was selected within 48 hours, and plunged straight into an election campaign.
  As I listened to some of the speeches that have been made this evening—particularly that of the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart)—there were moments when I suddenly wished that I could be back on the train from Euston to Corrour in order to spend a few more days out on the hills rather than being in the House. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has now left the Chamber; he spoke of fiery crosses to celebrate the arrival of a Scottish Parliament. I do not necessarily dissociate myself from his sentiments, but I hope that, if he is lighting fiery crosses on the tops of the mountains of Lochaber, he will check first to see that I am not sleeping out there in my bivvy bag.
  It is my privilege to represent Beaconsfield, a constituency which, by any standards in the United Kingdom, is itself very privileged. It has high indices of wealth, although there are areas that are impoverished and in need of help. It also has an articulate community, low unemployment and other great advantages. Those advantages do not exist because of the waving of a magic wand. They are, in part, the result of the area's location to the west of London and its proximity to centres of communication, but they are due in large measure to the industry of its inhabitants and what they have made of their communities, which are set in a pleasant and gentle landscape.

  789
  The possibilities for personal development and opportunity in Beaconsfield have meant that it is highly developed, and is often subjected to environmental pressures that need to be addressed; but it remains an extraordinarily pleasant place in which to be. During the election campaign, I found that it had a strong sense of community and participation at every level of life, not just politics.
  One of the features of the campaign in Beaconsfield was the frequency with which the issues that we are now discussing came up for discussion. That was because, far from being a place of little Englanders, Beaconsfield—because of its location—has attracted people from all over the United Kingdom and, indeed, from abroad, who have settled there to lead a British way of life.
  What struck me especially forcefully during the campaign was the number of people in the old people's homes that I visited who came from Wales. They had come during the depression to take the jobs that were available in the factories on the Bath road. Their experience mirrors that of my family. I need only look at the example of my forebears to see the advantages that they gained from the Union, and to realise why I am so attached to it. Four hundred years ago, they lived a life in Roxburghshire which—although it may have been romanticised by Sir Walter Scott, who included the names of his neighbours, including my forebears, in the ballads when he recreated them—was, by all accounts, not very far removed from life in Bosnia in recent years. There was political disunity; neighbour was set against neighbour because there was fear and because there were huge uncertainties.
  Those problems were cured by the Union, first by the Union of the Crowns and secondly by the union of the Parliaments in the 18th century. I need only look at the way in which, by the middle of the 18th century, my family had graduated from being cattle and sheep thieves to being prosperous farmers and at the frontiers of innovation in farming methods and the agricultural revolution that underpinned the country's prosperity to know the advantages that came to them from the Union.
  However, it went beyond that. When, in the following century, younger sons left the farms, they had all the opportunities offered by travelling abroad and maintaining a British identity. That enabled them to prosper—never to lose contact with their roots and their cousins north of the border, but simply to reflect the fact, as 18th-century travellers from the south of England noticed, perhaps rather to their surprise, when they crossed the border from Northumberland to Roxburghshire, that the people on each side of the border were pretty much identical.
  I do not wish—especially in the light of the issues that have to be debated—to issue a panegyric on the Union. I am the first to accept that constitutions can evolve; they are not fixed. A number of ideas and innovations have been produced, not just this evening but by Ministers during discussion of the Queen's Speech, some of which I consider quite exciting.
  Perhaps I might give an example of where I suspect I might be at variance with some of the views of my colleagues on the Conservative Benches, but it is a variance that I have held for a long time. The incorporation of the European convention on human rights into our national law is something that, although challenging, is nevertheless desirable if it can be done
  790
  without diminishing the sovereignty of Parliament. I believe that it can. I hope that I apply the same sorts of criteria to the proposals put forward today.
  My concern is not with the principles of devolution in the sense that people may wish for it. From my frequent visits to Scotland, I am the first to accept the strength of feeling that exists there in respect of wanting devolved government. My concern is with the practicalities, and in particular with those that emerge out of the Bill that has been placed before the House tonight for its consideration. Let me try to develop that argument a little further.
  I should like to take as my example the European convention on human rights. If it is to be incorporated into United Kingdom law—I do not know how it is proposed to be done—one of the articles the Government will wish to consider is article 3 in the first protocol. It states:
  "The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot under conditions which ensure the free expression of the people in the choice of the legislature."
  Which people? Which legislature? I cannot go back to my constituents in Beaconsfield and simply tell them that, by diktat, they will be placed in a position in two or three years, or during the next Parliament, where, effectively, decisions that they take as to the choice of legislature will mean that there will be people legislating over them who are not themselves subject to the legislation that is passed. That fundamental flaw cannot be ignored. There is only one way in which it could be got round.
  To pick up on what was said by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on the West Lothian question, clearly it is possible in a democracy for any amount of anomalies to exist. Anomalies, if they are tolerated, are acceptable. Imagine that the Secretary of State for Scotland had come before the House and said that as part of his proposals for the referendum he would be suggesting that people living in England should be entitled to pronounce on whether the decisions to set up a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly—I am particularly concerned about the Scottish Parliament—would naturally lead to their wanting major constitutional reforms of their own. If he had said that they should be allowed to express a view on the effective exclusion of Scottish Members from the decision-making process on English issues solely, that would be a first step towards clarifying what the different component parts of the United Kingdom want.
  The issue is being fudged. I hope that the Secretary of State will accept that those of us who believe in the Union and would, if given our choice, stand forward to say that the existing arrangements have done us well and we wish them to continue, will nevertheless also accept that as democrats and believers in the popular will there is no question of standing in the way of the people of Scotland or Wales in the decisions that they wish to take. There is a right, however, to review for ourselves in England and for the people of England if they need it, such arrangements as they want. If we do not do that, the durability which must be the desired result of any constitutional change, so that it lasts much longer than a Labour Government, will be lost. What we will end up with is endless bickering, endless difficulties and endless

  791
  conflict, which none of us who wish to maintain the Union and who believe in it in one form or another can possibly desire. That is why I cannot support the Bill; it has been put forward without those discussions having taken place and without the arguments being offered.
  If, as one may expect, the Bill goes through after tomorrow, I hope that, nevertheless, the points that I have raised will not be ignored, but will be revived again and again during discussion of the issue. If they are, it may even be possible that we will emerge with something which is the product of the endeavour of Labour Members, but nevertheless finds itself endurable by—and acceptable to—far more people. If that does not happen, we face grave difficulties.
  When it comes to the debate on the incorporation of the European convention on human rights, I certainly intend to pursue how article 3 and a number of others appear to be at variance with the structures that the Government appear to want to foist on the different components of the United Kingdom. It is an interesting discussion which I look forward to pursuing.
  There were a number of things that I wanted to say before I concluded. It is customary to pay tribute to one's predecessor. In my circumstances, my good fortune was the result of difficult decisions for him and great unhappiness. I am bound to say that, during all the time I campaigned in Beaconsfield, I was made aware by those from all parties, irrespective of how they voted in the election or in previous ones, how much they recognised his concern for local issues and his assiduousness as a local Member. I pay tribute to his work because over 15 years Tim Smith did a great deal.
  There is one final matter that I should like to raise. Before I came to the House to make this speech I looked at what my predecessors had said in their maiden speeches. I was amused to discover that no one had made a maiden speech as Member for the area that I represent since 1945, because they had all been elected elsewhere first. When one comes to consider the state of the parties, I was greatly reassured that, in 1945, my predecessor in south Buckinghamshire, where I still enjoy a majority of 13,500, was Labour. We are not quite gone yet.
  Unable to find much comfort from that, I went back to the maiden speech made by my father in 1964. It concerned a foreign affairs issue. He was concerned that the then Labour Government had imposed tariffs which the previous Government had said, according to international treaty, they would not impose. They were aimed at restricting the import of goods from the European Community. He believed passionately—and still believes passionately—in the underlying philosophical principles of co-operation among European states. The whole of that speech was laced with his objections to the creation of structures that interfered with harmony and intercourse between people.
  What worries me about the Bill is that I fear that it will do exactly the same at United Kingdom level. That is why I will support the reasoned amendment tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends and why I cannot support the Government motion. However, if constructive suggestions are put forward as to how the problems associated with devolution for the totality of the United Kingdom can be
  792
  properly debated, I for one will be delighted to participate because the Union and the individuality in it is the absolute bedrock on which our freedom has been built.
  8.38 pm
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I congratulate the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve)—I believe that that was a maiden speech. I have lost count of the number of maiden speeches that there have been—I think that there must have been seven or eight, mostly from Scottish Members. It made me think of my maiden speech 10 years ago. When I made it, the words "zero-zero option" had only one meaning: the way in which the super-powers tried to bargain away different categories of nuclear missiles. The words zero-zero option have a new meaning: the pickle that the Tory party has got itself into in Scotland and Wales.
  One of the purposes of the debate has perhaps been to help the Tory party to work out why it has got into this zero-zero option problem in Scotland and Wales. By and large, it is because the Tory party is resistant to change and simply refuses to re-examine itself and to find out whether it should—we see it again in the amendment that it has tabled tonight—still be resisting change. It reminds me of the little signs that I see on buses sometimes when I try to pay for a ticket, or of signs in vending machine arcades saying, "This machine gives no change." That is not a bad description of the Tory party's attitude on constitutional matters.
  I think that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield mentioned what had happened with the Union of the Crown in 1603 and with the Act of Union in 1707 with Scotland. At the Welsh Conservative party conference only a few brief months ago—it seems a long time ago now—the former Prime Minister referred to 1,000 years of British history, revealing that perhaps he had not got much further than the 0-level stage in history, because there is no such thing. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield referred indirectly to the fact that the use of the term "Britain" and the use of the term "United Kingdom" do not go back more than 400 years. They go back in fact to the Union of the Crown with Scotland.
  We in Wales would obviously tend to want to take our version of parliamentary history back another 60 or 70 years to the two Welsh Acts of Union of 1535 and 1542, but I do not want to get into 1,000 years or even 400 years of history. It is fair to say, however, that it has been interesting to see how, in most of the past 400 years, the relationship between England, given its overwhelming size within today's United Kingdom, and the three Celtic fringe countries or nations—whatever we want to call them—of Scotland, Wales and Ireland has continuously been redefined. It was originally done by way of expansion through the incorporation of Wales, the Union with Scotland and the Act of Union (Ireland) Act 1800, but since then it has tended the other way. That meant the granting of additional rights to Ireland, Scotland and Wales in different forms.
  Since 1800, each of those additional rights has always been resisted by the Conservative party. It always gave out the same message and we are hearing it time and again tonight—any change to our constitution is a threat to the very existence of the Union. We have heard that such a change weakens and undermines the Union. "I am a passionate supporter of the Union," say Conservative

  793
  Members, as though it were a monopoly of the Conservative party. All they are saying is that they do not like this change.
  The same arguments were used against the extension of the franchise in the 19th century and in the early part of this century. Why does the Conservative party resist constitutional change? One can understand its opposition to the extension of the franchise in the 19th century because the Tories did extremely well under the previous system. To some extent, in this century, they have done extremely well through being the party of no change. It has helped them. They would have had great difficulties getting majority democratic support in Wales and Scotland, so they thought, "The way to run it is not to grant any democratic extension of rights to Wales and Scotland."
  I am afraid that the great Rubicon is upon the Conservative party, and it is beginning to divide on that issue. Certainly in Wales, we have seen at least the grandees of the Conservative party, some in the other place, some in the debate on the Queen's Speech only a few days ago, referring to the fact that a big rethink is now required by the Conservative party, and asking whether it should be resisting change and whether it was about time that it started to support the campaign through the referendum campaign and the subsequent legislation.
  The official position of the Conservative party as a collective body, although that seems a bit of a misnomer at the moment, is still to resist all change. Clearly, however, there are forces splitting the Tory party into the anti-devolution, "We are still the machine that gives no change" faction and the other faction which, as we approach the beginning of the third millennium, asks what is wrong with allowing democratic devolution. Why are members of the latter faction saying that? Because they know, as we know, that, having given administrative devolution to Scotland in, I think, 1885 and to Wales in 1964 in the form of separate Secretaries and Departments of State, a crunch point is inevitably reached.
  There has been administrative devolution in Scotland for more than 110 years and in Wales for 33 years. Administrative devolution poses certain problems because it means that something like the equivalent of vice-regal powers are gradually acquired. When the office of the Secretary of State for Wales was set up in 1964 under the incoming Labour Government of Harold Wilson, it was a great achievement for the Government. It started as quite a modest Ministry with some 250 civil servants and did not have a wide range of duties to perform.
  Of course, almost every four or five years—or whatever the length of the Parliaments—in the 33 years since then, most of which have been under Conservative rule, at least one major issue of Government competence has been transferred from the classic British unitary state model, according to which everything is run by Departments which are held responsible at the Dispatch Box, to the alternative hybrid, the territorial mechanism according to which Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are by and large run. Thus, all the Home Ministries have gradually been transferred to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
  We are now left with this curious unitary state—yes, it is a unitary state, but one with strong elements of quasi-federal practice within it. It is still eventually responsible to this sovereign Parliament, but it is an odd system. It is not a terribly healthy one and certainly not
  794
  one that we should say is immutable because of its sheer beauty as drawn up by the brilliant Olympian minds of some constitutional lawyers. No one could say that about the hybrid system that we have now, under which England is run entirely by Departments while Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are run on a territorial basis but with some functions such as social security and some forms of transport—air and rail—still run on a UK-wide basis.
  There are slightly varying degrees of devolution in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Most notably, in Wales there has been no devolution of the Lord Chancellor's functions, Home Office functions or most transport functions.
  There is thus an element of difficulty with the hybrid system, so I am very pleased that we now have a Bill that will enable the people of Wales either to veto the principles of the White Paper if they do not like them or give them the direct democratic mandate if they do. I hope that the Tory party realises that it has a choice as to whether to participate constructively or carry on as the entirely negative force that it is and has been for the past 20 years or so.
  Of course, there was a faction within the Tory party whose members, some of whom are still fairly prominent but some of whom got knocked out at the election, were devolutionists in the mid-1970s vis-a-vis Scotland. However, they changed their minds when Margaret Thatcher took over the leadership of the party in the late 1970s. That was the price of preferment in the Tory party. Those who, like Malcolm Rifkind and the former Chancellor, had been devolutionists had to change their mind and become anti-devolutionists if they wanted a job in Margaret Thatcher's Administration.
  At that stage, there was not a pro-devolution faction in Wales, but it would have followed as inevitably as the Secretary of State for Wales's job followed on from the original establishment of the office of Secretary of State for Scotland.
  I accept what the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said about tolerating anomalies within a system so long as there is the good will to make them workable. All parties have a duty to create that good will and the atmosphere for constructive debate and interchange because we shall never get rid of those anomalies. We will never establish a perfect unitary state or attain a federal system devised by teams of constitutional lawyers—as primarily British constitutional lawyers did for the Federal Republic of Germany in the period leading up to its establishment in 1949. That will not happen, because it is not the British way. The British way is to move bit by bit, after the argy-bargy and knockabout of a general election, and after even more argy-bargy and knockabout across the Floors of this House and the other place—which, probably in the history of the world, is the greatest constitutional anomaly of all. Until now the other place has been accepted, although some changes to it may be made. Today, however, we are not debating that issue.
  If we are to talk about anomalies, we must keep a sense of proportion about the different types of anomaly in the British constitution. We want—with a long, hot summer ahead of us—genuine, democratic campaigning, and we want the Tory parties to participate in it. We want them to do so, however, in a way in which they do not try to be the hold-outs, trying to claim that they are the last people who love and feel passion for the Union.

  795
  The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said earlier in the debate that Conservatives are the patriots and that, collectively, they are the ones who distinguish between patriotism and parochialism. He comes from Llanelli and I come from Cardiff, and we Taffs have to stick together, but I should tell him that the implication of his statement—that Labour Members are not patriotic, because we believe in introducing democratic devolution in areas that, so far, have been only administratively devolved—will be deeply resented. He needs to rethink that attitude.
  I know that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, because of his long period in Folkestone, has been affected more deeply than me by English folk culture. Indeed, I have been told that his favourite folk-song is, "As I was going to Widdecombe fair".
  If the right hon. and learned Gentleman and other Conservative Members really love the Union, love waving the Union flag and believe that our governmental system is the strongest in the world, why do they treat the Union as a flower so fragile that even the slightest change to it will smash it—like the finest Dresden china—to smithereens? Those two beliefs cannot be held simultaneously. If one is a patriot and thinks that the British constitution is strong, the British constitution should easily be able to withstand devolution and referendums—for which today's debate is paving the way.
  8.52 pm
  Mr. Edward Garnier: I congratulate my three hon. Friends—they form not a Holy Trinity, but certainly a trinity—who made their maiden speeches in this debate. They spoke with confidence and clarity, and I am sure that we all look forward to hearing more from them. I also congratulate the Labour Members who made their maiden speeches today. They all spoke with great fluency, and I hope that we shall hear more from them, too.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan)—in his criticisms of the Conservative party, or of what is left of it in the House and in the United Kingdom—rather reminded me of the sergeant-major who informed conscripts into the armed forces that, if they could not take the joke, they should not have joined up.
  I do not think that the result of the general election was a joke, however, because I have been in the Chamber and I have listened to the debate. I have seen the size of the Labour majority—about which I do not complain unduly—and I have to accept it as a fact of political life. I have to exist as a Conservative Member in that new universe: which means that the Bill will receive its Second Reading; that it will pass, probably unamended, its Committee stage; that it will be sent to the other place; that it will return, again probably unamended, from the other place; and that, before long, it will receive Royal Assent. That is a political fact of life with which I must live.
  The current facts of political life do not, however, mean that I should not contribute to the debate or that Conservative Members should not be heard. Our speeches may not change anything. Nevertheless, our job is to criticise and to oppose constructively. I hope that we will be listened to in that spirit.
  796
  The Secretary of State for Scotland accused me of being "horribly familiar". I am not quite sure whether he was criticising me for calling him "Donald", or for calling Tony "Tony", or whether he was saying that he recognised me from the previous Parliament. Whichever it was, I do not want to be rude to him, because I do not think that he was being rude to me. It would be very silly for a member of the Bar to be rude to a solicitor. All I wish the right hon. Gentleman to do is to retire soon and to spend more time with his practice so that he can benefit mine. He made a good speech and, if I may say so without ruining his reputation, he is a good man. If we have to have a Labour Secretary of State for Scotland, we could not have a better one than him.
  I want to make three brief points about the Bill which may come up for discussion later in Committee. The first relates to the composition of the electorate in the referendum which is dealt with in clauses 1(3) and 2(3), the first dealing with Scotland and the second with Wales. Although I can accept the administrative convenience of translating the local government electorate into the referendum electorate, it is puzzling that that will allow non-United Kingdom citizens—non-Welshmen and non-Scotsmen—to vote on what will be a massive change in the government of the United Kingdom.
  The local government electors include European Union citizens. I have no particular problem about that, because if people happen to be European Union citizens who live in the borough of such and such and pay the local council tax, they should surely be entitled to express a view politically about their local government. Where we are deciding the future, however, not just of a local government area but of the future governance of Scotland and Wales, it is surely right that only United Kingdom citizens who are resident in those countries should vote in this great thing.
  I go further. Is it not all the more peculiar that European Union citizens who are not United Kingdom citizens should be able to vote in the referendums in Scotland and in Wales when United Kingdom citizens who happen to be English residents are disfranchised, despite the fact that the referendums and the devolution Bills which will follow from them will gravely affect the United Kingdom, of which my constituency is a part just as much as Welsh and Scottish constituencies are? That is a point for note now and, I hope, for greater discussion later.
  I make that point not out of xenophobia, but for the reasons I expressed earlier. I look at the matter in terms of family law. Both parties to a trial separation or to a divorce—the husband and the wife—have a say in the matter. Looking at the plans for the future of the United Kingdom, it seems that only the departing parties—I know that there are discussions about whether the break-up of the Union will result from the Government's plans—will be involved. I believe that the English and those resident in England have as much right to express a view in the referendum as the Scots and the Welsh do.
  My second point concerns the date. It is not yet clear—it may become clear later today or tomorrow—whether the Scottish referendum will be held earlier than the Welsh referendum. It seems a more economic use of everybody's time and possibly cheaper to hold both referendums on the same day. My suspicion—I do not know whether any Welsh Members will be able to confirm it—is that there is less enthusiasm in Wales for an Assembly than there is in Scotland for a Scots

  797
  Parliament. It may be—perhaps I am being overly suspicious—that the Government think that if the referendum result in Scotland is announced two, three, or four weeks ahead of the Welsh referendum, the impetus from that will flow across to the benefit of the Government's case in Wales. If the case for a separate Welsh Assembly and a separate Scots Parliament is good, we might as well have the argument on one day and have the result quickly and efficiently.
  My third point relates to clause 4—not clause IV of fond memory for the new Labour party, but clause 4 of the Bill. It is—I freely admit it—exactly the same as clause 4 in the Referendum Act 1975 and clause 10 in the Wales Act 1978 and the Scotland Act 1978. It prevents courts from entertaining
  "any proceedings for questioning the number of ballot papers counted or votes cast as certified by a Chief Counting Officer".
  There will be no legal challenge to the result. That is fair enough, but what happens if the result is close or there is evidence—as there was at the recent general election—that some of the ballot papers have been improperly marked or stamped or there is some other genuine point that could be argued?
  When there is a landslide result, there is clearly no point in fussing because the margin of error does not apply, but if there is a narrow results is it right for the courts to be blocked off to those with a genuine complaint? Perhaps the Attorney-General in England and Wales and the Lord Advocate in Scotland should act as a sieve to sift out frivolous applications. Bearing in mind the difficulties of establishing locus and whether it should be open only to an individual or open to groups of interested parties to raise a challenge, it might be worth while considering adding a Law Officer's function to allow legal challenges in certain circumstances.
  That relates to the threshold question which has been much debated this evening. I do not want to delay the House by dealing with it further. No doubt the arguments will be addressed in Committee. Considering the result of the election, the Government should have no fears about the outcome of their proposed referendums. If they have any confidence in their case, they have nothing to fear from a threshold. If there is a low turnout—as is possible—and a modest majority in favour of or against the proposals, the perceived legitimacy of the result will be open to question. Those fears will be done away with if a threshold is included.
  Finally, I congratulate the Government on the fact that the Committee stage of the Bill will be taken on the Floor of the House. That is a good move. I hope that that translates to a willingness for the Committee stage of the devolution Bills later in the year to be taken on the Floor of the House.
  9.2 pm
  Mr. Eric Clarke: I congratulate you on your new post, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I also congratulate all those hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches. I am sure that some of my new hon. Friends will go on to better things. I also enjoyed the confidence with which hon. Members from other parties have made their speeches. I particularly liked the comments of my old friend the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie), with whom I worked in
  798
  the Lothian region. I do not think that he should lose any of his attitudes to this place. He has it summed up perfectly. I have not lost my attitudes either.
  I have waited a long time to speak today, but I have waited a long time to speak on this issue. I am delighted that the Gracious Speech mentioned the referendum. I am also delighted to congratulate the Scottish people on getting rid of the colonial rule that we have had from St. Andrew's house. It was nothing more than people who knew better than the natives. The natives have now told them what they really think of them.
  We are not quite out of the woods yet. Some hon. Members seem to be hair splitting with a laser beam, demonstrating illogical political logic and wallowing in a quagmire of red tape like big political hippos—and they love it. They enjoy tearing this good idea to bits, hiding behind the defence of being Unionists, or some other thing. Within the movement for the devolution that Scotland and Wales want are people who want the Union to remain intact—not for it to remain as it is, but for the fundamentals of being in the Union to remain intact. If they do not agree with us, the demands will continue.
  The people of Scotland feel that devolution is long overdue. I have been arguing for it for many long years—as a young miner and when I worked for the National Union of Mineworkers in Scotland. On one occasion, we were sabotaged by a Mr. Cunningham. As far as I am concerned, he is persona non grata in Scotland. I hope that he never goes there again. The NUM kept the flame of freedom and democracy alight even when the rest of the Labour movement did not accept our proposals. Time and again, resolution after resolution, year in year out, we put them to Labour party conferences and to the Scottish Trades Union Congress.
  The establishment of the Scottish Constitutional Convention was a great breakthrough. The STUC first attempted it in a very crude form by inviting people to discussions. Conservative Members and representatives of the Confederation of British Industry were among those who came to talk about how we could get the Scottish people what they wanted—a Parliament in Edinburgh. At the time, I was surprised when some people walked away, but now we have a convention that comprises an amalgamation of political parties, the trade union movement, the Churches and other interests. Many people kept alive their enthusiasm for a Scottish Parliament and were not too popular when they raised the matter time and again. Now we are firmly on the threshold of putting the matter to the people of Scotland and Wales.
  I should like to see a Parliament in Edinburgh. I know that there are arguments about how it could be financed. There certainly would have been savings had we had a Parliament in Edinburgh. We definitely would not have had the poll tax and we undoubtedly would not have thrown away millions of pounds building a private hospital in Clydebank. Nor would we have all the quangos that were created to fuel the nepotism in the Conservative party in Scotland. We would have done away with all that and produced savings.
  It has been said that a Scottish Parliament would require more civil servants. My comrade and hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) said that we were already devolving departmentally. There is already an army of civil servants in Scotland—in Dover house, St. Andrew's house and a brand new place called the

  799
  Quay, which is on the Forth at Leith. I do not know whether my hon. Friends on the Front Bench have been there yet, but I understand that it is quite pukka. The civil servants are already in situ; it is just a matter of organising them better and getting them involved.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clarke: No way. I sat here for hours listening. Had the hon. Gentleman done the same, I would have let him intervene.
  A Scottish Parliament is most desirable. I support the proposed constitutional reforms. I have also always been in favour of a change in the system of voting. I should like to see new procedures, timetables and ways of conducting business in Edinburgh. I welcome the exciting prospect of creating a new forum in Edinburgh and having it run in a reasonable way, and, with all due respect to this place, without its archaic and backward procedures. I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West about that.
  I remember a story, which is rather funny but contains a lesson. Back in 1974, the Monktonhall branch of the NUM held a meeting to analyse what had happened in the strike. A lot of criticism was expressed until the delegate said, "Stop! I have had enough. Yes, we made mistakes in the strike, but they were correct mistakes."
  Hon. Members should not think that the House has not, through the democratic process, made some howlers and real clangers in the past. We, the Scottish people and the Welsh people, will make the mistakes—but they will be correct mistakes. I think that hon. Members know what I mean. We will not have colonial officers telling us that decisions will hurt us, they know better than us and eventually we will benefit. Those who said that they knew better than we did are getting their P45s—the lot of them. The people of Scotland know better; they are very bright and intelligent people who are not blinkered.
  I say to the rest of the people in the United Kingdom, "Come and join us. You do not have to have the formula for Scotland, Wales or anywhere else. Devolve, so that democracy goes to the people and the people are involved." The people responsible will have more time and be more accountable. Those who make the decisions will not be cloistered in some room down in London, part of some big Department; they will be up front in an accessible Parliament where they can report to the people. That is what we are looking for in Scotland and that is what we will get.
  I hope that people realise that, if any party or any individual in a party does not take part in the campaign for a meaningful result in the referendum, they will stand on trial. They know what will happen to them. The people of Scotland will do to them exactly what they did to the Conservatives.
  9.11 pm
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: I should first congratulate all those who have made their maiden speeches before me in this debate and say how honoured I am to make mine.
  As some hon. Members may have noticed, my name is not Welsh. In fact, it is not even British; it is Estonian. Both my parents left Estonia at about the time of the
  800
  second world war because of the oppression that threatened their lives. Naturally enough, they met and moved to Northern Ireland, as Estonians seem to do. I was born in Northern Ireland and that is why I sound Northern Irish rather than Estonian.
  While discussing the campaign in Montgomeryshire, my agent wistfully suggested that I should change my name to Alex Carlile so that we would not have to reprint the posters. I turned down his suggestion, but over the past months I have discovered that, on the west side of my constituency, they have started calling me Llembit ap Opik. So, slowly, I am becoming Welsh.
  By a remarkable coincidence, my name turns out to be an anagram of, "I like to b MP." I can only congratulate my parents on realising my future career 32 years ago. I shall be wearing my Palace of Westminster pass for another few weeks to give hon. Members an even chance of getting my name right in the Strangers Bar.
  Among the political giants I follow are names such as David Davies, Clement Davies, Emlyn Hooson and, of course, my immediate predecessor, the famous and great Alex Carlile. The debt that I owe Alex Carlile cannot be put into words. It was a source of sadness to the constituency that his personal circumstances caused him to stand down, although I am sure that putting his family first was the right decision. He leaves a tremendous legacy. I hope that people across not only Montgomeryshire but the House, Britain and Northern Ireland recognise the tremendous contribution to Parliament that he has made over the past 14 years.
  The same old Alex made one last appearance on Sky Television on election night. My result came in and the commentator turned to Alex and said, "So, Mr. Carlile, the Liberal Democrats hold your seat with an increased majority." He wasted no time in responding, "Yes, but the total vote has gone down!" Good old Alex. I thank him sincerely for all the help that he has given me and the Liberal Democrats over the years.
  I support and applaud the proposal to have a referendum. While we may haggle about the details, no democrat—whether Liberal Democrat, Plaid Cymru, Labour or Conservative—can oppose the common sense of giving a nation the right to decide its future. The Labour proposals could be described as timid, but they are a start and it would be churlish for a political party to oppose them simply because they do not go far enough. I shall campaign for a yes vote in the referendum, along with other Liberal Democrats.
  The benefits of a devolved Assembly are legion. It would see an end to the quango culture that threatens so much of what used to be under democratic control only 10 to 15 years ago. For example, the very survival of the hospitals in the Dyfed Powys area may depend on the speedy completion of the referendum; there is a sense that the quangos can no longer make crucial decisions about the future of people's health, without understanding what the people of Wales want.
  A devolved Assembly will assist the future economic regeneration of Wales. The Development Board for Rural Wales has done sterling work, especially in mid-Wales, to regenerate the economy. A devolved Assembly or Sennedd could make a tremendous contribution to revitalising Wales through such agencies. It could make a start on operating more sensibly parts of the health service, such as the ambulance service. I shall not go into

  801
  details tonight, but the ambulance service has been appallingly mismanaged recently. One classic example is the famous one-person ambulance team, which prompts the obvious question, "Who carries the other end of the stretcher?" The Shropshire Star has run a petition to save the ailing ambulance service in the Powys area, and in two weeks it has amassed 6,500 signatures.
  Devolution would bring something else that cannot be measured in numbers—a sense of responsibility. That must be worth fighting for. As everyone who has been to Wales knows, the people have a tremendous warmth and Montgomeryshire is at the heart of that feeling. Many lament the political demise of Montgomeryshire and its merger into Powys, but the spirit remains. From Llanidloes to Llanfyllin, from Welshpool and Newtown to Machynlleth, a character pervades the landscape. It is in the rocks. The County Times, the local paper, is more of a commentary on daily life: it is part of the community. The schools do not teach only knowledge: they teach an outlook. We nurture the River Severn to the point at which it is foolish enough to flow into England. The wages may be low but people work hard, on the land, in the shops and in the factories.
  The Welsh language, despite all the efforts of previous Governments to squeeze it out of existence, is coming back. One in four people in my constituency speak it. I am learning it slowly, because I believe that if we are serious about a national identity, we have to lead from the front and prove that we mean it. I hope that in the months and years ahead, my Welsh will improve in its fluency.
  The spirit of adventure in my constituency is embodied by Operation Dragonfire, about which the House will hear much more in the months to come. It is a project to build the first amateur rocket to be sent into space. The idea was hatched in the Sam inn with the landlord, Bertie, on one especially spirited evening. Whether or not it works, we are having some tremendous evenings planning the project.
  We have had problems in Montgomeryshire, including bovine spongiform encephalopathy, the crushing drop in beef and lamb prices because of the strength of the pound, low incomes, and the huge decline in public transport. The Welsh people, however, also have a self-belief. They believe that they have the right to make decisions about how they are governed, and the freedom to enjoy all the things that epitomise so distinctively life in rural Wales. There is a phrase used in mid-Wales that sums all that up: "mwynder Maldwyn," or "the gentleness of Maldwyn"—that is, of Montgomeryshire.
  Our job is not simply to worship the constituencies that we represent. Our loyalty must lie not only with the people who elected us, but with the sense of justice that built the institution in which we stand today. We have a chance to honour that well, and to do so differently from the way in which things have been done in recent times.
  The past of the Commons is chequered with great alliances and with appalling discord. I believe that we are now emerging from one of those periods of discord—a period marked by an extraordinary sense of self-doubt, which caused an unnatural aggressiveness on the part of the recently departed Government. When the Conservative leadership election is over, and muscle flexing is replaced by the exercise of the mind, perhaps there will even be grounds to hope for a softening of the Tory line.
  802
  We could replace the politics of confrontation with the politics of reform, through consensus and constructive opposition. The political environment that Wales, and Britain as a whole, so desperately need, is within our grasp. Our actions can restore public faith—the faith of the public in the Strangers Gallery and of those who view us at home—simply by starting to work on the merits of the issues, rather than always opposing simply because that is what we have done in the past.
  It seems to me that there are some who feel more comfortable with the theatre of political war than in the assembly of co-operation—but that does not include me. My family fled tyranny in Estonia. They came to the United Kingdom for sanctuary, because it had a democratic system—a system that literally saved their lives. I am here because this democratic institution, faults and all, is truly great among the democracies of the world. The greatest reform needs to happen to this institution. The Bill will be able to change not only the details in Wales but the way in which we take part in politics in general.
  I hope to play my part in the referendum, to campaign for a yes in Wales and to make a personal contribution to the great reform before us. So I return to where I started. Perhaps other Estonians, remembering the sanctuary that they, too, found, will watch my contribution and, I hope, feel that in some small way I am giving something back to the nation that gave them so much.
  Perhaps above all else, I hope that as the people of Montgomeryshire and the rest of Wales watch us, not only tonight but in the months to come, they will observe a Parliament that is finally giving something back to Wales—the right to choose. If they do, and if we have the courage of our convictions, 1997 may turn out to be a vintage year—the year when the great reforms finally started, and we finally had the courage to start building a fairer Wales.
  9.21 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Savidge: I begin my maiden speech by praising the maiden speech by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). I do not know how eloquent he is in Welsh, but he showed incredible eloquence in English, and lucidity, too. That is especially remarkable at this time in the evening, which imposes quite a strain on those of us who have waited this long to speak.
  I praise, too, the general standard of maiden speeches that have been made in the debate. They have been outstanding. Perhaps I may pay a particular tribute to my neighbour both on this Bench and in constituency terms, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), for her outstanding speech.
  As the new constituency of Aberdeen, North takes in more than half the old constituency that bore that name, I claim the privilege of paying a tribute to my friend Robert Hughes. He was a hard act, although an outstanding example, to follow. He was a great constituency Member, who worked hard for his constituents both individually and collectively, as well as for Aberdeen and for north-east Scotland in general, and he won great respect both locally and nationally, across party boundaries.
  In the best traditions of Members of Parliament, Robert Hughes combined being a good constituency Member with fighting for justice, freedom and peace both at home

  803
  and abroad. He worked diligently, whether he was on the Front or the Back Benches. During his long career he spent time on both. Indeed, at one point my predecessor put his personal convictions before his personal preferment, which was a sign of great integrity—the sort of integrity that the public expect us to restore to public life in the House.
  It is right to pay tribute to Bob Hughes for what he did in support of a cause that was at one time just as unpopular with some people as some of the causes for which my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) has campaigned.
  During the course of recent world history, there have been two political miracles. One is the events that we associate with Mikhail Gorbachev, the other is those that we associate with Nelson Mandela. When President Mandela made his state visit to this country, it was notable that he paid particular tribute to the part played by Bob Hughes in the abolition of apartheid. In addition, many people were deeply grateful to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for the tribute that he paid to Bob Hughes for that work at the last Labour party conference.
  When Bob Hughes made his maiden speech in 1970, he spoke about the problem of worker migration from Aberdeen. I need hardly say that that problem was reversed because of the oil industry, as referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South. There are still problems in my constituency, such as youth unemployment, which will definitely benefit from the Government's job creation schemes. We must not forget that the traditional industries in my constituency, particularly the food processing industry, remain important. I believe that the food standards agency can play an important part in restoring that industry, and I praise the work that has been done by Professor Philip James and the Rowatt research institute in building up the agency. I hope that it will have a long-standing involvement in the future.
  The oil industry has led to the building up of my constituency, which is continuing to grow. Eighty years ago, the present sites of many of the housing estates in my constituency were not just green-field sites—they were green fields. In my constituency, the Bridge of Don—perhaps more than any other area—has become the fastest-growing suburb and has gone beyond the level of facilities available to support it. A very exciting experiment has taken place in the Bridge of Don, where the council, the community council and the local community have worked with the relevant agencies to try to plan to solve local problems. I mention that in the context of this debate because the Government's plans will try to ensure that we have proper participatory democracy with proper subsidiarity at all levels, from international to community level.
  As Bob Hughes's 27 years of service were preceded by 25 years' service by Hector Hughes, I am aware that I am breaking more than half a century of surname tradition. However, I would claim that I am not the first Savidge to come to the Westminster Parliament—although I should stress, in the non-controversial spirit of a maiden speech, that I am not referring to the public perception of Prime Minister's Question Time until this afternoon's reforms. I am half English and half Scots, and I am thinking back to the 1400s and to a Parliament—which met sometimes in
  804
  Westminster and sometimes elsewhere—in which I believe a certain Sir Arnold Savidge held the position of Speaker on at least two and possibly three occasions.
  I understand that the Government of the time had three main features—the setting up of independent financial scrutiny; the pursuit of what might be called a one-nation policy—before Disraeli, let alone the present Government; and the apparent total harmony between the House of Lords and the House of Commons on policy. I should like to commend to the other place that in considering this Bill and those that we expect to come forward for the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments, it should follow that excellent example.
  All parties should now be working together on this issue. Surely it should not now be a matter of controversy. All Scottish and Welsh Members of Parliament were elected on manifestos that said that there should be Parliaments in Scotland and Wales. I urge not just the Liberal Democrats but the nationalists to join us in fighting for a yes, yes vote in the referendums, and then to work constructively with us in setting up the Parliament. I shall go further and say to the rump of the Tory party that now that the people of Scotland have said to it what Cromwell said to the Rump Parliament:
  "In the name of God, go!"
  is it not time for Conservatives to think about Cromwell's other advice and
  "think it possible you may be mistaken."?
  Is it not possibly time for whoever is elected by the remnants of the English Tories as their leader—I see one contender in the Chamber—to consider that a Scottish Parliament with proportional representation could look after the interests of minority, fringe parties?
  In all seriousness, I must make an appeal. Let all parties and the other place work together with us in consensus and consultation, so that we can set up a Parliament that can have the confidence and consent of the people of Scotland—government of the people of Scotland, for the people of Scotland, by the people of Scotland.
  9.30 pm
  The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): I am very pleased to be at the Dispatch Box in a Labour Government. The enjoyment of victory in one's seat is one thing; the enjoyment of having a Labour Government is another, but it is an honour, a privilege and an enormous responsibility to be at the Dispatch Box.
  Many hon. Members have said tonight that they seem to be the custodians of the principles and procedures of the House. Those views are shared by every hon. Member. The Government want to ensure that debates are properly scrutinised and have the maximum participation of every part of the House. That should be the case when we are dealing with serious constitutional issues.
  We have experienced some wonderful maiden speeches in the first day of this two-day debate—10 at the last count, I think. I must put on record my enjoyment of listening to my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) and for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Ms McKenna), the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart), the hon. Member for Edinburgh,

  805
  West (Mr. Gorrie), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Dr. Clark), the hon. Members for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Opik) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge).
  The quality of the contributions was of a high order. If that progresses through our debates, the House will be enriched as a consequence of the new intake. In case I am charged with being too loyal to the new recruits and less favourable to existing Members, there were also many excellent contributions from the latter on both sides of the House.
  In considering this constitutional issue, Conservative Members raised two or three important points about the Union—the idea of thresholds, of pre or post-legislative referendums and whether there should be a United Kingdom electorate. I will want to deal with the latter two, but it is important to make a forcible point at the start. Our measure—the Bill, followed by a Scottish Bill and a Welsh Bill—will mean the strengthening of the Union. This is not an attempt to undermine it. Indeed, it is an opportunity to ensure that the Union is strengthened.
  If the election result showed anything in Wales and in Scotland, it was that the status quo was not acknowledged or supported by the people who used their votes in the ballot. Conservative Members should appreciate that hard, crushing reality. People vote for different parties for a variety of different reasons, of course, but it would be foolish in the extreme if any hon. Member decided to ignore the realities in Scotland and Wales.
  Furthermore, as regards the Scottish dimension, it is important to listen to Scottish Conservatives. There is a distinct gap between contributions to the debates in this House and what is happening throughout Scotland. In many parts of the Conservative party, there is enormous scepticism. In some parts of the Conservative party in Scotland, there is downright opposition, but party members want to engage in the debate. This is an instructive point. Conservative Members will want to acknowledge that and to contribute. The Government and Conservatives in Scotland who are involved in the debate want to strengthen the Union.
  I hope that this evening we have heard many appeals to rise above party so that constitutional issues can be considered on their merits. I fully support that idea.
  Mr. Swayne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McLeish: No—for the simple reason that many hon. Members have sat through the whole of this debate and the hon. Gentleman has not.
  Mr. Swayne: I was watching it on television.
  Mr. McLeish: That is not an excuse for not being in the Chamber.
  Thresholds were referred to earlier and seem to be gaining favour with Conservative Members. After the referendums, the Government will act in accordance with the results, but we are seeking the electorate's view of our proposals in principle. Unlike in 1979, the referendums are not technical measures. Any threshold, other than a simple majority, would be arbitrary and unfair on the
  806
  people of Scotland and Wales. We want to hear the views of those people, and a simple majority vote will send a clear enough message to us.
  Fancy franchises, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said, are not needed. Their only purpose would be to frustrate the democratic will of the people. Conservative Members should think long and hard about that.
  There is a sense of history in the making in Scotland and, I hope, in the House. There is a sense of occasion as we look towards getting into the details of major constitutional change after the general election of 1 May. There is a sense of anticipation as we enter, in my judgment, the most exciting period in Scottish and Welsh politics for 50 years.
  We are embarking on a journey that will end with the opening of a Parliament in Scotland and an Assembly in Wales. Surely we are embracing this evening the sense of history and passion that has driven home rule discussions throughout this century.
  There is a mood for change, and momentum is building up; for far too long in Scotland and Wales confidence has been undermined by the Conservatives, expectations have been diminished, horizons narrowed and ambitions frustrated. After 50 years of debate in the United Kingdom that has ebbed and flowed in passion, importance and parliamentary time allotted, we have a unique opportunity to move forward and decide our future.
  Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend mentioned both history and details. I warn him, in the friendliest way possible, that in all the discussion the devil is often in the detail. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) asked about the civil service. I am not asking for an immediate answer, but the position of the civil service has to be sorted out: is it responsible to a Scottish Parliament; is it part of the British civil service; or is the United Kingdom civil service to be broken up? There are endless problems of that kind.
  Mr. McLeish: I respect my hon. Friend's comments. There will be challenges, as well as the devil, in the detail. We will have published a detailed White Paper before the summer recess that will be the basis for our discussions and for those in Scotland.
  It is important to press ahead with the Bill, which will give the people of Scotland and Wales the opportunity to voice their views on our proposals for devolution. We should re-emphasise the principle of asking the people concerned to vote on both propositions in Scotland and on the one proposition in Wales. It is a chance to choose: surely hon. Members would not want to deny the electorates in both those countries that opportunity.
  Earlier this month, the people of the United Kingdom elected a Government committed to introducing a comprehensive programme for constitutional renewal. Elements of the programme included the incorporation into UK law of the European convention on human rights; the introduction of a freedom of information Bill; the reform of the House of Lords; and the modernisation of the procedures of the House of Commons.
  Taken together, that adds up to the most wide-ranging programme for constitutional reform that has been envisaged in modern times. Its purpose is to modernise the institutions of government to meet the needs of the people and the demands of the 2Ist century.

  807
  At the heart of this programme, and its vanguard, are our plans for a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly. Tomorrow, my Welsh colleagues will go into more detail about the Welsh aspects of the legislation. The people of Scotland have made it abundantly clear, not just in the general election earlier this month but over the preceding decade, that they want more control over their own affairs and to remain within the United Kingdom. Our plans to establish a Scottish Parliament with law-making powers, firmly based on the agreement reached in the Scottish Constitutional Convention, will achieve that.
  We have not been slow to put words into action. I am grateful for the allusion of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) to that. Two weeks after coming into office, we have already taken the first steps towards meeting our manifesto commitment on a Scottish Parliament. Last Thursday saw the introduction into this House of legislation to allow the people of Scotland to vote in a referendum on our proposals, which will be set out in a White Paper that will be published well ahead of the referendum, and in any case before the House rises. We expect the referendum to be held by early autumn. On the basis of what we expect to be a resounding popular endorsement of our plans, we shall then bring forward legislation to create the Scottish Parliament.
  There will, of course, be a full opportunity for Parliament to debate our proposals during the passage of the main devolution Bill. Once that legislation is enacted, we shall immediately set in hand the necessary preparations to establish a Scottish Parliament.
  Scotland therefore now stands on the threshold. Too long have the people of Scotland waited for their wish for a greater say in their own affairs to be realised. We are about to take another step in what has been a historic journey in the government of Scotland. That journey started almost 300 years ago.
  The Acts of Union of 1707 abolished the Scottish and English Parliaments and established in their place a Parliament of Great Britain. It was an incorporating union, but the Acts none the less allowed Scotland to retain many of its distinctive features. The position of the Scottish established Church, the continuing autonomy of Scots law and our legal system, the organisation of local government, and our distinctive education system were maintained.
  Since the Acts of Union, Scottish autonomy within the Union has continued to develop. During the second half of the 19th century, interest in constitutional change was stimulated by debate on home rule for Ireland. In 1885, the Secretaryship for Scotland and the Scottish Office were established, and the following year saw the establishment of the Scottish Home Rule Association, with the object of winning a measure of devolution for Scotland. Scottish home rule Bills were introduced in Parliament in the 1920s, and in 1926 the Scottish Secretary became a full Secretary of State.
  The 1920s and 1930s saw an upsurge in popular demand for home rule in Scotland, and in 1942 the Scottish Union, later renamed the Scottish Convention, was formed. The convention secured a wide measure of popular support through a covenant, which committed its signatories to do everything in their power
  "to secure for Scotland a Parliament with adequate legislative authority in Scotland's affairs".
  808
  In a short space of time, about half the adult population of Scotland signed the document, and the people's views were an important element in the appointment in 1952 of the royal commission on scottish affairs.
  As a further response to the home rule movement in the first half of the century, in 1941 the then Secretary of State allowed meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee to be held in Scotland. At the same time various Scottish Departments were established and in this century there has been a steady transfer of functions to the Scottish Office.
  It is important to have set out the evolution of the devolution of power and responsibility to Scotland. Looked at incrementally, we are building on a tremendous sense of history, of tradition and of improving the government of Scotland. We have to view further progress in that context.
  Mr. Salmond: I am grateful to the Minister of State for going over the history. He mentioned the evolution of devolution. Does he remember a cartoon by Ewan Bain, a famous Scottish cartoonist, suggesting that the difference between the two concepts was that devolution took longer?
  Mr. McLeish: It may have taken longer but the important historical reality is that we are about to deliver a Scottish Parliament, and my colleagues a Welsh Assembly.
  All those developments, and more, have taken place in the context of a strengthening Scottish autonomy within the Union. I reinforce that point because Conservative Members made so many comments about the future of the Union.
  We now stand ready to take another step in this unfinished journey. We are committed to maintaining the Union and committed to delivering devolution to the people of Scotland, and we shall not fail them. Our plan of action, which I have just spelt out, will deliver a robust, effective and durable Parliament quickly and effectively. We are working hard to put together the terms of our White Paper, which will set out plans for the Parliament. We have the benefit of the work of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, which has helped to produce cross-party consensus, which is so vital. There is consensus on the case for change and on the basis on which change should be made. Our proposals will be firmly based on that consensus.
  The terms of the White Paper will take into account contributions that have been made over the past few months and, indeed, years, by a wide range of academics, constitutional specialists and other interested parties. We are listening and learning against the background of comments made in the House and elsewhere. If we are to take the matter seriously, we must recognise what others are saying about the passage of the Bill. When we reach the substantive Scotland Bill, the same process and courtesies will be extended.
  To supplement the listening-and-learning process, I shall be holding a series of further meetings with key players such as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, the constitution unit, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Confederation of British Industry, along with many other similar bodies. I am keen to listen to their views on how we should firm up our proposals.

  809
  We are confident that, given the extent of the dialogue that has already taken place and will take place over the next few weeks and months, our proposals will reflect and deliver the ambitions of the people of Scotland for a Parliament of their own. The publication of our White Paper will take the debate on our proposals for devolution from the minds of the few into the hearts of the many. That is an important step that the House can take by passing referendum legislation following a national campaign.
  We have, of course, been here before, as we have been constantly reminded this evening by hon. Members on both sides of the House. In the 1970s, the Labour Government struggled to legislate for a Scottish Assembly, but—essentially because of that Government's lack of a working majority in the House—the process was protracted. That legislation was burdened by amendment after amendment during its parliamentary passage. The Bill was enacted. In a subsequent referendum, however, the majority vote in favour did not reach the 40 per cent. threshold that was required by an amendment agreed to during the Bill's passage through Parliament.
  We have learnt two important lessons. First, there is the need to secure the passage of legislation by asking the people of Scotland for a specific mandate to establish a Scottish Parliament, including defined and limited financial powers to vary tax. We believe that the referendum will achieve that. Secondly, there is the need to have the details of our plans settled in advance, rather than their continuing to be developed during the passage of legislation. The White Paper that we shall publish will, I believe, achieve that objective.
  We have, I think, learnt a third lesson. It was hard at the time to recognise it, but it is absolutely right to remember it now. The lesson is that a simple majority will suffice. We cannot see obstacles being placed in the path of the Scots and the Welsh making decisions about their own future. This is a chance for change, and it is also about consent and choice.
  I am not sure that anyone could argue against the proposal upon which the perspective is based. In his winding-up speech on Second Reading on the Scotland Bill in November 1977, the late John Smith said:
  "If we pass this Second Reading and move on through the week to take other decisions connected with it, we shall not only improve and strengthen government in Scotland. We shall do a great deal to enhance and revive the unity of the United Kingdom."—[Official Report. 14 November 1977: Vol. 937, c.108.]
  There is no more eloquent testament to our plans and ideas than to state again the late John Smith's comments in this place. Our plans are all about improving the government of Scotland while at the same time strengthening the unity of the United Kingdom. That is a powerful message for the House to be sending to every part of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Grieve: I recognise from what has been said that the proposals are sincerely desired by many hon. Members, but when will the knock-on effects on the people of England in respect of English-only legislation be addressed? At what point in the discussion will that
  810
  happen? Will it happen before the referendum, so that people in Scotland can understand what the impact is likely to be? Will it happen afterwards, or not at all?
  Mr. McLeish: The hon. Gentleman asks a fair question. We intend to have the maximum debate in Scotland, in Wales and, indeed, in the House, which is representative of the whole United Kingdom.
  In the context of what was said earlier by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), it is important to note that—if we are talking about the Parliament deciding—this Parliament will decide. Scots and Welsh people will be directly affected by the legislation, and we think it right that the pre-legislation referendum should take place there; but every right hon. and hon. Member from every part of the United Kingdom will participate in discussions on the White Paper, and in debates in the Committee stage of the Bill that we are now discussing, as well as debates on the substantive Scotland Bill, on Second Reading, in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading. There will be ample opportunity to ensure that every Member of Parliament's voice is heard. That, I think, is a fair answer to what I consider a serious question.
  It is clear from the path of history that I have described, from the late 19th century to the efforts of John Smith, that considerable progress has been made, but there is still a great deal of unfinished business. The Government are determined to finish it by taking the next step, and the Bill paves the way for that step. It offers a chance for choice, a chance for consent and a chance for change. It is about giving the people of Scotland the democratic right to choose to take another step in the history of the government of Scotland. The chance to debate our detailed proposals will come later. There is no reason for us to deny the Scottish people the opportunity to choose their own destiny.
  Mr. Lansley: When he expands on the detail of his proposals, will the Minister explain how he proposes to give a voice to the many Scots and Welsh people who are not resident in Scotland or Wales, but who feel deeply about constitutional change affecting their place of birth, the place of their previous residence or the place of their possible future residence?
  Mr. McLeish: I hope that every right hon. and hon. Member will feel passionately about the future of the United Kingdom, the future of Scotland and the future of Wales. This is not an exercise in exclusion; it is an exercise in inclusion. The hon. Gentleman will represent a significant number of constituents who will want to have a say. Our parliamentary democracy, however, is founded on representation, and it seems to me self-evident that, at each stage of this Bill and the substantive Bill, we shall have every opportunity to debate the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has outlined, in a representative way.
  Mr. Salmond: The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said that people whose future place of residence would be affected should be entitled to vote. Theoretically, anyone in the world could in future reside in Scotland.
  Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman means Sean Connery.
  Mr. Salmond: That is quite likely.

  811
  Does the Minister have a view on this? According to the Conservative party, it seems that anyone in the world should be able to vote in the referendums in Scotland and Wales.
  Mr. McLeish: Like the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), I take pride in my country, and would extend a generous welcome to everyone in the world. The other side of the argument of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, however, is that we are somehow trying to close down the franchise. We are trying to provide the most important franchise, which is residency, and we are taking the local government base as our model. I think that that answers the question.
  Mr. O'Neill: Does my hon. Friend think that we might well have been able to accommodate some of those considerations if the Bill had extended further, and had included provisions for parts of England and, perhaps, Northern Ireland where it was felt desirable to have some form of devolved government or assembly? Could those people not have been accommodated, perhaps by a statutory instrument? That would have changed the character and speed of legislation. It would also have meant that the high priority that our Government are now giving to devolution for Scotland and Wales would have been, in some respects, subsumed by decentralisation of the rest of the United Kingdom, no matter how desirable it is. That would have met the concerns of the other parts of the United Kingdom, but it would have altered the picture of our ambitions for a decentralised state in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. McLeish: I suspect that my hon. Friend is inviting me on a much longer journey than I intend to take tonight.
  I should like briefly to comment on the important issue of the referendum and how we, the Government, are attempting to reach out. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East has spoken about consensus. We think that there should be maximum consensus in relation to constitutional change. That is why the inclusive approach that we have adopted is important. We believe that we need to extend the scope of that consensus.
  I should like to return to my earlier point about the two debates that now occupy the minds of the Conservative party in the United Kingdom. We have a debate at Westminster, which is reflected in the remarks made in particular by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), which suggests that in a real sense the Scottish Conservative party simply does not exist. Far be it from me to try to reach out over the heads of the leadership of the Conservative party to the Conservatives, but it is salutary to remember that, apart from the debate here, there is a healthier debate going on in Scotland. The six Conservative leadership contenders would be advised to listen a bit more and lecture a bit less until they are sure of their ground.
  If we are seeking consensus on a serious measure, it is important for Conservative Members to appreciate that, although they may have lost Conservative seats in
  812
  Scotland, in terms of parliamentary representation there are still half a million Conservative voters there who want constructive leadership that reflects the reality and not what that leadership would have liked it to have been if the circumstances had been different on 1 May.
  Another consideration relating to the extension of the consensus is how inclusive our campaign should be. The referendum is vital if it is about giving choice to Scots. We need a healthy contribution not only from the Conservatives but from the nationalists. I am slightly encouraged to note from speeches made tonight that the nationalists are having a debate within their own party. [Interruption.] Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) is inviting me to be less charitable than I am attempting to be. It is vital that that encouraging debate within the nationalist party should continue.
  This Second Reading debate should be sending a powerful message to every Scot, every voter, every political party, every supporter of a political party, every member of a political party, every organisation and every village, town and city that this is an enormous issue for the future of Scotland. It must be taken seriously. History will judge harshly anyone from any organisation who does not embrace and grasp the importance of what we are doing.
  After the Bill has gone through the House and we have had an opportunity to put it before the Scottish people, Scots are expecting a serious mood to descend on political parties and others. It is hugely encouraging to note that certain organisations in Scotland are already seeking to rise above party in many respects by trying to reach out in the manner that we have described tonight.
  It is important to mention the minds of the few and the hearts of the many. The campaign is finished and perhaps the soundbites will cease, but I am sure that there is no better subject to which one could apply such theory than devolution. There is a powerful sentiment for change in Scotland. Yes, we must discuss the issue and become involved in what for some people has become the theology of devolution, but we have a responsibility to ensure that the success of any measure that we pass should be assessed only according to its impact on ordinary people, whether in Scotland or in Wales. If we are inclusive in our approach and consensual in our attempt to take the matter forward, and if we try to generate a serious debate, especially among Conservative party members in the country and Conservative Members in the House, we will be doing everyone a favour.
  This is about empowerment, enrichment and the sense of history. That is the context of it. The history of this honourable place is surely the background for us to be raising the level of the debate. We should not get involved in some of the nit-picking exercises that were prevalent in some hon. Members' speeches; hon. Members on both sides of the House owe it to themselves, to their constituents and to the whole of the United Kingdom to ensure that this debate is conducted seriously.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Whipps Cross Hospital
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]
10 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his appointment. I know that he has considerable abilities and his appointment is well deserved, but he is in a tough job, especially after 18 years of damage to our health service by the Tories. I wish him success. I also congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and thank Madam Speaker for granting me this debate.
In the election, the most common complaint raised by my constituents was: "Do something about Whipps Cross." [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Would hon. Members leave quietly? An hon. Member is addressing the House.
Mr. Cohen: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Seven to eight-hour waits in the accident and emergency department are commonplace, with regular reports of 24-hour and longer waits. The impression is that Whipps Cross resembles a war zone, and that local people fear going there. My mailbag bulges with complaints confirming the findings of a table showing that Whipps Cross was second in the whole country for complaints; last year, there were 1,170 complaints.
Local newspapers regularly catalogue the dismal stories of long waits in the A and E department for patients on trolleys in corridors. For elderly people, left without regular nourishment, medical or nursing attention, physical deterioration is rapid, with the risk of pressure sores. There should be fast-track admission for elderly patients directly referred to the hospital by their general practitioner. They should not be repeatedly queuing for admission. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) had better be silent. I have heard some comments from Opposition Benches. He is in an Adjournment debate on an important matter.
Mr. Cohen: There has recently been the tragic death of 11-year-old Neil Askew from meningitis. Among the many unsatisfactory aspects surrounding his death is the suspicion that, if he had not endured a wait of many hours before his condition was identified, and if he had been transferred to the specialist hospital more quickly, his life might have been saved.
I draw the Minister's attention in particular to the long waits for treatment, especially on trolleys, that were particularly bad last winter. To prevent a recurrence, I ask him to accept that action needs to be taken before next winter.
In addition to the unacceptably high level of complaints, two separate performance indicators point to persistent chronic under-performance at Whipps Cross. The Government's official national health service performance guide, analysed by The Guardian on 3 July
814
last year, showed Whipps Cross second from bottom of all acute hospitals in England. Most recently, the Audit Commission report said:
"Waiting times are a serious problem at Whipps Cross Hospital, and are the result of a combination of factors. In addition to the increasing workload and inadequate staffing levels, a shortage of specialty beds and problems with current admission policies need to be addressed."
The report found that Whipps had the worst waiting times out of the 17 London and south-east accident and emergency departments that it examined.
Those three indicators show that Whipps Cross is not delivering the same quality services as comparable hospitals elsewhere. That is unfair to local people. Waiting lists for hospital treatment have slipped back to 18 months, and a recent trust report shows that they will slip further. Staff tell me that some patients are actually being kept off the waiting lists. About 14,000 people are waiting for non-emergency operations.
The community health council said:
"Health services in Waltham Forest are worse than in other areas."
For example, elderly patients currently have to wait six to nine months for a hearing aid as priority is given to the dying and the over-90s.
Some of the elderly acute wards are in a dreadful state without adequate toilet and washing facilities. The majority of those who die do so in ordinary wards, where the level of palliative care is inadequate.
Whipps Cross hospital is in deep financial crisis. Forest Healthcare NHS trust and Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority, which are responsible for that, are in a financial mess. On 7 May, a report on the deficit said that the
"health authority is in a position where it has an underlying recurrent deficit of £3 million … It could be exposed to a £6.5 million deficit".
The trust overspent by about £4 million.
On top of that, a £10 million reduction to Redbridge and Waltham Forest is proposed in the latest unfair funding formula adopted under the Tories. Last week's Wanstead and Woodford Guardian and Waltham Forest Guardian reported a "£20 million black hole" in health finances, quoting David Avis, the health authority's director of finance. The Ilford Recorder lists £13.1 million of debts on the health authority's loans.
I and fellow Members of Parliament for the area, some of whom wish to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have met local health officials month after month and year after year, only to be told that things are under control and getting better. Only Nick Leeson could believe that.
The management is in a state of permanent crisis. The top managers are not on top of the situation, and are disinclined to take responsibility. Middle managers struggle to cope with costly, repeated reorganisations. Some staff have had to apply three times in three years for their own jobs. Expensive outside consultants have been used, but their recommendations have not always been implemented, and then new consultants are appointed.
The trade union talks of "destabilisation" of the work force, which puts the blame on the staff who have left and creates a climate of fear so that employees cannot speak their mind. The hospital staff, to whom I pay tribute for keeping the service going in awful circumstances, have been treated unfairly. Their morale is at rock bottom.

815
The privatisation contract with Tarmac Servicemaster, for cleaning, portering, transport and switchboard services, has been disastrous. There has been a failure properly to appreciate basic hospital hygiene. For example, initially one mop was used to clean toilets, wards, treatment rooms, sluices and kitchens—what a risk of cross-infection and MRSA, or methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus. This is the madness of privatisation, which ends up costing a lot more. I have photographs to pass to the Minister showing the shambles of that contract.
New Labour's election promise was that the internal market will go and that 100,000 more patients will be treated by cutting £100 million from the bureaucracy budget. We will also act on the scandal of long waits on trolleys. From the case that I have outlined, I am sure that the Minister will agree that Whipps Cross sorely needs the benefit of that programme.
There are huge funding deficits in the health authorities and trusts across London. I ask the Minister to re-examine swiftly the capitation formula, of which a quarter is not weighted for deprivation. A full weighting for deprivation is recommended by the Select Committee on Health, and by the King's Fund. Out of 402 boroughs, Waltham Forest is 23rd from the bottom and Redbridge is in the bottom third, according to the Jarman indicators of deprivation.
The health authority and the trust have adopted a joint strategic change programme with transitional funding of £4.4 million, dependent on cash efficiency savings of £3.7 million being achieved. Because of the scale of the deficit, however, the programme will simply spread the debts and cuts over a number of years. As the Audit Commission confirmed, new disinvestments—many of which are desperately short-term—will exacerbate the appalling problem of delays in the accident and emergency ward.
A recent trust report on acute services recommended a reduction of 183 posts and 27 beds, and downsizing theatre sessions by 10 per cent. On 7 May, Lister ward—the female surgical ward—closed, despite the trust's assurances in April to the Waltham Forest Guardian that no changes would be made in the 1997–98 financial year. Cost-effective programmes, such as interim care, have been abandoned, and have resulted in higher readmission levels. Quality of care, best practice and good ideas have been jeopardised.
Currently available money could be better spent, and wasteful spending on inefficient private contractors and consultants must be ended. The joint strategic change programme must be drastically improved, because it is currently the only game in town. The local health authority and trust managements have failed to take effective action and assume responsibility for the various on-going crises and for the overall crisis.
Department of Health monitoring and support is necessary. I ask the Minister to scrutinise and reorganise the structure and personnel of the trust and the health authority. There should be local authority staff representation.
The health authority and the trust have failed to agree on this year's contracts, in which there is a £6.5 million gap. Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority costs more than £4.8 million per annum, primarily in managing
816
the internal market. That sum could be slimmed down considerably, in line with Labour policy. Management of patient care is our primary objective.
Help is also required in recruiting key staff—particularly A and E consultants, nurses and midwives—to work at Whipps Cross hospital. The Government could play a role in reshaping funding, and in encouraging staff to go where they are most needed.
I am confident that the Minister agrees that there must be widespread and sustained improvement at Whipps Cross hospital. Its users—my constituents—deserve better, and I am sure that they will benefit from Labour's new health policies.
10.12 pm
Mr. Mike Gapes: I welcome you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to your new position. I am also very grateful to have an opportunity to say something about Whipps Cross hospital, because many of my constituents depend on it for services in some specialisms.
Over the past five years, some of my constituents have waited 30 hours in hospital, and others have had operations cancelled several times. It is quite clear, however, that the situation facing both trusts—Forest Healthcare NHS trust, at Whipps Cross hospital; and Redbridge Healthcare NHS trust, at King George hospital, which is in my constituency and within the Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority area—is now very serious.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) mentioned last week's reports in the local press. The Ilford Recorder reported a £13 million deficit, and explained the implications of that deficit for waiting times, cancelled operations and care for local people. It is perhaps ironic—given the leadership of Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority—that, immediately after the general election, the authority announced that it had a problem and that it could not set a budget for this year until July, thereby deferring everything for two months.
It is interesting that the authority's management did not reveal the problem in April, or in any of the many meetings that we have had with them in recent months and years. They told us that us that everything was under control, and that any problems were completely the fault of the hospitals' inefficiencies.
The problems are deep-seated, and they need radical solutions—one of which will be to restructure the health authority and to clean out many of the people working for it, so that we can replace them with people who are more responsive to local communities and to the needs of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead.
I hope that, when he replies, the Minister will recognise the wider issues that threaten our part of north-east London, one of which is the potential knock-on consequences for Whipps Cross and King George of the closure of the accident and emergency unit at Oldchurch hospital. I believe that all those issues are linked, and that it will be disastrous for us all if the Tory closure programme for London hospitals continues. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead for allowing me to make this contribution.
10.14 pm
Mr. Neil Gerrard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) for allowing me to take part briefly in this debate.
I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Minister will hear from many hon. Members throughout the country about problems in their local hospitals. It is, however, important to emphasise that I and all the Members of Parliament for the area around Whipps Cross—this is true irrespective of party—believe that there are particular problems in this trust and this district health authority.
I do not trust the league tables we have had over the past few years. They measure things that are measured easily, such as how long people wait before their name and address are taken in accident and emergency. On that basis, Whipps Cross meets the patients charter standard, although we know that there are immense waiting times. What the tables do not, of course, measure is quality of outcome, and there are many concerns about Whipps Cross in those terms. Whatever the league tables measure, there is something wrong when a hospital is at the bottom of every league table except the league table of complaints, in which it is up at the top.
My hon. Friends the Members for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) and for Leyton and Wanstead have mentioned the problem of the budget being deferred and of the deficit, so I do not want to go over that point. One of the most important points, however, for Members of Parliament has been the difficulty we have all had in trying to establish exactly what is going on. As a result of the internal market, the trust and the district health authority blame one another, and, from one meeting to the next, it is extremely difficult to pin down what has happened to the budget. Horrendous figures suddenly appear about which we have not been told before.
There is a strong case for looking at the question of openness—at the way in which budgets are decided, when they are decided and how open that process is. There is no doubt about what is happening to services, irrespective of the true figures for the deficit.
I know that the trust has historical problems. The original application for the trust to be set up was a disgrace. With such financial information, it would have been impossible to borrow anything from a bank, yet, on the basis of that totally inadequate information, a large chunk of national health service assets was handed over to the trust. I also believe that creating a trust covering not just a hospital but all the services in the area was a big mistake. All that is history, but it has left the present management, who are making serious efforts to address the problems, with an impossible job.
I ask the Minister, when he looks at solutions for the hospital and at the review of the health service in London, to consider special assistance, particularly special management assistance, for trusts that are having such problems.
I heard yesterday that my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards has decided that one of the schools in the Waltham Forest area should be on the list of those that are to be the subject of special measures. For most of my constituents, putting Whipps Cross hospital rather than a very small school on such a list would be of far greater interest. We need to consider how we can take hold of hospitals, trusts and district health authorities that
818
are clearly failing their communities, and do something to turn them around. On that there would be unanimous support from local Members of Parliament.
10.19 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): It is a pleasure to reply to the debate, and to congratulate you, somewhat belatedly, on taking up your new post, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) for his kind remarks, and the courteous way in which he presented his concerns. I know that he takes a keen interest in local health service issues, and that he and my other hon. Friends who have spoken this evening have some pressing concerns about the state of the NHS in their part of London.
What I have heard this evening is saddening, but perhaps not surprising. It shows how much needs to be done to rebuild the health service in this city and throughout the country. I was particularly pleased to hear my hon. Friend's positive comments about the service provided by the dedicated staff who work so hard at Whipps Cross hospital. The problems faced by the local health service are no reflection on such people, who work tirelessly to provide patient care.
Whipps Cross is not alone in facing such difficulties. I know from the discussion that I have had with many colleagues during my brief time as a Minister that such problems are repeated all too often in hospitals up and down the country. The legacy that we inherit is profoundly challenging.
As my hon. Friend took us through the litany of problems at Whipps Cross, I was struck by two trends in his remarks: the unnecessary pain and suffering caused to vulnerable individuals by problems in the national health service, and the extent to which improving the situation finds common ground with our manifesto commitments for restoring our national health service and the work that we have already started to put things right.
I appreciate my hon. Friend's serious concern about the financial plight of Forest Healthcare NHS trust. Despite the staffing reductions that he described, and other measures to contain costs and improve efficiency, it is a real concern that the trust is ending the financial year 1996–97 with a forecast £4.4 million deficit. Of equal concern is the continuing gap between the trust and the health authority in the current financial year.
A joint strategic change programme has been agreed between the trust and the health authority to redress the deficit over two years. The plan includes further efficiencies and cost reductions, but it is not all bad news. For example, there are programmes in place to improve accident and emergency services by recruiting additional consultants. Plans are in train to deal with the frail elderly population when they enter hospital. I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome those developments.
The quality and timeliness of the care delivered to patients are crucial. I hope that my hon. Friend will take some reassurance from the fact that improvements in

819
patient quality standards are a declared principle of the Government—a principle shared with the programme being implemented by the trust. I shall ensure that the NHS executive monitors progress on the programme extremely carefully.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I apologise to the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen), but I should like to make a very brief intervention on a non-party political basis as one of the Members for the area who uses Whipps Cross hospital.
I associate myself with the request of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) that the executive examine the problem. Before the election, I had conversations with the Minister's predecessor about this. If he could ensure that and publish the results, at least to establish some confidence locally that things are being done, it would help tremendously to improve relations with local people.
Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman raises a pressing point about local confidence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead made clear, there are many real concerns in the community, particularly after what happened last winter. I intend to keep a close eye on developments, particularly the implementation of the change programme which I shall ask the NHS executive to undertake on my behalf.
I understand that financial management has been a weakness within the trust. I hope that it is now being addressed seriously by the new director of finance, who was appointed about eight months ago.
A major challenge for Forest Healthcare, and for the NHS, is to meet the demand for emergency care, while at the same time reducing waiting lists for planned operations. At times, Whipps Cross was stretched to the limit last winter, as my hon. Friend graphically illustrated.
I appreciate the call from various quarters, including from my hon. Friend this evening, for additional resources to meet the growing demands and expectations at Whipps Cross and other hospitals. Frankly, had money not been squandered on bureaucracy and the internal market, we would not be in this position. Inevitably, it will take time for the resources to be released as we undo the damage, but in due course there will be more money for front-line patient care.
In the meantime, Forest Healthcare has established a major project to improve its ability to respond to the pressures of next winter. It has also confirmed that meeting the demand for emergency care remains a top priority, and it continues to negotiate with Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority about the funding required to reduce waiting lists.
820
I give hon. Members on both sides of the House an undertaking that I shall keep a very close eye on developments. I hope to see satisfactory plans in place before too long to avoid the problems faced by patients last winter.
More generally, the key to rebuilding the health service is not another wholesale reform, which is the last thing the NHS needs, but taking positive, progressive steps towards ending the absurd internal market that we have put up with for far too long. We are already taking action on bureaucracy, fair waiting and ending the endless paperchase. We must make sure that a greater proportion of every pound spent on the national health service goes towards patient care rather than bureaucracy. We shall also be looking at the distribution of resources to ensure that they fully reflect local population needs and operate as fairly as possible.
I know that my hon. Friend's health authority has some concerns about the weighted capitation formula. It feels strongly that, compared with some other authorities, it is not fairly funded for the services it has to provide, when variations in local pay and prices are taken into account.
The work that the authority is putting in hand to grapple with this issue may well be useful within our overall aim of ensuring a fair and equitable distribution of resources throughout the NHS. I am sure that my hon. Friend will encourage the authority to work alongside the NHS executive in that endeavour.
In conclusion, through no fault of the doctors, nurses and other staff at Whipps Cross, who are as dedicated and devoted as everyone else who works in the NHS, the service provided by the hospital does not always live up to the standards we had in mind when we set up the NHS almost 50 years ago.
We are in the process of restoring the NHS. The problems at Whipps Cross so eloquently described by my hon. Friends speak volumes about the state of the NHS and of other hospitals in the city of London and elsewhere in the country. I assure my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) and for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) that we shall release details of our planned review of London's health services in due course. We shall certainly look into the concerns that they have expressed this evening.
The changes that we intend to make to the health service will be properly thought through and tested, and will be introduced sensitively. They will ensure that hospitals such as Whipps Cross will be able to provide a proper health care service in tune with our founding principles for the NHS.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

SCOTLAND

  Residential Care Report
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to implement the recommendations contained in the report of the Working Group on Residential Care Home Registration Procedures; and if he will make a statement. [129]

  Mr. Galbraith
  We will be consulting this month on draft guidance to local authorities on a wide range of measures recommended in the Working Group's report. A Bill on the regulation and inspection of residential and domiciliary care will be introduced at a suitable opportunity.

  Mental Illness Grant
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the cost to public funds of the mental illness specific grant in each of the last seven years; what sums have been allocated for(a)1997–98 and(b) 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [117]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Expenditure on projects supported by the mental illness specific grant in each year since 1990–91 has been £0, £2.3 million, £5.7 million, £9.9 million, £14.0 million, £18.0 million and £18.0 million. The allowance for 1997–98 is £18.0 million. The allowances for community-based services for people with mental health problems in 1998–99 will be considered along with other elements of the local government settlement. The grant has been the subject of a Scottish Office review and an independent evaluation which will be published later this year.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how he proposes to reply to questions about the Scottish Prison Service. [1068]

  Mr. Dewar
  In view of the special sensitivity of prison matters, I have decided that all Questions about the Scottish Prison Service will be answered by a Scottish Office Minister and not by the Chief Executive of the Service. This is no reflection whatever on the Chief Executive who has discharged well his responsibilities in this regard, nor does it have any implication for the Scottish Prison Service as an Agency; but it recognises particular concerns that Ministers should answer personally on matters relating to imprisonment.

DEFENCE

  Salisbury Plain (Water Plants)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many invitations to tender were issued, and to whom, in respect of maintenance of water treatment plants on or near Salisbury Plain during 1996, listing the establishments; and which contractors were successful. [97]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Army's water and sewage treatment plants on or near Salisbury Plain are managed from the five military stations at Upavon, Larkhill, Warminster, Netheravon and Tidworth. All are maintained in accordance with our normal practice of appointing a Works Service Manager from the commercial sector whose responsibility it is to maintain the estate and to issue invitations to tender for the work involved. The Works Service Manager contract in respect of the plants managed from Tidworth was reviewed in 1996. The contract was awarded to BP Defence following competition in which the following firms were also invited to tender: Serco, Laings, Trant, Amey and Trafalgar House. Invitations were also issued in 1996 to companies interested in making proposals for the provision of water and sewage treatment at Tidworth under a Private Fiance Initiative exercise.

  Pensions (Service Men's Widows)
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the pension entitlements of widows of service men(a) who retired before March 1973 and (b) who retired after that date; what effect remarriage of a widow under either of these circumstances has upon that widow's entitlement; and if she will make it her policy that such widows receive pensions equal to at least half of the pensions to which their husbands would have been entitled. [651]

  Mr. Spellar
  I am replying to this question as it concerns benefits payable to Service widows under the provisions of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS).

  Under the provisions, a widow of a Serviceman who retired before 31 March 1973 is entitled to a pension equal to one third of her late husband's pension. A Service widow whose husband retired on or after that date is entitled to a pension equal to one half of her husband's pension. On remarriage a Service widow's entitlement to an AFPS pension ceases. However, if the subsequent marriage should end, there is discretion to restore the original Forces Family Pension. 80 per cent. of such applications are successful. In the case of those widows whose husband's death is accepted as attributable to their military service the original Armed Forces pension is automatically restored.

  One of the principles which underpin the way in which the major public service schemes operate is that improvements to the scheme should not be retrospective. An extension of widows' pensions to half rate would breach this principle. If improvements to pensions schemes were to include the cost of backdating, it would become very difficult for schemes to afford any worthwhile changes. The AFPS therefore operates on the principle that when Service personnel retire, they and their dependants are entitled only to the provisions of the pension scheme in force at the date of retirement

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Share Dealings (Lord Archer)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make available for public inspection her Department's inspectors report on Lord Archer's share dealings; and if she will make a statement. [277]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  No. Reports of inspections under section 177 of the Financial Services Act 1986 are not published and are therefore prepared on that basis. The inspectors undertake their task with the knowledge that there is no power in the Act providing for publication and that they need not, therefore, be inhibited in expressing their views. Individuals who are criticised in a section 177 report are not given any opportunity to comment upon the criticisms, as would be the case if the report was to be published. Section 177 reports are prepared to enable the Secretary of State to consider further action including possible criminal proceedings.

  Debt (Late Payment)
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research her Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on late payment of debt by companies. [69]

  Mrs. Roche
  My Department is aware of the continuing difficulties experienced by small businesses as a result of the late payment of commercial debts. Although this Department has not commissioned any research on this matter it has closely analysed the findings of other key pieces of research including the recent work undertaken by NOP which showed that 80 per cent. of British businesses wanted a statutory right to interest. These findings are supported by similar research undertaken by Lloyds Bank and Office World which show that the majority of small firms are in favour of legislation.

  The Government is determined to change the payment culture in the UK and that is why we have responded to the calls from small businesses and announced in the Queen's Speech that we will introduce the Fair Payment of Commercial Debts Bill. The Government will consult on the most appropriate way of introducing legislation and plans to bring forward a Green Paper in the Summer to enable interested parties to put their views forward.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research her Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the impact on jobs of setting a minimum wage at different levels. [70]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The independent Low Pay Commission will recommend to Government the initial level at which the National Minimum Wage might be set according to the economic circumstances of the time.

  Civil Servants (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many civil servants, of each grade, in her Department, were of Asian origin, on 5 May. [732]
  66
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  On 5 May 1997 the DTI employed, on headcount basis, 241 staff of Asian Origin in the following grade levels:

  Number

  Grade 7 level and above

  9

  SEO—level

  14

  HEO—level

  21

  EO—level

  66

  AO—level

  101

  AA—level

  30

  The figures provided are on a headcount basis. They include staff in the DTI but exclude casual staff and staff in Executive Agencies. About 8 per cent. of staff have chosen not to respond to the Department's ethnic origin survey.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals she has to increase the number of ethnic minority employees in her Department. [733]

  Mr. Griffiths
  My Department's recruitment procedures take full account of the need to attract ethnic minority applicants when posts are available. This includes the use of ethnic minority press to advertise vacancies; advertising in inner city job centres; race awareness training and guidance for those involved in recruitment activity; and detailed monitoring of recruitment campaigns.

  However, the number of staff in the Department has reduced significantly in recent years, and there has been little recruitment at any level. When there is a need to recruit new staff, the Department will actively seek to attract applications from all sections of the community. It will also keep under review the effectiveness of the Department's recruitment procedures in this respect.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will commission a report into the liquidation of BCCI. [712]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  My officials expect to receive the annual report of the liquidators as to the progress of the liquidation of BCCI shortly. It will cover the fifth year of the liquidation ie the 12 months to 14 January 1997 and will be made available to creditors. I undertake to send my hon. Friend a copy of that report and to place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to meet the liquidators of BCCI. [711]

  Mr. Griffiths
  I understand that my predecessor met my hon. Friend and others in November 1996 and met the joint liquidators of BCCI in December 1996. I do not have any present plans to meet the joint liquidators but would be grateful if my hon. Friend would write to me if there are any matters to do with the liquidation to which he particularly wishes to draw my attention.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what changes she plans to make to the Insolvency Service. [713]
  67
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  I have no plans to make changes to the Insolvency Service but if there are any matters in relation to its operations to which my hon. Friend wishes to draw my attention I should be grateful to hear from him.

  Businesses (Deregulation)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to reduce regulatory burdens on businesses. [701]

  Mrs. Roche
  As we made clear in our manifesto, we are committed to relieving the regulatory burdens on businesses, particularly on small businesses. To achieve this we plan to work in partnership with business to cut red tape for small firms, ensure that new regulations are simple and fair, and establish simpler means by which businesses can undertake their dealings with Government.

  Trade Fairs
  Ms Angela Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what future provision is being made for the support of trade fairs abroad. [1199]

  Mr. Beckett
  My officials will shortly be writing to potential sponsors inviting bids for trade fair and seminar support in 1998–99 under the Trade Fair and Seminar Support Schemes and with a view to announcing the successful ones later this year. Industry had told us that it believes a separate scheme is more effective than including trade fairs in a Challenge approach. In the light of these representations we have decided that support for trade fairs will not be included in any future round of the Sector Challenge. Together with industry we will be reviewing all forms of export assistance, including trade fairs, through the new Export Forum. These actions fulfil commitments made in our business manifesto to review the previous government's decision to change the arrangements for supporting British participation in trade fairs.

  Price Marking Order
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the impact on(a) business and (b) small businesses of the Price Marking Order 1991; and if she will make a statement. [100]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  A compliance cost assessment was prepared prior to the making of the Price Marking Order 1991.

  Implementation of the new Price Indications Directive—currently at an advanced stage of negotiations—will require the making of a new Price Marking Order and the revocation of the 1991 Order. My Department will consult business organisations and others, and will prepare a new compliance cost assessment before the new Order is laid before Parliament.

  Mersey Docks and Harbour Company
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what contact has been undertaken by her Department with the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company in respect of measures to reach an agreement with the dismissed employees. [513]
  68
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 20 May 1997]My Department has had no contact with the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company concerning the resolution of this dispute. However, I understand the independent Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service has been in touch with the two sides to this dispute and remains ready to provide assistance if both sides agree.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Television Licence Evasion
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many prosecutions for television licence evasion in the Preston TVLEO area took place in each year since 1992. [705]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  From 1993–94, the Preston Television Licensing Enquiry Office (TVLEO) area also included Morecambe. From December 1996, the Preston TVLEO area was incorporated into TV Licensing's Northern Region and prosecution figures for the Preston area are no longer separately recorded. The number of prosecutions for television licence evasion during the period in question was:

  Year

  Number of prosecutions

  Preston TVLEO

  1992–93

  4990

  Preston TVLEO (including Morecambe)

  1993–94

  6571

  Preston TVLEO (including Morecambe)

  1994–95

  5505

  Preston TVLEO (including Morecambe)

  1995–96

  5169

  Preston TVLEO (including Morecambe)

  April to

  November

  1996

  3726

  Civil Service (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals he has to increase the number of employees from ethnic minorities within his Department. [240]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The Department has increased the complement of staff engaged in Equal Opportunities work from 1997–98 which will enable plans to be developed for improving the opportunities for employees from ethnic minorities. Current figures show that the percentage of ethnic minority employees in my Department is above the Civil Service average.

  Sport
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to encourage more people to participate in sport. [388]

  Mr. Banks
  The Government will take the lead to extend opportunities for participation in sport through a national strategy for sport which will embrace all sections of the community regardless of where they live, social background, age or ability. This will be dedicated to providing excellence at all levels and improving sporting performance, while increasing sporting opportunities for the many not the few.

  Minister of Sport
  Mr. Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if the statement made by the Minister of Sport that the support of Lord MacLaurin, former chairman of the United Kingdom Sports Council, for the Conservative Party was not a good career move, represents Government policy.[606]

  Mr. Banks
  My right hon. Friend has accepted Lord MacLaurin's resignation, which was tendered by him for his own reasons.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proportion of lottery grants has been made to(a) large and (b) small-scale projects. [804]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The following table shows the proportion of lottery awards to date by value.

  Award amount

  Per cent.1

  Under £50,000

  54

  £50,000–£99,999

  20

  £100,000–£499,999

  21

  £500,0004–£1,000,000

  2

  £1 million+

  3

  1Rounded to the nearest per cent.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to increase the share of lottery proceeds distributed to the regions.[802]

  Mr. Smith
  It is clear that some areas of the country have benefited a great deal more from the Lottery than others. We will be looking at the reasons for this as part of our overall review of Lottery distribution and considering what changes might be made as a result.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proportion of lottery proceeds currently goes to ethnic minority projects; and what steps he is taking to ensure that ethnic minority projects are well represented and supported. [803]

  Mr. Smith
  Our best estimate suggests that over 3 per cent. of Lottery awards so far announced, representing around 2 per cent. of total value of awards have been to ethnic minority projects, though many other projects provide benefits for people from ethnic minorities. I am conducting a thorough review of the distribution of Lottery proceeds including how best to ensure that all sections of the community benefit fully from the National Lottery.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the mechanisms for the public accountability of the operation of the lottery. [807]

  Mr. Smith
  The operation of the National Lottery is regulated by the Director-General who is appointed by the Secretary of State for National Heritage under the National Lottery etc. Act 1993. The Director-General is head of the Office of the National Lottery (OFLOT) which is an independent, non-Ministerial Government Department. As its head, the Director-General is 70
  accountable for the exercise of his statutory functions under the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, and for the financial operation of his Department.

  The Director-General must report each year to me on the exercise of his functions. This report is then laid before Parliament. He is also accountable to Parliamentary committees. The Director-General must also provide me with information relating to the National Lottery, or a lottery forming part of it, as I may direct.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage over what timetable he proposes to divert proceeds from the midweek lottery to health and education projects; and to which type of health and education projects he intends funds to be allocated. [805]

  Mr. Smith
  I intend to publish a White Paper in the summer setting out our plans for reforming the National Lottery and to introduce the National Lottery (Amendment) Bill before Christmas. The first priorities will be after-school clubs to provide homework centres and extra-curricular opportunities in the arts and culture; establishing a national network of one-stop healthy living centres promoting health and fitness; training teachers in the IT skills they need in the information age; and the establishment of the National Endowment for Science and the Arts. These programmes will begin as soon as the necessary legislation is in place.

  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to reform the distribution of the proceeds of the national lottery. [383]

  Mr. Smith
  [holding answer 19 May 1997]In addition to establishing new good causes to benefit from the National Lottery, we will review the existing distribution system to ensure that there is the widest possible access to Lottery funds throughout the UK. We will consider particularly the need for a proper strategy for the distribution of funds and co-ordination between the distributing bodies.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to limit the level of the national lottery operator's profits. [806]

  Mr. Smith
  I do not have the powers to restrict the level of profit which Camelot makes under its current licence. We will seek a competitive and efficient not-for-profit operator to run the National Lottery when Camelot's licence runs out so that the maximum amount of money possible goes to the goods causes.

  Globe Theatre Site
  Sir Peter Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he plans to take to ensure that the fullest practicable archaeological investigation is made of the original Globe Theatre site.[605]

  Mr. Banks
  When the Globe's remains were discovered in 1989, part of the site was excavated and fully recorded. English Heritage is prepared to consider the case for further archaeological investigations beneath the basement of Anchor Terrace, provided it can be shown convincingly that there is a high probability of discovering valuable and particular information about the Globe as a result.

  Royal Collection
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when the computerised inventory of the Royal Collection will be completed. [702]

  Mr. Fisher
  I understand from the Royal Household, which is responsible for the Royal Collection Department, that they expect the inventory to be completed by the end of this year.

  Millennium
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans his Department has to celebrate the Millennium. [369]

  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 £1.8 billion of National Lottery money on projects—great and small—to mark the year 2000. My Department is also working with other organisations involved in the process of planning for the Millennium to ensure proper co-ordination.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to discuss Gibraltar with his Spanish counterpart. [717]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will be meeting his Spanish counterpart on a number of occasions in the coming weeks. As well as EU issues, he will discuss a wide range of bilateral issues, including Gibraltar.

  Arms Trafficking
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to give support for the programme for preventing and combating illicit trafficking in conventional arms put forward by the Netherlands Government during their presidency of the EU. [621]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Yes. We hope it will be possible for the programme to be adopted during the current EU Presidency, and will play a full part in taking it forward.

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to advance an EU code of conduct on the arms trade at the EU intergovernmental conference. [622]

  Mr. Lloyd
  We are committed to working for the introduction of an EU Code of Conduct on arms exports, setting out high common standards. Work is in hand on ways to implement this commitment, which we intend to discuss with our EU partners at an early stage.

  South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the summit meeting of the South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation; and if he will make a statement.[746]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation can play an important role in promoting trade liberalisation, stability and security within the region. The Summit in Male from 12 to 14 May saw a number of positive developments on these issues.

  Arms Trade
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to visit the UN to discuss the supply of arms to third world regimes. [319]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had no immediate plans for such a visit. As a major arms exporter, the UK will exercise its responsibility to ensure that the arms trade is properly regulated. We have made a number of commitments in this area. In particular, we will not permit the export of arms to regimes which might use them for internal repression or international aggression. We shall work for increased transparency on defence exports at the national and international level. We shall also work for the introduction of an EU code of conduct setting high common standards to govern arms exports from all EU countries, and for the strengthening of the UN Register on Conventional Arms.

  Land Mines
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the import, export, transfer, manufacture and use of anti-personnel land mines. [1067]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  As announced earlier today by my right hon. Friend we shall implement our manifesto commitment to ban the import, export, transfer and manufacture of all forms of anti-personnel land mines.

  We will accelerate the phasing out of our stocks of anti-personnel land mines, and complete it by 2005 or when an effective international agreement to ban their use enters into force, whichever comes first. In the meantime, we have introduced a complete moratorium on their operational use, while we participate constructively in the Ottawa Process and push in the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva for a wider ban.

  That moratorium will be suspended only if we judge that for a specific operation the security of our Armed Forces would be jeopardised without the possibility of the use of anti-personnel land mines. In such an exceptional case we would report to Parliament the decision, and the circumstances which led to it.

  We shall also examine how we can make more progress in removing mines already laid across the world.

TREASURY

  Unemployment (Humberside)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number of households in(a) Hull and (b) Kingston upon Hull, North without a wage earner.[164]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 19 May 1997]The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 21 May 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on the number of households in Hull and Kingston upon Hull North without a wage earner.
  Estimates of non-pensioner households with no-one in employment are available from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) at national and regional level. They are also available for counties, except a few for which the numbers are not sufficiently reliable.
  No information on households or families is available from the LFS below county level because the analyses would not be sufficiently reliable.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Prosecution Arrangements
  Ms Blears
  To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has for improving the effectiveness of prosecution arrangements. [1198]

  The Attorney-General
  The pledges we made in our manifesto and the paper "The Case for the Prosecution" published before the election envisaged a change to the organisational structure of the Crown Prosecution Service so that there would be a one-to-one relationship between a police force and its corresponding CPS area as equal partners. In addition, we undertook to establish a review under the auspices of a person of the calibre of a High Court Judge to examine more closely the internal structures of the CPS, together with its policies and procedures and in particular whether they have been a factor in the extent to which convictions have fallen—by more than a third—whilst crime has risen so dramatically in recent years.

  Immediately on taking office I asked the Director of Public Prosecutions to work up proposals for dividing the Crown Prosecution Service into 42 areas each having its own Chief Crown Prosecutor ie. one for each police force outside London with the Metropolitan Police and City of London Police beings served by one CPS area. She has now done so. The basic timetable of the arrangements to be implemented is as follows:
  1. By 1 June 1997:
  DPP will have, as an interim measure, identified and named individuals to be known as the Crown Prosecutor for each of the proposed new CPS areas. The immediate role for those persons would be to assume oversight of the casework in the relevant area, together with the responsibility for local, consistent delivery of casework practices; and a personal involvement in serious or sensitive cases. He or she would also represent the CPS within the police force area and act
  74
  as principal point of contact for the Chief Constable having a general role in developing and influencing local relationships with other criminal justice agencies and the wider public.
  2. The broader management and administrative arrangements within the CPS, apart from the casework and representational functions mentioned above, would remain unaltered for the time being.
  3. By April 1998:
  The DPP will formally vary the division of the CPS into the 42 new areas through a direction made under Section 1(5) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.
  Selection boards will have been held to appoint 42 Chief Crown Prosecutors for the areas.
  The 42 Chief Crown Prosecutors will assume their full management responsibilities for areas. They will manage their areas within an agreed framework with responsibility for their budgets, but accountable ultimately to the DPP for the performance of the service in their areas.

  The detail surrounding these arrangements will be informed by the proposed review of the CPS on which I will be making a further announcement shortly. I should add that we are firmly committed to the principle of an independent prosecution service within a coherent national framework: our aim is to build on and adapt the underlying strengths and real achievements of the CPS in the past 10 years, so that the Service is able to deliver its full potential.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lanscaster how many civil servants there are currently. [1045]

  Dr. David Clark
  At 1 January 1997 there were 482,770 permanent civil servants. There were also 23,450 casual staff. Information for 1 April will be available shortly.

WALES

  Housing (Energy Efficiency)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how he proposes to enable councils to modernise houses with defective windows and doors and install central heating; and if he will make a statement.[631]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  We are taking forward the Manifesto commitments to a phased release of capital receipts for building new houses and rehabilitating old ones; to support effective schemes, involving partnership with the private sector and registered social landlords, and to deploy private finance to improve the public housing stock and to introduce greater diversity and choice.

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the nursery voucher scheme. [633]

  Mr. Hain
  I announced on 12 May that nursery vouchers in Wales are to be abolished from the end of this term.

  Young People
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how he proposes to move young people aged 24 years and under from benefits to work or training; and if he will make a statement. [635]

  Mr. Hain
  The Government's Welfare to Work proposals will ensure that no young person between the ages of 18 and 24 need be unemployed for longer than 6 months. We intend to offer these young people the choice of working and training with employers, voluntary or environmental organisations or participating in full time education or training. The Government is determined to break the vicious cycle of unemployment, frustration and alienation experienced by too many young people in Wales.

  NHS Treatment Costs
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average cost of NHS treatment per patient in Wales. [649]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The average cost of NHS treatment per patient for primary healthcare in Wales is not available centrally. For secondary healthcare the 1995–96 average cost per episode, for cases using a bed, is £1,053 in Wales.

  Health Service Repairs and Maintenance
  Mr. Opik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the outstanding repair and maintenance backlog at NHS facilities by health authority in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [780]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Backlog Maintenance statistics were collated by Health Authority area until 31 March 1995 but following reorganisation are collected and presented on a Trust basis.

  £ million

  Health authority(Including Trusts)

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Clwyd

  40.3

  44.5

  49.6

  31

  East Dyfed

  25.4

  18.9

  14.6

  17

  Gwent

  36.7

  33.9

  25.5

  36

  Gwynedd

  12.6

  16.3

  16.2

  8

  Mid Glamorgan

  38.1

  25.5

  33.8

  28

  Pembrokshire

  8.8

  9.6

  7.6

  7.5

  Powys

  3.5

  5.9

  5.8

  6.0

  South Glamorgan

  83.9

  84.9

  88.3

  95.0

  West Glamorgan

  16

  20.9

  24.4

  46.5

  Totals

  265.3

  260.4

  265.8

  275

  £ million

  Trust name

  1996

  Bridgend and District

  6.7

  Cardiff Community Healthcare

  20.6

  Carmarthen and District

  6.1

  Ceredigion and Mid-Wales

  4.8

  Clwydian Community Care

  10.8

  Dental Hospital, Heath

  4.8

  Derwen

  1.5

  East Glamorgan

  9.7

  Glan Clwyd

  15.6

  Glan Hafren

  31.2

  76

  £ million

  Trust name

  1996

  Glan y Mor

  22.1

  Gwent Community

  5.6

  Gwynedd Community

  5.8

  Gwynedd Hospitals

  5.2

  Llandough

  22.7

  Llanelli/Dinefwr

  3.7

  Morriston

  6.0

  Nevill Hall and District

  1.4

  North Glamorgan

  25.7

  Pembrokeshire

  8.2

  Powys Healthcare

  8.4

  Rhondda Healthcare

  6.2

  Rhymney Valley

  6.5

  Swansea

  2

  UHW/Royal Group

  55.1

  Velindre

  0.5

  Wrexham Maelor

  4.5

  Total

  301.4

  GP Lists
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions in each of the last five years patients have been removed from GPs' lists(a) in Wales and (b) in each health authority. [788]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  HOME DEPARTMENT Citizenship Applications
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that persons who have been resident in the United Kingdom for at least 10 years and whose application for British citizenship has been turned down will be given the reason for refusal. [263]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The question of giving reasons for decisions on applications for British citizenship is currently before the courts. We are reviewing our practice and shall continue to do so in the light of the judgment of the House of Lords. It would not be appropriate for the length of a person's residence in the United Kingdom alone to determine whether reasons are given.

  Residency Applications (Hong Kong)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for permanent residency in the United Kingdom have been received from non-Chinese ethnic minorities in Hong Kong.[269]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested is not available as the ethnic origin of persons seeking settlement in the United Kingdom is not recorded.

  New Prison (Onley)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what environmental impact assessment he has carried out of the proposals for a new Category `B' Prison at Onley. [130]
  77
  Ms Joyce Quin
  An assessment of the visual impact of the proposed new prison has been carried out by independent consultants. An illustrative landscape scheme has been prepared on the basis of this assessment: a wildlife study will follow.

  Wrongful Convictions
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to make a final financial compensation offer to Judith Ward, wrongly convicted of the 1973 M62 coach bombing. [181]

  Mr. Michael
  Judith Ward's final claim for compensation was only received in the Home Office in April 1997. The next stage involves reaching agreement with Ms Ward on the terms of a memorandum setting out the details of her claim, which will then be forwarded to the independent assessor who is responsible for determining the amount of compensation to be offered. In the circumstances, it is not possible to say precisely when the final offer will be made.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many claims for financial compensation in the case of individuals who were found by the Court of Appeal to have been wrongfully convicted were settled in 1996–97; and on what dates their convictions were quashed. [183]

  Mr. Michael
  Sixty-five compensation claims were settled during 1996–97, including 50 stemming from the quashing of a high number of drink-driving convictions in Greater Manchester following possible contamination of blood samples. No central record is maintained of the dates on which the convictions were quashed in those cases involving wrongful conviction.

  Special Secure Units
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the policy under which inmates in prison special secure units may only receive visits if they are physically separated from their visitors by a glass screen. [184]

  Ms Joyce Quin
  The policy of mandatory closed visits for exceptional risk prisoners will be kept under review.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take in respect of the March 1997 Amnesty International report relating to conditions in the special secure units at HMP Full Sutton, HMP Belmarsh and HMP Whitemoor. [309]

  Ms Quin
  Ministers will consider the Amnesty International report and a response will be submitted in due course.

  Mohammed Al Fayed
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Mohammed Al Fayed has lodged a fresh application for British citizenship. [1023]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It would be for Mr. Al Fayed to disclose any such details.

  Hunger Strikes
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long prisoner Ellis Sherwood has been on hunger strike; and if he will make a statement. [159]

  Ms Joyce Quin
  [holding answer 19 May 1997]Mr. Sherwood first began his food refusal on 12 April 1997 in protest at being held on the basic regime wing at Long Lartin prison

  Mr. Sherwood suspended his protest between 20 and 24 April during a short stay in the Health Care Centre. He was moved back to normal location on 24 April and re-commenced his protest on 27 April. His health is being monitored daily by a doctor.

  Danny McNamee
  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 at HMP Full Sutton for his exceptional risk security classification to be reduced and for him to be moved out of the special secure unit. [161]

  Ms Joyce Quin
  [holding answer 19 May 1997]Mr. McNamee's security categorisation and escape risk classification were reviewed by the category A committee of the Prison Service on 23 April 1997. The committee's recommendation, approved by the Director of Dispersal Prisons, was that he should remain a category A prisoner and continue to be classified as an exceptional escape risk. Mr. McNamee will be notified shortly of the reasons for this decision.

HEALTH

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the public sector equivalent cost assessments for each project which is the subject of a PFI funding bid application currently under consideration by his Department. [18]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that community health councils are given access to information on each relevant PFI funding application for NHS facilities. [20]

  Mr. Milburn
  Health authorities have a statutory duty to consult their local Community Health Councils (CHCs) on proposals brought forward by National Health Service trusts for substantial developments or variations in services. In any major private finance initiative scheme, the views of CHCs will therefore have to be considered.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review each NHS PFI bid where the projected number of specialty beds is less than currently provided for under existing facilities.[27]

  Mr. Milburn
  Any private finance initiative proposal must have the full backing of its purchaser health authorities before it is approved. Purchasers must be
  79
  consulted so that they can satisfy themselves that a PFI scheme is affordable, is consistent with their healthcare strategies and represents the best way of meeting patient needs. The number and types of bed required will be one of the factors they will take into consideration. The local health authority must, in turn, consult the relevant Community Health Council—who represent the public interest in the health service—when any major service change, including major changes in bed numbers, is proposed by a trust.

  Life Support Engineering Ltd.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from NHS purchasers of cases of repeat invoicing by Life Support Engineering Ltd. [16]

  Mr. Milburn
  We have received no representations from National Health Service purchasers about this company.

  Drugs Deaths
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to reduce the number of deaths(a) resulting from the use of medicinal drugs and (b) of those addicted to medicines. [107]

  Ms Jowell
  No medicine which is effective is completely risk-free. Therefore, there are well-established systems for licensing and monitoring the safety of all medicines available in the United Kingdom. These ensure the benefits of medicines outweigh any risks and prevent users coming to unnecessary harm.

  The clinical needs of the patient can be decided only by the doctor treating the patient at the time. To assist doctors, the Department of Health provides and funds a full range of educational information and advice. The Medicines Control Agency alerts health professionals to unexpected drug hazards.

  These measures are kept under regular review and we will take action as appropriate to maintain necessary safeguards to protect public health.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Public Records
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will review section 5 of the Public Records Act 1958 to allow public inspection of classes of public records earlier than 30 years after they were created. [270]

  Mr. Hoon
  Section 5 of the Public Records Act 1958 already gives power to the Lord Chancellor to prescribe a public access period of less than 30 years for particular public records in the Public Records Office. For example, records of British Coal and of the Treasury Solicitor concerning the Aberfan Disaster in 1966 and the subsequent inquiry were all opened together, although a number of them were less than 30 years old.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his proposal to cut class sizes, stating the maximum class size that will be allowed and the estimated cost of achieving that.[596]

  Mr. Byers
  Our policy is to phase out classes of over 30 for all five, six and seven-year-olds during the lifetime of this Parliament. The detailed costs of achieving that objective will depend on how LEAs and school implement reductions in class sizes.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the savings that will result from phasing out the assisted places scheme. [597]

  Mr. Byers
  Phasing out the assisted places scheme will lead to savings of about £100 million in total by the year 2000 which will be used to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will name the independent schools and number of assisted places in each presently available in the Cambridge constituency. [602]

  Mr. Byers
  The number of entry places available at each of the three participating schools in the Cambridge constituency in academic year 1996–97 is given in the following table:

  School name

  Number of entry places available

  Perse School for Boys

  16

  Perse School for Girls

  25

  St. Mary's School

  25

  Mrs. Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the eventual savings from phasing out the assisted places scheme in the schools located in the Cambridge constituency.[603]

  Mr. Byers
  Estimates of the eventual savings from phasing out the assisted places scheme have not been compiled on a local education authority or constituency basis. The current annual cost of the scheme at the three participating schools in Cambridge totals some £750,000.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils have been accepted on to the assisted places scheme for September 1997; if these pupils will be allowed to take up their places in independent schools; and if he will make a statement. [752]

  Mr. Byers
  The number of children who will have taken up assisted places at the start of the academic year 1997–98 will not be available until participating schools have made their statistical returns by the middle of the Autumn term 1997. Some 10,700 assisted places on entry will be available at 1 September, and we propose to allow
  81
  any pupil selected during the current school year to take up such a place, provided he or she joins the school at the start of the 1997–98 school year.

  Nursery Education (Lancashire)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of children were in nursery education in Lancashire in each year since 1992. [699]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information available is shown in the following table:

  Year

  Percentage of children in nursery education in Lancashire

  1992

  18

  1993

  19

  1994

  21

  1995

  21

  1996

  21

  Participation rates for all children under 5 in maintained nursery and primary schools in Lancashire are as follows:

  Year

  Percentage of children under five years of age in maintained nursery and primary schools in Lancashire

  1992

  50

  1993

  52

  1994

  53

  1995

  54

  1996

  54

  This table does not include those pupils in Special schools.

  Doodfield Primary School, Stockport
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he has received an application from the governor of Doodfield primary school, Hawk Green, Stockport, to opt out of LEA control; what criteria he will use in determining such applications; and what factors govern his timetable in making such decisions. [627]

  Mr. Byers
  An application for grant maintained status was published on 23 April by the governors of Doodfield primary school and has been received in the Department. All proposals in respect of schools will be considered on their individual merits, taking account of all relevant considerations. There is a two-month period following publication during which statutory objections may be made to the proposals. We would aim to reach a decision as soon as is compatible with consideration of all the relevant issues, including consideration of any related statutory proposals.

  Primary School Teachers
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average cost of each full-time primary school teacher in the present financial year. [764]
  82
  Mr. Byers
  The Department's estimate of the average cost of each full-time primary school teacher in the present financial year is around £25,600. This includes salary, national insurance and employers' superannuation costs.

  Secondary School Pupils (Cost)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average cost per full-time pupil in secondary education, excluding pupils in receipt of special needs provision, in the present financial year. [765]

  Mr. Byers
  In 1995–96, the latest year for which data are available, the net institutional expenditure per pupil in LEA maintained secondary schools, excluding special schools, in England was £2,286.

  Literacy and Numeracy
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of pupils currently reach level four in(a) literacy and (b) numeracy standard assessment tests; and if he will make a statement. [750]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  In 1996, the percentages of 11 year old pupils achieving level 4 or above in English and mathematics in England were as follows:

  Teacher assessment test

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  English

  60

  58

  Mathematics

  60

  54

  The Secretary of State announced last week, 13 May, tough new national targets: by the time of the tests in 2002, 75 per cent. of 11 year olds would be reaching the standards expected for their age in maths, and; 80 per cent. would be reaching the expected standards in English. To support these targets he has established separate Literacy and Numeracy Task Forces to report on how best to boost standards in schools.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many classes in the new county of Wiltshire have over 30 children in(a) primary schools, (b) first schools and (c) middle schools.[98]

  Mr. Byers
  The information requested is shown in the following table.

  Number of classes with 31 or more pupils taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools in the new unitary authority area of Wiltshire1

  January 1996

  Classes in primary schools

  Of which classes in first schools

  291

  11

  1There were no middle schools in the new unitary authority area of Wiltshire in January 1996.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
  ENVIRONMENT AND THE REGIONS

    Civil Service (Ethnic Minorities)
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the regions what proposals he has to increase the number of employees from ethnic minorities within his Department.[306]

    Mr. Prescott
    My Departments' current measures to enhance and encourage the employment and advancement of ethnic minorities are as follows.

    Action plans for people of ethnic minority origin were first published in 1991 and are under constant review along with other equal opportunities action plans for women and disabled staff within which they are consolidated. Examples of how the action plans for ethnic minorities are put into practice include: the provision of a range of equal opportunities training for managers and staff; positive action training for developing the potential of ethnic minority staff only; training for members of interview panels; publicising staff vacancies in specialist recruitment publications which feature role models to help encourage ethnic minority group representation; a revised approach to staff appraisal procedures, backed up by mandatory training programmes, to eliminate prejudice by focusing on clarified objectives and a competency-based framework for assessing individuals' performance; participation in the Windsor Fellowship Scheme, providing vacation work experience for ethnic minority undergraduates and in the Office of Public Service's Double Disadvantage Study relating to ethnic minority women; membership of a mentoring consortium led by the East London University to contribute to the development of ethnic minority students through establishing links with role models in employment; offering networking opportunities for ethnic minority staff and positively encouraging them to apply for promotion and sit as panel members; monitoring and analysing success rates by ethnic origin of the processes of recruitment, internal postings, advancement, staff appraisal; identifying any barriers to progress and improving the processes to ensure equality of opportunity in the workplace and reflect local needs; and formal annual reporting to Board level, the Trades Union Side and staff generally about equal opportunities progress. Executive Agencies have autonomy to develop comparable local strategies.

    I shall want to review and consider the adequacy of these measures.

    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many civil servants at each grade within his Department were of Asian origin on 5 May. [305]
    84
    Mr. Prescott
    Through voluntary and confidential surveys, the total number of civil servants at each grade who have declared their ethnic origin as Asian are:

    DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT, Regions and Agencies (excluding Health and Safety Executive)

    Grade and grade equivalents

    Grade 6

    0

    Grade 7

    5

    SEO

    2

    HEO

    14

    EO

    29

    AO

    53

    AA

    24

    Department of Transport, Regions and Agencies

    Grade and grade equivalents

    Number

    Grade 6

    5

    Grade 7

    17

    SEO

    33

    HEO

    18

    EO

    48

    AO

    156

    AA

    52

    Cottamwear District Centre Site, Preston
    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what powers the Commission for New Towns has to revise its present proposals for the use of the District Centre Site at Cottamwear, Preston. [251]

    Mr. Caborn
    Proposals for the site were originally made by the former Central Lancashire Development Corporation under Section 7(1) of the New Towns Act 1981 and were approved by the then Secretary of State in 1983 under Section 7(2) of the same Act.

    Any changes to the approved development are subject to the normal planning application procedures and must be approved by the local planning authority.

    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what factors led the Commission for the New Towns to alter its original plans for the use of the District Centre Site at Cottamwear, Preston. [252]

    Mr. Caborn
    I understand that the Commission for the New Towns wished to modify its original plans so as to allow for a single large supermarket, which it believes would be more appropriate to a large new housing area and would offer a wide range of facilities than could have been provided under the constraints of the existing planning permission.

    Contaminated Land
    Mr. Bennett
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects(a) to publish the regulations on contaminated land and (b) to reply to the Environment Committee's report on contaminated land (Second report, Session 1996–97, HC 22). [36]
    85
    Ms Angela Eagle
    We hope to make an announcement on how we propose to proceed before the Summer Recess and to provide a full response to the Environment Committee's report when Parliament reassembles in the Autumn.

    Competitive Tendering
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what studies his Department has undertaken concerning a replacement for compulsory competitive tendering. [261]

    Mr. Raynsford
    We are currently considering, with local government and other interested parties, the bet means to take forward our Manifesto commitment to replace compulsory competitive tendering with a duty on local authorities to secure 'Best Value'

    London Strategic Authority Referendum
    Mr. Hill
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the timetable for the referendum on an elected strategic authority and mayor for London. [135]

    Mr. Raynsford
    Subject to the necessary legislation being enacted by Parliament, we propose to hold a referendum in May next year.

    Planning Policy Guidance
    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to ensure that local authorities follow the current contents of PPG 6; and what is his Department's policy towards PPG 6. [249]

    Mr. Caborn
    The Government is concerned to ensure that development of key town centre uses, whether shopping, offices, leisure or other appropriate uses, actively assists the regeneration of our town and city centres, as well as key district centres. I am keen to see our policy applied firmly and consistently, taking due account of local circumstances. We are also currently considering our Response to the Environment Committee's recent report on Shopping Centres.

    Housing Development (Towns and Cities)
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Government remain committed to 60 per cent. of all new housing development being in existing towns and cities. [236]

    Mr. Raynsford
    Sixty per cent. was an option put forward in the Green Paper on Household Growth published for consultation last year. We are now considering all the responses received before deciding how the issues surrounding household growth should be taken forward.

    Urban Commons
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy to mark urban commons as such on Ordnance Survey maps. [260]
    86
    Mr. Raynsford
    The recording of information in Ordnance Survey's National Topographic Database and its depiction on maps at various scales are primarily a matter of resources. Funding to collect, store and disseminate information comes from two sources—commercial sales of OS products and from government funding for those OS activities which are judged to be in the national interest. Discussions are currently underway on the funding of a National Interest in Mapping Service Agreement (NIMSA) and the Ordnance Survey activities to be covered by it. I have ensured that the question of recording urban commons is included in the considerations. A decision on NIMSA is expected to be taken by Ministers later in the year.

    Leghold Traps
    Mr. Gummer
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will support the ban on the import of furs caught by leghold traps agreed to by Environment Ministers in the EU.[638]

    Mr. Prescott
    We expect to receive formal proposals from the Commission shortly about resolving this issue. We will consider these in the light of our aim to end the use of such cruel trapping methods.

    Mr. Gummer
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what discussions he plans to hold with the incoming Luxembourg presidency to carry through the ban on fur imports from countries using leghold traps; [854]

    (2) when he plans to meet his (a) US, (b) Canadian and (c) Russian colleagues to confirm the United Kingdom's decision to insist upon a ban on fur imports from countries not proposing to phase out leghold traps; [856]

    (3) what discussions he has had with the Dutch Presidency on the implementation of a ban on the import of furs caught by leghold traps.[853]

    Mr. Prescott
    My hon. Friend the Minister of State will be meeting his opposite numbers from the Netherlands and Luxembourg on 4 and 9 June to discuss a number of issues of mutual concern, including the 1991 EC Leghold Traps Regulation. I have no immediate plans to meet Ministerial colleagues from the fur exporting countries.

    Council of Ministers
    Mr. Gummer
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to attend the next meeting of the Council of the European Union Environment Ministers. [636]

    Mr. Prescott
    I expect to attend the next Environment Council in Luxembourg on 19 and 20 June, together with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment.

    Forest of Dean
    Mrs. Organ
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his plans for environmental protection in the Forest of Dean.[589]

    Ms Angela Eagle
    Various protective measures already apply within the Forest of Dean. The Wye Valley is already designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural
    87
    Beauty. The Wye Valley and Forest of Dean Bat Sites, and Wye Valley Woodlands are candidate Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), and the River Wye is a possible Special Area of Conservation. Once adopted by the European Commission the SACs will received full protection under the EC Habitats Directive. These internationally important sites are also already designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs); as such, they form part of a larger network of SSSIs which receive additional consideration within the planning control system. English Nature, the Government's scientific advisors, have a duty to continue to identify further sites which meet the SSSI criteria.

    Homelessness
    Mr. Corbyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his estimate of the number of people in London who are(a) rough sleepers, (b) accommodated in hostels and (c) concealed as homeless and sharing accommodation. [168]

    Mr. Raynsford
    [holding answer 20 May 1997]Comprehensive data on the numbers of rough sleepers and on persons accommodated in hostels in London are not available. However, counts of rough sleepers in Central London are conducted on a regular basis and the most recent one, on 14 November 1996, found 357 people sleeping rough in Central London areas plus Whitechapel, the City and W1 and W2. Counts were also conducted in a number of other London Boroughs during the summer of 1996 and the numbers of rough sleepers found were as follows

    Number

    Barnet

    2

    Ealing

    24

    Hammersmith and Fulham

    19

    Kensington and Chelsea

    25

    Richmond on Thames

    12

    Tower Hamlets (areas not covered in regular count)

    8

    Waltham Forest

    2

    Information on households sharing non-self contained accommodation is available from the annual Survey of English Housing. The latest data are for 1995–96, when around 140,000 households in London were sharing in non-self contained accommodation. The Department's mid-1995 household estimate for London includes about 30,000 "concealed households" (married couples or lone parents living with relatives or friends) not included in the households sharing non-self-contained accommodation as they are not living as separate households. A number of these sharing/concealed households will be adequately housed and not seeking alternative accommodation.

    Local Government Association
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans next to meet the chairman of the Local Government Association. [810]

    Mr. Raynsford
    My right hon. Friend met the Chairman of the Local Government Association on 4 May and again on 12 May, and further regular meetings are planned.

  TRANSPORT

    Road Maintenance
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the regions what action he is planning to take following the publication of the National Road Maintenance Condition Survey. [3]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    We expect to be considering plans for roads expenditure and investment generally in the coming months, and as part of this will consider the needs for road maintenance. The 1996 NRMCS will no doubt be of assistance along with many other aids to assessment.

    Heavy Goods Vehicles
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to introduce legislation to permit the impounding of illegally operated heavy goods vehicles. [52]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    We are considering the possibility for legislation on this issue.

    A46 Dualling
    Mr. Hogg
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on proposals to dual the section of the A46 between Lincoln and Newark; and when it is intended to commence construction works. [119]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    We are committed to a strategic review of the Trunk Road programme. The terms of the review are not yet settled, but the question of whether and how quickly we take forward schemes which are at or near construction will be a key early decision.

    Merchant Fleet
    Mr. Letwin
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the diminution of the British Merchant fleet in the last 100 years; and if he will seek to augment the size of the fleet by(a) introducing 100 per cent. tax allowances for investment in ships and (b) other measures. [629]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    The size of the British Merchant fleet has declined dramatically over the last 10 years. I intend to work with those in the industry to help to develop its economic potential. Any relevant measures will be examined.

    A303 (T)
    Mr. Key
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions his Department has held with English Heritage, Amesbury Town Council and the Navy, Army and Air Force Institution on improvements to the A303 (T) between Countess Roundabout and the east Amesbury junction; and what modifications are under consideration.[96]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. member.
    89
    Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Robert Key, dated 21 May 1997:
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked me to reply to your recent question about what discussions have taken place between his Department, English Heritage, Amesbury Town Council and the Navy, Army and Air Force Institution on improvements of the A303 between Countess Roundabout and the East Amesbury junction and what modifications are under consideration.
    While no discussions have taken place with the Navy, Army and Air Force Institution, discussions about the A303, particularly the East Amesbury Junction, have taken place between the Highways Agency, Salisbury District Council, English Heritage and Amesbury Town Council.
    It is proposed that a study will be carried out this year to investigate the feasibility of modifying the junction to provide the additional slip roads required to make all movements possible.

    Mr. Key
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about progress on the proposed A303 (T) Chicklade bypass.[94]

    Ms Jackson
    [holding answer 20 May 1997]A decision on whether to proceed with this scheme will be taken following a decision on the proposed Salisbury Bypass.

    Severn Bridge
    Mrs. Organ
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the terms of the contract for the management of the first Severn bridge. [588]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    There are no plans to review the terms of the contract for the management of the Severn Bridge.

    Salisbury Bypass
    Mr. Key
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce his decision on the Salisbury bypass project. [89]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    [holding answer 20 May 1997]A report on aspects of the route of this proposed bypass was published on 21 March. No decision will be taken until the comments received on this report and other relevant representations have been considered.

  PRIME MINISTER

    EU Social Chapter
    17. Mr. Butterfill
    To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the implications of the EU social chapter for the competitiveness of British industry. [356]

    The Prime Minister
    The two measures adopted so far under the Social Chapter—European Works Councils and Parental leave—will promote good working relations. That can only be good for competitiveness. By ending the last Government's futile opt-out, we will play a full part in negotiations and ensure that the Social Chapter promotes flexibility and employability, not high social costs.

    Minimum Wage
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton
    To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on the minimum wage. [359]

    The Prime Minister
    The Gracious Speech made clear our commitment to the introduction of legislation to set in place a National Minimum Wage. It will be set sensibly and will provide a wage floor to remove the worst excesses of low pay and exploitation of workers.

  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    Development Policy (Ethical Issues)
    Mr. Miller
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans her Department has to address ethical issues in determining Britain's international development policy; and if she will make a statement. [322]

    Clare Short
    Ethics will be at the heart of our international development policy.

    Third-world Debt
    Ms Abbott
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to promote debt forgiveness initiatives. [323]

    Clare Short
    The Government is giving its full support to the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Debt Initiative. As I have said, the aim is to give the poorest, most indebted countries a once and for all exit from their debt problems.

    Rwanda, Burundi and Zaire
    Mr. Russell Brown
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is her estimate of the numbers and needs of the refugees and internally displaced persons who have not yet returned home following the crises in Rwanda, Burundi and Zaire. [324]

    Clare Short
    UNHCR estimates that 1.5 million people have returned home since January 1996. The airlift to Rwanda continues at about 2,000 people a day. But just under 1 million refugees and internally displaced persons remain in the region. Up to 70,000 may be ex-FAR and Interahamwe involved in the Rwandan genocide. I intend to play an active role in the international effort to resolve these problems.

    Aid (Poorest Countries)
    Mr. Bayley
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proposals she has to use a greater proportion of United Kingdom bilateral aid to promote long-term development for the poorest people in the poorest countries. [325]

    Clare Short
    I am reviewing existing spending programmes to ensure our resources are directed towards helping the poorest people. But bilateral programmes alone are not sufficient. We must have coherent policies in all areas such as finance, trade and the environment
    91
    which can make a real difference to eliminating poverty. We will set out our strategy in the White Paper promised in the Queen's Speech.

    Aid Budget
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement about the proportion of United Kingdom gross domestic product devoted to overseas aid. [326]

    Clare Short
    Unlike the previous government, we will keep our word. We remain committed to the 0.7 per cent. UN aid/GNP target.

    Sir Teddy Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans Her Majesty's Government have to increase the level of overseas aid. [321]

    Clare Short
    As we promised during the election we will work within existing ceilings this year and next, we are committed to reversing the decline in UK aid spending.

    The previous government committed 30–40 per cent. of our aid budget to be spend through the EU. We are determined to ensure this is spent more effectively.

    Indian Sub-continent
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement about current aid support to the Indian sub-continent. [327]

    Clare Short
    Britain spent £201 million on bilateral aid to India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka in 1995–96. South Asia receives the second largest allocation of British bilateral aid of any region in the world, after sub-Saharan Africa. The overall objective of our assistance programme is to help reduce poverty and promote sustainable development.

    Poverty Elimination (Women)
    Ms Maria Eagle
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what are her plans for ensuring that women are included in poverty elimination strategies.[328]

    Clare Short
    The evidence is clear that empowering poor women is essential for effective poverty reduction. The education of girls is also a key priority. A commitment to women's development will be a major theme in the forthcoming White Paper.

    United Nations
    Mr. Hanson
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she intends to next meet United Nations officials to discuss development issues. [329]

    Clare Short
    My first meeting will be with UNESCO's Director-General shortly. There will be other important opportunities over the coming months to take forward matters of mutual concern with UN development agencies.

    European Union Funds
    Dr. Godman
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she last met her European counterparts to discuss the regulations governing the distribution of Know How and Phare funds.[330]

    Clare Short
    I have not yet hand the opportunity to meet with my EU counterparts to discuss these issues. The Know How Fund is a British Government bilateral programme and therefore part of our current review of spending plans. It is independent from the Phare programme, which is subject to EU procedures.

    Bangladesh
    Mr. Bennett
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement about aid to Bangladesh.[331]

    Clare Short
    Bangladesh is, rightly, our second largest development assistance programme. We intend to increase the emphasis on poverty reduction and to support the Government's efforts to accelerate sustainable economic and social development. I hope to visit Bangladesh later this year.

    Mr. Gapes
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to provide assistance to the Bihari people living in refugee camps in Bangladesh. [137]

    Clare Short
    There are no current plans to provide assistance exclusively for Bihari people living in refugee camps in Bangladesh. Since 1990 HMG has provided bilateral assistance totalling £0.77m for health and education projects involving Bihari communities in Bangladesh. We would hope to see the Biharis increasingly benefiting from more general development programmes run by Government and NGOs.

    Sustainable Development
    Ms Hewitt
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what are her plans to promote sustainable development internationally.[332]

    Clare Short
    The Government will establish coherent policies to tackle global poverty and promote sustainable development. We will publish a White Paper setting out our future strategy and how we will implement it. Central to the strategy will be greater consistency between our development, trade, agriculture, environment, human rights and economic reform policies.

    Cuba
    Mr. Pickthall
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she plans to take to assist Cuba. [333]

    Clare Short
    We have a small British Partnership Scheme supporting the economic reform process in Cuba, and we contribute to the EC programme there. Over the next few months we shall be conducting a comprehensive review of all our cooperation programmes to ensure that they properly reflect the Government's new development priorities.

    Ethical and Social Responsibility
    Mr. Connarty
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what are her Department's plans for encouraging ethical and socially responsible practices by businesses which are active in developing countries. [334]

    Clare Short
    We see sound ethical practice as central to international development policy. We are looking at a range of ways of working with business and interested non-Governmental organisations to achieve this and to assist the formulation of practical codes of conduct.

    Indonesia
    Mrs. Clwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will review aid to Indonesia. [335]

    Clare Short
    Yes.

    Population Control
    Mrs. Ann Winterton
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on expenditure on family planning programmes in developing countries. [338]

    Clare Short
    Better sexual and reproductive health, including family planning, will be a priority for department. We believe that women and men in the developing world are entitled to the means to plan their families, to maintain good sexual and reproductive health and to have safe pregnancies. We will work at all levels to promote the principles of the 1994 Cairo Conference and ensure that the Programme of Action is realised.

    Child and Bonded Labour
    Mr. Corbyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to end child and bonded labour in the poorest countries. [339]

    Clare Short
    In addition to strengthening support for actions aimed at eliminating exploitative and hazardous forms of child labour, we intend to strengthen our support for initiatives aimed at assisting families at risk of falling prey to bonded labour and to play a full part in international dialogue on this issue.

    Nepal
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to re-evaluate Her Majesty's Government's development aid to Nepal. [742]

    Clare Short
    Our current bilateral aid to Nepal is designed to support broad-based growth, promote human development, encourage competent and accountable government and enhance the status of women. [This is set out in more detail in the Country Aid Programme Statement for Nepal which I am placing in the Library of the House]. We are looking for ways to give the programme a sharper strategic focus with greater emphasis on reducing poverty.

    Iran
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures are planned by Her Majesty's Government to assist the earthquake victims in Iran.[741]

    Clare Short
    We have already provided £212,441 of emergency aid for the local purchase of relief items by the Iranian Red Crescent Society and the costs of an Oxfam consignment to the affected region. We are continuing to monitor the situation and relief effort and remain ready to provide further help.

    Civil Service (Ethnic Minorities)
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proposals she has to increase the number of ethnic minority employees in her Department. [737]

    Clare Short
    The Department is an equal opportunity employer. We welcome applications from ethnic minority candidates. We monitor those applications. Appointment is based on merit through fair and open competition.

    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many civil servants, of each grade in her Department, were of Asian origin on 5 May. [736]

    Clare Short
    The latest figures are:

    Grade

    Number of Asian employees

    Senior Civil Service

    1

    Grade 6

    1

    Grade 7

    2

    SE0 and equivalent

    1

    HEO and equivalent

    5

    EO and equivalent

    11

    AO

    16

    AA

    2

    SPS

    0

    PS

    2

    Typist

    5

    Support grades

    0

    Total

    46

    Kurds
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the implications for Her Majesty's Government's humanitarian assistance to(a) refugees and (b) the rest of the population in Northern Iraq of the clashes between Turkish troops and Kurdish political factions. [744]

    Clare Short
    We are following with concern the Turkish incursion in Northern Iraq. We have not received any reports of new refugees, and no programmes for previous refugees are affected.

    Some supplies for the Pest Control Programme were temporarily held up. The Demining Programme has been interrupted in some areas. We have made representations to the Turkish Government.

    St. Helena
    Mr. Key
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is her Department's planned expenditure on St. Helena in the current financial year. [587]

    Clare Short
    Planned aid expenditure on St. Helena in 1997–98 is £8.675 million, relating to the first year of a three year aid commitment of £26 million linked to the St. Helena Country Policy Plan and agreed with the St. Helena Government.

    UNESCO
    Mr. Timms
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what are the aims of her Department in respect of UNESCO. [336]

    Clare Short
    Our principal aim, in concert with UNESCO management and other members, is to ensure that the organisation works efficiently and effectively in the delivery of assistance that meets the changing needs of developing countries.

    Mr. Gapes
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she plans to meet the Director-General of UNESCO to discuss United Kingdom membership. [337]

    Clare Short
    I look forward to meeting the Director-General of UNESCO, Federico Mayor, shortly, to discuss our future work with UNESCO.

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Department's priorities will be in its activities within UNESCO once the United Kingdom has rejoined UNESCO. [320]

    Clare Short
    Our commitment to development for the poorest people in the world requires better world governance and a more effective UN. Our rejoining of UNESCO will help us achieve these ends.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    BSE
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many carcases of cattle affected or suspected of being affected with BSE were disposed of by burial at Beddingham landfill site up to the end of 1991; and if these carcases were buried with their spinal cords; [101]

    (2) what scientific evidence underlay his Department's policy of disposing of cattle carcases affected by or suspected of being affected by BSE in landfill sites prior to 1991; [103]

    (3) for what reason spinal cords were not removed from the carcases of cattle affected or suspected of being affected by BSE before they were buried in landfill sites before 1991. [105]

    Mr. Rooker
    In the early years of BSE epidemic, incineration capacity was insufficient to deal with all the cattle involved. Therefore, during the summer of 1988 this Department approached East Sussex County Council seeking licensed landfill facilities for the disposal of cattle suspected of having BSE. At that time, the County 96
    Council was responsible as a waste disposal authority for the granting and supervision of licences under Part I of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. Following an assessment by the authority of the landfill sites then it its ownership, Beddingham was identified by that authority as suitable for the disposal of waste of this kind. The Ministry's records, cross checked with those available to the Environment Agency, indicate that the carcases of fewer than 10 cattle affected, or suspected of being affected, with BSE were disposed of at the Beddingham landfill site between August 1988 and October 1989.

    Compulsory slaughter of all cattle suspected of having BSE, with compensation, was introduced from August 1988. Under these arrangements the heads of suspects were removed from the carcases for confirmation of the presence, or otherwise, of BSE and were subsequently incinerated. The removal of spinal cord was not necessary for this purpose. The Southwood Committee, the group of independent experts initially set up to advise Ministers on BSE, recommended precautionary action against spinal cords and other cattle tissues which might carry the BSE agent in respect of certain foodstuffs. The bovine offal controls introduced in November 1989 in response to the Committee's advice went further than the Committee recommended. The Committee noted without objection that some cattle were disposed of by burial.

    No cattle suspected of having BSE have been disposed of by landfilling since 1991, since when sufficient carcase incineration capacity has been available to process the number of animals involved.

    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the dangers to(a) public health and (b) the contamination of the water table, from the disposal of carcases of cattle affected or suspected of being affected by BSE in Beddingham landfill site; and if he will make a statement. [102]

    Mr. Rooker
    In May last year a sub-group of the independent Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC), which advises Ministers on BSE, considered the issue of BSE and the environment, including the past disposal of BSE suspect cattle to landfill. They considered that, although the spongiform encephalopathy agent was not yet fully characterised, there was good evidence to believe that individual molecules were not infectious and that infectivity was associated with macro molecular agglomerations and possibly with tissue fragments, albeit small ones. On this basis they concluded"it was unlikely that leachate from landfill sites would present a significant risk and there was certainly no justification for taking heroic measures to excavate sites, even those which had previously been used for material such as BSE-confirmed cattle".

    The Environment Agency has regulatory responsibility for supervising the safe operation of landfill sites and is in possession of SEAC's advice. The Agency monitors ground water quality in the vicinity of licensed landfill sites as a check for any leachate contamination. They are assessing data on a typical selection of identified sites to determine whether there is a possibility of impact on water quality.
    97
    Mrs. Helen Jackson
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many, and what percentage of, cattle(a) have been (i) slaughtered, (ii) incinerated and (iii) rendered and (b) are in storage, under the over 30 months scheme. [611]

    Mr. Rooker
    Up to 11 May 1997, some 1,420,866 cattle have been slaughtered under the over 30 months scheme. Of these:

    Number

    Per cent

    Method of disposal

    69,075

    4.9

    have been incinerated;

    1,227,763

    86.4

    have been rendered for subsequent destruction;

    124,0281

    8.7

    are in cold storage.

    1Estimate based on the tonnage of product taken into store.

    Mrs. Jackson
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list, for each rendering firm, the amounts paid to them for rendering cattle covered by the over 30 months scheme(a) in pounds sterling and (b) as a percentage of the total; and if he will list the (i) tonnage and (ii) number of such cattle rendered by each rendering firm. [613]

    Mr. Rooker
    The provision of details of payments made to individual renderers, or other information from which such payments could be deduced, would breach commercial confidentiality. Companies to which payments were made were:

    Canterbury Mills Ltd.

    Duncrue Food Processors Ltd.

    Dundas Bros Ltd.

    Fats and Proteins (UK) Ltd.

    William Forrest and Sons (Paisley) Ltd.

    Gilberts Animal By-Products

    Lisburn Proteins Ltd.

    J G Pears (Newark) Ltd.

    Peninsular Proteins Ltd.

    Prosper De Mulder Ltd.

    Ulster Farm By-Products Ltd.

    The information sought, on a UK basis is as follows:

    Total

    Tonnage of material rendered on which payment made to 15 May 1997

    527,814

    Total payments (excluding VAT) made to renderers to 15 May 1997 (£ million)

    54,882

    Estimated animals covered by above payments1

    1.139,361

    1Based on 460 kg of processed material per animal.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice his Department has received as to the role of cattle feed as the infective agent leading to BSE. [245]

    Mr. Rooker
    The conclusions of epidemiological investigations have been published in peer reviewed journals and submitted to Government advisory committees from time to time. These have also been included in the six-monthly Progress Reports on BSE in Great Britain which are laid in the Library of the House. Cattle feed is still considered to have been the primary route of infection, although advice recently received from SEAC suggests that a small proportion of cases may arise 98
    as a result of maternal transmission. The SEAC statement on their findings on maternal transmission was issued as a MAFF News Release on 18 April 1997 which was laid in the Library of the House.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what projections he has evaluated in respect of the incidence of BSE in each of the next 10 years. [298]

    Mr. Rooker
    My officials have evaluated the epidemiological analysis carried out by Professor Anderson of Oxford University and his team, in collaboration with Wilesmith and others at VLA, which was published in Nature, Vol. 382. Their research indicates that the BSE epidemic will reach insignificant levels by the year 2001 irrespective of any further measures. This analysis supports Government predictions on the future pattern of the disease.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate as to the projected cost of the culling of cattle under each of the BSE-related cull schemes. [293]

    Mr. Rooker
    We estimate that the selective cull will cost £185 million, although this is partly financed by the European Union and there will be savings on other schemes. The cost will depend, however, on the distribution of exposed animals and the number of animals which have to be slaughtered which can only be estimated at this stage.

    It is impossible to predict with any accuracy the total cost of the Over Thirty Month Scheme, given the duration of this demand-led Scheme is unknown. However, by the end of the current financial year expenditure is expected to amount to around £1,230 million, part of which is financed by the European Union.

    Expenditure on the Calf Processing Aid Scheme, which is wholly financed by the European Union, is expected to amount to around £140 million by November 1998. The Scheme's operation after that date is subject to consideration by the Council of Ministers.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the projected level of incidence of BSE over the next 10 years. [10]

    Mr. Rooker
    I refer my hon. Friend to the paper published in Nature in August 1996 by Professor R. M. Anderson et al, a copy of which can be found at Appendix 5 of the November 1996 Progress Report which has been placed in the Library of the House. That paper gives a prediction of future tends in the incidence by year of BSE infections. It is anticipated that the BSE epidemic is likely to fade close to extinction by the year 2001 as a result of the control measures which are already in place. It is, however, pertinent to point out the many assumptions that had to be made in making such estimates. Significant deviation from such assumptions will inevitably affect the predicted outcome.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the reports relating to the diagnosis and incidence of BSE received by his Department over the last 12 months. [12]
    99
    Mr. Rooker
    Reports relating to the diagnosis and incidence of BSE are already available in the fortnightly report to the Commission on BSE measures taken by the UK, copies of which are placed in the Library of the House.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what incidence of BSE-related contamination in dairy products has been reported to his Department in each of the last three years; and if he will publish such reports. [40]

    Mr. Rooker
    No BSE infectivity has ever been detected in cows milk including milk from animals clinically affected by BSE, nor has it been found in bovine mammary gland tissues.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what date Ministers were first informed of the dangers of a BSE-related infective agent. [246]

    Mr. Rooker
    Ministers were first informed of the possibility that BSE might be caused by a transmissible agent on 5 June 1987.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the transmission of BSE-related conditions through pet food. [47]

    Mr. Rooker
    No research has been commissioned into the transmission of BSE-related conditions through pet food. Epidemiological investigations into Feline Spongiform Encephalopathy (FSE) in domestic cats and our knowledge of the disease lead us to conclude that cases occurred because Specified Bovine Offal (SBO) could be legally incorporated in pet food until its use was prohibited in September 1990.

    Mr. Nicholls
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to receive the SEAC report into the safety of EU beef production; and if he will make a statement. [136]

    Mr. Rooker
    The European Commission's draft report 2001/97 on risk factors and surveillance procedures on BSE in the Community has been put to SEAC and we are awaiting its views.

    Scrapie
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what scientific evidence underlay his Department's policy of forbidding the burial by farmers of sheep which died of scrapie. [104]

    Mr. Rooker
    This Department has not introduced a policy of forbidding farmers from burying the carcases of sheep which die from scrapie except in the case of heads which are sent to Veterinary Investigation Centres for diagnostic purposes. These carcases must be disposed of in accordance with the Animal By-Products Order 1992 (as amended) and, where on-farm burial takes place, guidance is provided to farmers in the Code of Good Agricultural Practice for the Protection of Water.

    Set-aside Land
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what area of agricultural 100
    land in (a) Lancashire and (b) North Yorkshire is currently subject to set aside under the common agricultural policy. [706]

    Mr. Rooker
    The information requested is not available at present. Most farmers have only recently submitted their 1997 IACS applications which detail the areas they have set aside. Once the applications have been processed I will write to my hon. Friend with the information requested.

    Rendering Industry Support
    Mrs. Helen Jackson
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for each rendering firm, the amounts due to them under the rendering industry support scheme for each year in the period 1995 to 2000. [614]

    Mr. Rooker
    Rendering industry support schemes have been introduced for 1996–97 and 1997–98. Total expenditure for 1996–97 is estimated at about £100 million, with a provision of up to £59 million for 1997–98. As at 21 May about £90 million had been paid to renderers for 1996–97. No money had yet been paid in respect of 1997–98.

    Individual companies' entitlements to support for the whole of 1996–97 have yet to be finally determined. Under the 1997–98 scheme, support payments depend on eligible renderers' production profile during the year. Entitlements for the year as a whole will therefore not be known until after the scheme ends.

    I am unable to disclose information about the support which has to date been paid to individual renderers for reasons of their commercial confidentiality (exemption 13 in the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information).

    Food Safety
    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list each occasion on which issues relating to the safety of food have been referred to Ministers in the last five years. [39]

    Mr. Rooker
    Issues relating to the safety of food are a significant part of the work of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and Ministers are consulted regularly on these matters. My hon. Friend's question is so wide-ranging that a detailed reply could only be given at disproportionate cost.

    I can inform my hon. Friend that food safety issues have been considered by Ministers each day since the Government took office.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the current manpower resources available to ensure that food hygiene standards are adequately maintained. [41]

    Mr. Rooker
    This is one of the areas we shall be considering as we take forward the proposals to establish a Food Standards Agency.
    101
    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many veterinarians have been dismissed for failure to ensure compliance with health inspection regulations over the last 36 months. [13]

    Mr. Rooker
    The Meat Hygiene Service was established as an Executive Agency of MAFF on 1 April 1995 and took over responsibility from local authorities for meat hygiene and inspection in licensed fresh meat premises.

    Operational and staffing matters are the responsibility of the Meat Hygiene Service and I have asked the Chief executive to reply to my hon. Friend.

    Letter from Johnston McNeill to Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours, dated 21 May 1997:
    As Chief Executive of the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) your Parliamentary Question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food concerning the number of veterinarians dismissed for failure to ensure compliance with health inspection regulations over the last 36 months has been passed to me for reply.(13)
    The Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) was established as an Executive Agency of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) on 1 April 1995. It took over from some 300 local authorities responsibility for enforcing meat hygiene, inspection and animal welfare at slaughter legislation in licensed fresh meat premises in England, Scotland and Wales. The MHS has no information about veterinarians dismissed prior to this date.
    The MHS directly employs 45 Official Veterinary Surgeons. In addition, the Agency makes use of 131 full time equivalent contract OVS. These OVSs work together with Meat Hygiene Inspectors as meat hygiene and inspection teams in abattoirs. MHS staff take appropriate action to ensure plant operators comply with the relevant hygiene, inspection and animal welfare legislation. The MHS operates a clear hierarchy of enforcement starting with informal advice and guidance escalating, where problems persist or are severe, to the service of statutory notices, and ultimately progressing in severity to prosecution or action by the State Veterinary Service to revoke the premises licence where there has been a failure to respond to earlier requirements. No directly employed OVSs have been dismissed for failure to ensure compliance with this legislation. A number of contract OVSs have had their contracts terminated as their performance has not proved satisfactory.
    The MHS has recently reinforced its instructions to its staff on ensuring compliance with hygiene legislation. All MHS staff have been reminded of the importance of ensuring full compliance with hygiene controls, and of those procedures which must be followed in relation to hygienic carcase dressing. In particular staff were reminded that meat showing evidence of contamination must not be health marked as fit for sale for human consumption. Where there is evidence that the health mark has been applied to a carcase showing signs of visible contamination, this will be regarded, prima facie, as a potential gross misconduct, and will be the subject of disciplinary investigation. Gross misconduct is a dismissable offence.
    The MHS is also responsible for enforcing Specified Bovine Material (SBM) controls in licensed premises. These controls are central to the protection of public health from any risk of BSE. They require the removal from all cattle at slaughter of all those tissues that might, in theory, harbour BSE infectivity. MHS staff are also fully aware that they may face disciplinary action as a result of any failure to enforce these controls. One contract OVS has received a written caution.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the food safety regulations; and to what extent they are currently being applied. [42]
    102
    Mr. Rooker
    This is one of the areas we shall be considering as we take forward the proposals to establish a Food Standards Agency. In his report, Professor Philip James states that the Food Safety Act 1990, which provides the framework for food legislation, is generally acknowledged to be a good tool for ensuring food safety.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the budget allocated for food safety in his Department relative to the responsibilities and liabilities placed on his Department arising from(a) BSE and (b) other food safety issues; and if he will make a statement. [45]

    Mr. Rooker
    The Ministry's spending priorities and the budgets allocated to them are about to undergo a thorough examination in the context of the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review.

    Animal Identification
    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in the development of a computerised animal identification system. [14]

    Mr. Rooker
    Cattle born from 1 July 1996 are already registered on the Agriculture Departments' computer databases.

    I am considering responses to proposals for a computerised database of cattle movements. I intend to take forward rapidly the creation of this database, so that it can be brought into effect in Great Britain well ahead of the Community's deadline.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the extent to which the current proposals for the identification of cattle meet European requirements for the lifting of the beef ban in the Florence agreement. [15]

    Mr. Rooker
    The existing GB cattle passport system, implemented in July 1996, fulfils the Florence pre-condition for an affective animal identification movement recording system with official registration. A cattle database already existed in Northern Ireland.

    In addition, there are proposals for the introduction of a fully computerised cattle traceability system in Great Britain to record details of cattle movements centrally. These were sent to interested parties in December 1996.

    I am currently considering the responses to the proposals for a cattle traceability system which I hope to introduce at an early date.

    Quota Hopping
    Mr. Baldry
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards quota hopping. [71]

    Mr. Morley
    Tackling the quota hopping issue is a top priority for the Government and we shall be looking to make real progress at Amsterdam.

    Beef Ban
    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the estimates of the time when the beef ban is likely to be lifted that have been provided to his department by(a) representatives of the farming industry and (b) others. [38]

    Mr. Rooker
    I refer my hon. Friend to the statement given by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) on 24 June 1996 (Official Report, columns 21–24) and his belief that the conditions necessary for a decision to lift the ban on the fourth stage—meat from animals under 30 months—would be met by November.

    I am not aware of any other estimates received by my Department.

  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Funeral Payments
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will initiate an inquiry into alternatives to social fund funeral payments to take account of the recommendations made by the Social Security Advisory Committee in its report of 13 February 1997 (Cm 3585). [114]

    Mr. Keith Bradley
    We have no plans at present to look into alternatives to the social fund funeral payments scheme.

    We will, however, keep the current scheme under close review.

    Pensions
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much higher the basic pension for a person now aged 85 years would be if it had been increased in line with average earnings. [116]

    Mr. Denham
    If the Basic State Pension had been increased in line with the higher of earnings or prices since 1980, the standard rate, which would apply to all those over State Pension age, would now be £86.00 a week, £23.55 higher than the current standard rate. Those aged over 80 would also receive the 25p per week age addition.

    Notes:

    1. All calculations are rounded to the nearest 5p at each uprating date.

    2. The alternative uprating has been calculated using either the Average Earnings Index (Whole economy unadjusted) as published by the Office for National Statistics of the Retail Prices Index (all items), whichever was the higher.

    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the pensions review will commence; what form it will take; and what arrangements will be made to ensure that the views of pensioners are heard. [113]

    Mr. Denham
    We propose to announce details of the review shortly.

    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the present value of the basic retirement pension as a percentage of average earnings; and what it will be in (i) 2000, (ii) 2010, (iii) 2020, (iv) 2030 and (v) 2040 if it is increased only in line with prices. [115]
    104
    Mr. Denham
    The information is in the table.

    Year

    Standard rate basic retirement pension as a percentage of average earnings

    1996

    17.4

    2000

    16.4

    2010

    14.1

    2020

    12.2

    2030

    10.5

    2040

    9.0

    1. Percentages are rounded to the nearest 0.1 per cent.

    2. 1996 figure is calculated compared with the average earnings of all full time employees taken from the New Earnings Survey.

    3. Forecast figures are based on the assumption that the real value of the standard rate of basic retirement pension remains unchanged while average earnings increase by 1.5 per cent. more per year than the Retail Prices Index.

    Appeal Tribunals
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what reports he has received from(a) the Independent Tribunal Service and (b) other sources regarding the effect of the Social Security (Adjudication) and Child Support Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1996 on the number of oral hearings held by social security appeal tribunals, disability appeal tribunals and child support appeal tribunals.[108]

    Mr. Keith Bradley
    Data on the number of oral hearings since the regulation changes came into effect are not yet available. Initial information from the Independent Tribunal Service suggests that currently paper hearings are being arranged in around 5 per cent. of cases.

    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will discuss with the president of the Independent Tribunal Service measures to ensure that doctors who are members of disability appeal tribunals are seen to be independent of her Department. [109]

    Mr. Bradley
    Appointments of members of Disability Appeal Tribunals are a matter for the President of the Independent Tribunal Service, His Honour Judge Bassingthwaighte, who has informed me that measures are in place to prevent any conflict of interest arising.

    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will place in the Library a copy of Dr. Roy Sainsbury's analysis of the responses to the consultation document on decision-making and appeals. [110]

    Mr. Bradley
    We expect to receive Dr. Sainsbury's analysis of responses to the consultation document shortly. A copy will be placed in the Library.

    Benefits Agency Medical Services
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement about the Government's policy regarding the contractorisation of the Benefits Agency Medical Services. [111]

    Mr. Field
    We are reviewing this and other initiatives designed to test the value for money of involving external contractors against: our objectives for modernising the delivery of the welfare system; our approach to partnership with the private sector where there is scope to apply its expertise, discipline and economies of scale in procuring public services and investment; the implications for customer service, staff and the taxpayer; and our commitment to work within announced spending totals for the first two years of the Government. We will make announcements in due course.

    Incapacity Benefit
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will review the conceptual basis and practical operation of the all work test to take account of the evidence submitted to the Social Security Committee's inquiry into incapacity benefit (HC 80, Session 1996–97); and if she will report on the progress already made in evaluating the all work test. [112]

    Mr. Denham
    The evidence provided to the Social Security Select Committee and the findings of the survey of people who have left Incapacity Benefit, currently under way, will enable us to consider whether changes are necessary to ensure that the test provides a fair assessment of a person's incapacity for work for benefit purposes.

    An initial evaluation of the reliability and validity of the all work test was carried out by this Department last year. A report of the findings is in the Library.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Hereford.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Lord Gilbert
The Right Honourable John William Gilbert, having been created Baron Gilbert, of Dudley in the County of West Midlands, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Carrington and the Lord Healey.

Lord Hardie
The Right Honourable Andrew Rutherford Hardie QC, having been created Baron Hardie, of Blackford in the City of Edinburgh, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord McCluskey and the Lord Sewel.
Several Lords—Took the Oath or Affirmed.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to attend a meeting with the Prime Minister and the Cabinet on Thursday morning, 22nd May 1997, when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Nuclear Weapons: Reduction
2.54 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, having regard to their commitment to nuclear disarmament, they will support the gradual internationally agreed and verified reduction of nuclear weapons to zero, as recommended by the Canberra Commission.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the Government will press for multilateral negotiations towards mutual, balanced and verifiable reductions in nuclear weapons. When satisfied with verified progress towards our goal of the global elimination of nuclear weapons, we will ensure that British nuclear weapons are included in multilateral negotiations. We are considering how best to implement this policy.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that excellent Answer. May I seek to
380
clarify a point? Inevitably, in such negotiations there is a stage of agreement and a stage of implementation. May we assume from her Answer and from what she said in her notable contribution to the debate on the humble Address (col. 131) that that is recognised and that the reservations as regards the British nuclear weapon will apply to the second stage? May we also assume that the Government will wish to be fully represented in the first stage of agreement, but will be making reservations about our specific implementation of such an agreement in the second stage of the proceedings? Perhaps I may give an example of what—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, then I shall leave my noble friend to give an example, instead of trying to anticipate what she might say.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, our goal is clear: the global elimination of nuclear weapons. As I said a few moments ago, the Government are considering the best way that we may implement that policy.
Earl Howe: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is one major obstacle in the way of complete nuclear disarmament and that is the simple fact that nuclear weapons cannot be disinvented? Does she also accept that in the context of NATO's strategy of preventing war, the United Kingdom's minimum nuclear deterrent makes an important contribution to that strategy?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Government have made it clear that we will retain Trident, while our overall objective will be the global elimination of nuclear weapons. Our overall objective remains a strong defence against the new security challenges and against the challenges of the post-Cold War world.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, if the object of total elimination were achieved how would Her Majesty's Government guard against a country with no such weapons making them without anyone else knowing?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we wish the negotiations to be on the basis of a verifiable scaling down of nuclear weapons. In relation to countries which as yet do not have nuclear weapons, we will be urging them to sign the comprehensive test ban treaty and to do so as soon as possible.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, perhaps I may seek further clarification from my noble friend. Part of the second stage of the implementation may well be that the United Kingdom will seek to secure a reduction in the larger stockpiles of the United States and Russia before implementing any reduction in our weaponry. Is that the kind of action that the Government might reasonably have in mind?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, in recent years, the United States has made tremendous

381
reductions in its nuclear forces through bilateral agreements with Russia. The two countries have also agreed to begin early talks on further reductions through the START process. The Government are firm in their commitment to strong defence links with the United States across the board. I reiterate what I said to my noble friend earlier; the implementation process will be a matter for further consideration.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the possession of nuclear weapons is a deterrent not only against their use by other people but against other forms of aggression, including the use of weapons of mass destruction such as chemical and biological weapons? Have the Government really thought this through? Have they understood that in the total absence of nuclear weapons everyone is at the mercy of the strongest, those prepared to commit aggression and to bully with conventional weapons and with other weapons of mass destruction? Have the Government really thought this one through?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, not only have the Government thought that one through but I think that the people of the United Kingdom have had the opportunity to think that one through and, indeed, did so by voting in the way that they did in the last election, when there was a very clear commitment in our election manifesto to the global elimination of nuclear weapons.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House how we can be certain that a country does not have nuclear weapons nor has the capability of manufacturing such weapons?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, perhaps I may stress the point that I made in my original Answer. We shall proceed on the basis of verifiable reductions in nuclear weapons. The verifiable element is extremely important and I stress it to noble Lords when answering their questions.

Water Supplies
3 p.m.
The Earl of Drogheda The Earl of Drogheda asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to ensure an adequate water supply for the United Kingdom in the foreseeable future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for the Environment and Transport (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are determined that this country should have a world-class, reliable, water-efficient and environmentally sustainable water industry. At the water summit meeting in London on 19th May, the Deputy Prime Minister announced a 10-point action plan for the
382
industry in England and Wales, including the setting of tough mandatory leakage targets to help to secure those goals.
The Earl of Drogheda: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she agree that the most effective way to reduce domestic consumption would be the metering of water—in fact, mandatory metering? There would be nothing illogical in that. No one questions the propriety of metering gas and electricity. Should it be considered very unfair on poorer households, might not charges be made on a sliding scale whereby the unit cost would rise in proportion to the amount of water used?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the Government remain opposed to the compulsory metering of water. We believe that water metering has a part to play but there are other areas in which we can tackle the reduction of demand for water. As part of the 10-point plan, the Government are committed to review the whole system of charging for water. We shall look at how metering works at present and examine particularly the basis of water charging and the fact that it is based on rateable values which are now nearly 25 years out of date.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is rather illogical to demand that water companies reduce leakage by an enormous amount and at the same time hit them with a windfall tax which will take away from them the money they could spend on curing leakages?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I do not believe that anyone else would consider it illogical to demand that the water companies tackle what is probably the greatest problem in relation to water supply in this country; namely, leakage. As regards the windfall tax, I am sure noble Lords will understand that that is a matter for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, will the Minister accept that in taking away the money through the windfall tax, we can train people to repair the leaks that are losing all the water?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will read with interest that contribution.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, are not the Government already showing signs of complacency? The question my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara raised is hugely pertinent. How is it that on one side the Government state the objectives and aims of their water policy, which the noble Baroness outlined, while at the same time they hope to introduce a punitive, so-called windfall tax which will, first, cost a large number of jobs and, secondly, have a cost in relation to investment in the water industry which means that their aims and objectives will not be reached?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the House and the country will judge whether we meet our aims and objectives as time unfolds. The charge of complacency

383
comes a little amiss from that side of the House considering that one of the first actions of my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister was to bring together the water companies, the regulator, consumers and other bodies for the water summit, showing, as is widely accepted, how we can tackle the problem.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that her statement that compulsory water metering is not to be imposed will be welcomed by most noble Lords on this side of the House? Is she aware also that the water companies are failing their customers because, in the first place, they are destroying what water storage there is; secondly, their delivery and infrastructure is not as it should be; and furthermore, during the summer, when drought is expected, they are often abstracting too much water from ground and river sources which dries up the rivers and reduces their flow? Will the Government do anything about that lot?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments. Many of the issues to which he alluded are contained in the 10-point plan. In particular, the Government will be carrying forward a review of the water abstraction licensing system, arrangements for bulk water transfer and the drawing up of drought contingency plans.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, has the Minister given thought to the fact that practically every lavatory system in the whole of the British Isles is twice as large as it needs to be to do a decent job? If manufacturers could be persuaded otherwise, that could represent a monumentally large saving of consumption of water.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I have given consideration to that problem; I discussed it only this morning. There are two areas in which we can make progress. The first is in terms of the water companies encouraging customers to take action to reduce supply, particularly in older lavatory systems which use more water than is necessary.
There is also the issue of dual flush toilets which are currently banned as new installations under existing water by-laws. In making the new water regulations, which will replace those by-laws, we are looking to reverse that. The expert committee advising us has indicated already that it will recommend that dual flush toilets should be allowed and encouraged.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there is one area of the country where the groundwater level is rising; that is, under Greater London, as I am sure the noble Baroness will know. Do the Government plan to help both situations—to stop London floating and the amount of water useable in the capital—by pressing Mr. Byatt, the director general of Ofwat, to enforce an abstraction of groundwater under London.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am sure that that is one area which Mr. Byatt will examine when he looks at the whole issue of abstraction.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of the statistics given by the previous
384
Government to the effect that we spent up until 1995 some £20,000 million on European water directives but only £1,000 million up to that time on infrastructure and supply? Bearing in mind that the idea is to spend a further £20,000 million on European water directives over the next eight years, do the Government think it worth while examining the possibility of some redistribution between those voices?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an interesting point and puts a spin on the issue which I should have expected, perhaps, coming from him. I shall certainly consider what he says.

BSE and Other EU Countries
3.9 p.m.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford Lord Wyatt of Weeford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they intend to take in the light of the evidence in New Scientist of 3rd May that bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) is widespread in the cattle herds of other European Union countries and that such cases are not reported.
The Parliamentary Secretary, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, we have pressed the European Commission to take Community-wide action to prohibit the use in human food and animal feed of material at risk of containing potentially infective tissue. We shall be keeping up the pressure for rapid action now that it has announced its intention to introduce Community-wide measures. We welcome those plans. In addition, SEAC, which is the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee—I did not have any drink at lunchtime for that particular reason—has been asked to advise Ministers on the implications of the recent draft report from the EC Commission on surveillance and controls on BSE in the other member states which is mentioned in the article in the New Scientist. Appropriate action will be considered immediately that advice is available. I must stress that the Government and the department are firmly committed to making the protection of public health our top priority.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, perhaps I may congratulate my noble friend, if I may call him such, on his appointment. I am sure that he will fulfil it with distinction. However, in view of the fact that distinguished veterinary scientists on the Continent are deeply disturbed at all the secrecy and the lies that are being told, including the chairman of the advisory committee on veterinary matters and BSE in the European Union itself, is it not the case that either the ban should be completely lifted on British beef or it should also be applied to all the other European countries?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I do not accept that as an interpretation of what was contained in the article to which reference has been made, nor do I believe that there is any firm scientific evidence of a major BSE risk from Europe. However, we have the impression that the

385
systems of surveillance and control are not as good in all member states as they are here. I should point out that the Commission is fully aware of the situation and is actively engaged in the matter. As noble Lords will know, it produced a draft report in May on risk and surveillance and made an announcement only a few days ago of its future intention to ensure that the systems of surveillance and control in Europe are as good as they are in this country.
It is our intention to work for a Europe-wide system that is satisfactory to all of us. However, in the interim, we have asked SEAC to investigate the Commission's proposals to see whether they are adequate. We expect to receive a report from the committee within a few weeks. We shall study it and take whatever action is necessary.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I should also like to welcome the noble Lord to the Dispatch Box and to his new position. However, given the level of cheap beef imports which have begun flooding into the United Kingdom over recent weeks—many of them coming from countries which have a higher incidence of BSE than they are prepared to admit; indeed, some countries which the noble Lord said perhaps had inadequate surveillance systems—can the Minister tell the House exactly what proportion of the imports is checked on arrival in this country for proper documentation in order to prove that both public safety and animal health are protected?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I should like, first, to thank the noble Earl for his congratulations, or consolations. However, as he knows, there is a proper Europe-wide system of inspection which operates at the point of entry and at destination. We operate that while bearing in mind such hazards. Should it be the case that that system appears to be in any way inadequate—and I believe that SEAC would advise to that effect—we would consider what action needs to be taken. I should point out to the noble Earl that the main reason for the growth in imports is the strength of sterling, given the great confidence in the new Labour Government that the worldwide markets are expressing. There is not much we can do about that in the short term.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the expert committees of the Commission are satisfied that the precautions which we are taking are fully in place and working—such as the removal of the spinal cord, the prohibition on the use of offal and the whole range of regulations on abattoirs? If the Commission is so satisfied, surely it should now be prepared to admit that our beef is probably the safest in Europe.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, those committees are currently examining the situation. We are pressing them for our release from such bans. However, I should point out to the House that at this moment my right honourable friend is in Brussels arguing the case, as, indeed, he was yesterday and last week. That is one way that we are proposing to make progress by adopting a more positive approach with our European partners. My right honourable friend has already had constructive
386
talks with Commissioner Fischler and Commissioner Bonino. In fact, I see from reports in today's newspapers that he certainly got much closer to the latter. Through that approach, I believe that we shall make progress, but of course we have to wait for the outcome of the detailed negotiations.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, in view of the disturbing nature of the report identified by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, does the Minister agree that it is even more important now to have an objective test to identify BSE in cattle? Further. can the noble Lord give the House any information as regards the progress being made to develop a test for the pre-clinical diagnosis of BSE in cattle and also for BSE carcasses derived from BSE cases?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I should stress again that the article in the New Scientist was not the basis for any major concern. But, equally, massive scientific and veterinary resources are being applied in Europe and in this country and, indeed, considerable progress has been made. We must depend on the scientific advice that we receive. My impression as regards both Europe and this country is that it is of very high quality.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how many tragic deaths from CJD in the young are attributable at present to BSE being passed on by jumping from one species to another? That seems to be the nub of the question. The original danger was that it would move from cattle to human beings. Can the Minister say how many people have actually had this disease or even died from it where it has been proven that it originated from cattle?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I do not have details of the exact number of new variant CJD cases with me, but I believe that it is about 16. Nevertheless, I shall certainly write to the noble Earl with more information.

London Underground
3.17 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy for the London Underground.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, our policy is that which was clearly set out in our manifesto. We plan to develop a new public/private partnership to improve London Underground, safeguard its commitment to the public interest and guarantee value for money to taxpayers and passengers.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging statement. However, in the light of the fact that London Underground has had to forgo £700 million worth of essential refurbishment due to recent cuts in its grant, can the noble Baroness say whether the Government intend to restore that money? Further, on the basis of the present network and without extending any new lines, is the Minister aware that the capacity of the

387
Underground could he doubled by devising new trains, improving signalling and widening stations? Therefore, will the Government ask London Underground to prepare a plan to that effect, which would have a dramatic effect on reducing congestion on London streets, and consider ways in which the funds necessary could be raised without drawing on public resources?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we are certainly most concerned that the past under-investment in the London Underground has led to a quality of service below what passengers can reasonably expect and a level of service that has affected the prosperity of London as a city. We take the problem particularly seriously. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Deputy Prime Minister, and my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport both met the chairman of London Transport on Sunday 4th May to begin discussions with him which will cover many of the areas to which the noble Lord referred.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, how long is the programme which is about to start likely to take and how will it be financed? Can we have more detail than is stated in the manifesto?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am tempted to say to the noble Lord, more than 18 days and less than 18 years.
These are long-term issues. As a matter of urgency, we are undertaking discussions with London Underground; and London Underground is having discussions about how it can bring forward schemes for public/private partnership to improve investment in the infrastructure within London Underground. As the House will be aware, at the same time my right honourable friend the Paymaster General is carrying out an urgent wider review to improve the private finance initiative.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, given the Government's somewhat last minute acceptance that the private sector offers the best prospects for the heavy rail network, is it not bizarre that they should deny the same benefits to the travelling public in London? Therefore, the key question is this. If privatisation is not to go forward, how quickly can the investment backlog be recovered under the noble Baroness's scheme?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as regards how quickly investment would go forward, exactly the same question could apply to privatisation as to public/private partnership. But we shall be taking the issue forward as a matter of urgency. In looking back at some of the past exchanges on this issue in this House, I think that it ill behoves those opposite to suggest that we have been having last minute conversions on some of these matters.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister a specific question. Is the noble Baroness aware that the East London Line has now been closed for a period of over two years? It is now a matter of great
388
urgency for this line to be reopened. I realise that the noble Baroness may be unable to answer the question today but I shall be grateful if she will write to me.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I undertake to write to the noble Lord as soon as I can.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is it possible that plans may include an extension of the Underground to parts of south London not served by the Underground at present? I refer to Camberwell where I live.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, with my new responsibilities for roads and other transport matters, I am learning that we all tend to have personal interests in many of these issues. I should not like to make any commitments in that area at present.

Committee of Selection: Select Committee
3.22 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That in accordance with Standing Order 61 a Committee of Selection be appointed to select and propose to the House the names of the Lords to form each Select Committee of the House (except the Committee of Selection itself and any committee otherwise provided for by statute or by order of the House) or any other body, not being a Select Committee, and the panel of Deputy Chairmen of Committees; and that the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Committee:

V. Allenby of Megiddo,

L. Carter,

L. Chesham,

V. Cranborne,

L. Harris of Greenwich,

L. Jenkins of Hillhead,

L. McIntosh of Haringey,

L. Richard (L. Privy Seal),

L. Strathclyde,

L. Weatherill;

and that the Committee do meet at noon on Thursday 22nd May in the Moses Room.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

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

389
thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
3.23 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Clinton-Davis): My Lords, before I embark on issues affecting my new responsibilities, perhaps I may revert for a moment to my former responsibilities in transport—and I seek in no way to trespass on the area now held by my noble friend Lady Hayman.
I merely want to say how privileged I felt to be part of what the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, once dubbed "the Transport Club" for nearly seven years. On the whole we were members of a happy sect of largely unsuccessful evangelists—and real friendships developed in and outside this Chamber between Ministers and Shadow Ministers (roles now happily reversed) and Members of the Liberal Democrats and Cross-Benchers. I thank them all, and not least of course my noble friends Lord Carmichael and Lord Berkeley, as well as those outside Parliament who helped so assiduously to keep us well informed.
The election heralds the start of a new era for Britain and the British economy. We have a new Government, and the opportunity to ensure that Britain does better. It is a huge responsibility, which we approach necessarily with commitment but also humility.
I am convinced that Britain will now do better because we offer a vision of national renewal to equip the country to prosper in the 21st century—and there is undoubtedly a new optimism alive in the country, and it is our task to nourish that.
This Government will put behind us the irrelevant conflicts of the past—public versus private, bosses versus workers, class versus class. Decisions will be based on what works, rather than on dogma.
We believe that there is such a thing as society and that individual aims and those of a caring society are capable of complementing each other. So the new Government will create a series of meaningful new partnerships for prosperity across the nation. We are committed to increasing opportunities for everyone; we believe in enterprise and we want to see more entrepreneurs and more successful workers in our economy. We are determined to encourage and promote innovative ideas to breathe life into this ambition.
This Government will give Britain a new place in Europe. We will stand up for Britain's interests, but will seek to be involved and to be constructive. The days of standing on the sidelines and hurling abuse at those on the field, players and officials alike—which has been an almost unique quest for isolation—has impeded Britain's ability to influence events. Those days are over. A new approach to government is essential to ensure that Britain prospers in the next millennium.
There is also the need to tackle the legacy left by the previous Government. Extravagant claims have been made about the past 18 years. We have never
390
asserted that our predecessors were wrong about everything—and I want to be fair about this. I am reminded of what Teddy Roosevelt said in the early part of the century about his presidential opponent, William Howard Taft: sometimes he meant well feebly. We welcome, for example, the improvement that the previous Government achieved in manufacturing productivity. But I suggest that they tended to overlook a number of salient facts. The average rate of growth over the past 18 years has been slower than in any of our major competitors. Manufacturing investment fell by 8 per cent. last year. Our rate of inflation is currently above the average level in the European Union. Prior to the election UK long-term interest rates were over 1½ percentage points higher than in Germany. The national debt doubled in the former Prime Minister's period of office.
The level of employment is still some 1 million below the level it reached in 1990. The current account of the balance of payments has been in deficit in each of the past 11 years, the longest run of deficits this century.
Most important of all was their legacy of a society ill at ease with itself. Wage and income disparities have widened sharply. Experience of unemployment and job insecurity has become pervasive. Inadequate investment in education and training has marginalised many in the labour market. All this has to change. It has to change for the sake of our country.
While there can be no complacency in facing the daunting challenges ahead I am convinced that Britain can do better. We now have a Government that are committed to improving the competitiveness of Britain and to recognising the role of co-operation and partnership in striving for this goal. This Government have a vision of, and a strategy for, growth.
The new Government's policies for business are exactly that—policies for business, in which business is critically involved as partners. Britain works best when we work together. It certainly is not our job to tell people how to run industry. But we can provide the right incentives and structures. The qualities that this Government will seek to promote are stability, partnership, opportunity, and openness. Our objective is to strengthen our wealth-creating base.
Economic stability is an essential platform for sustained growth. But we have suffered from years of instability. Between 1980 and 1996 the UK had the least stable economy among industrial countries, with an inflation rate three times as volatile as the best performing country. This instability led to slow growth and deterred investment.
This Government are determined to put an end to instability. But stability requires prudent and consistent economic management. That is why, as we discussed yesterday, the Bank of England has been given operational responsibility for setting interest rates. As a result, monetary policy decisions will no longer be dominated by short-term political considerations. They can be based on what is necessary to achieve low and stable inflation.

391
There are other obstacles which are holding back investment. We will consider how the tax system can better encourage long-term savings and investment.
We recognise that countries which have higher skill levels grow faster than other countries. For too long Britain has languished near the bottom of the international skills league and, with great respect to the former Chancellor, it is preferable to occupy the position in the Premier League of Manchester United rather than Nottingham Forest.
Nearly two-thirds of our workforce do not have good vocational qualifications. Compare that to a third or less in the Netherlands and France and a quarter in Germany or Switzerland. The skills deficit must be tackled.
In this modern economy, no job, no qualifications, will last a lifetime. Nor should an individual's potential be allowed to remain undeveloped for a lifetime. That is why the Government will establish a new university for industry through a public-private partnership.
Our transport system is a fundamental part of our competitiveness and is part of the longer term climate for business—a point raised at Question Time by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. Our roads are congested and our public transport is neglected. A recent CBI report suggests congestion costs our economy £19 billion per year. We need more investment in our infrastructure to come from the widespread use of partnerships between the public and private sectors. I sought to argue that in the long years of opposition when I was confronted by the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, an old friend—or, rather, a young friend.
The old argument as to whether public ownership was always best or whether privatisation was the only answer must be put behind us. Our emphasis is now on a new partnership with industry. For example our 12-point plan for partnership will re-invigorate the private finance initiative—we have already made a start by announcing an end to universal testing for private finance potential. That was not a good idea and we propose to eschew it.
Our partnership approach also applies to small and medium-sized business, which produces over half of business output. We will provide the right supportive framework. Our proposals include new measures to tackle late payment; improving the quality and effectiveness of business information and support available from the Business Links network; co-operation with the banks to improve the loans to new high-tech start-up companies within the existing resources of the loan guarantee scheme; and improving the quality of regulation—regulating only where necessary and, not least, ensuring that high environmental and safety standards are an imperative.
Science, technology, design and innovation will be at the centre of this Government's thinking and action. We are grateful for the work of the Select Committee on Science and Technology which my noble friend Lord Simon will report on tomorrow. We will develop the Technology Foresight Initiative further and improve support for high-tech start-up companies.
392
Britain lives by trade. We are the world's fifth largest exporter and importer. British firms have notable achievements in export markets, but last year we had an overall trade deficit of over £1 billion a month. Our export performance simply is not good enough. And trade will be a major priority for the Government, and in particular for my department.
Our new export initiative will improve the focus of our efforts to back British business selling abroad. We will bring together the relevant Whitehall departments and business in a new export forum which will undertake a candid assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of our current export promotion programmes and activities. I will be announcing details of the new forum very shortly.
But there is one decision which cannot wait until that review has been carried out and that concerns our predecessors' decision to wind up one of our most successful export promotion programmes and to incorporate the resources, over the next few years, into a single Sector Challenge. I refer to the DTI trade fair and services support scheme, which has over the years proved to be one of our most successful instruments for promoting British exports overseas. The decision by our predecessors was properly criticised by British business for introducing an element of great uncertainty into a form of export activity which necessarily requires substantial and long-term commitment. In our business manifesto—and I always travel with it—we promised to review the previous Government's decision to change the arrangements for supporting British participation in trade fairs.
Industry has told us, in no uncertain terms, that it believes that a separate scheme for trade fair support is far more effective in promoting British exports overseas than the challenge approach. I am pleased to tell the House that we have therefore decided to reverse our predecessors' policy in this area. Future trade fairs support will not be incorporated into Sector Challenge. Instead we will shortly be writing to potential sponsors inviting them to bid for trade fair and services support in 1998–99 under the existing support scheme. It will, of course, be open to the export forum, in consultation with industry, to suggest ways of further improving that scheme in future but I think it is important that we remove at once the present uncertainty affecting our export industries in this area. The previous policy of doing away with a dedicated programme of support for overseas trade fairs was, rightly, opposed by British exporters. We have listened to their views. Our new partnership approach with business has produced results here and will inform our approach to other forms of trade promotion.
We are also considering how we can do more to facilitate contacts between small businesses, particularly those that are not ready to break into export markets, and providers of finance. The need for this was brought home vividly to me at a trade fair in New York at the weekend by young designers seeking capital to expand their businesses, often in vain.

393
Therefore I propose, together with my honourable friend Mrs. Barbara Roche, to bring relevant SMEs together with bankers and venture capitalists in order to discuss these purposes.
We shall be outward looking and open in our trade relations, which is why we support development of the World Trade Organisation to achieve more open markets. We shall also be welcoming to inward investors—one of my main areas of responsibilities. We are pleased that the UK has achieved some real success in attracting inward investment in the past two decades. Our position as a gateway into Europe, the English language and the adaptability and the flexibility of our workforce have played a vital part, but let us not forget the work of local authorities in partnership with investors—a factor which was unfortunately overlooked in the past.
We support partnership at work. The social chapter is part of this partnership principle, which is why we shall sign up to it. The two directives involved—works councils for large companies operating across Europe and a right to unpaid parental leave—will not damage the competitiveness of British industry. Indeed, a number of British companies which have already voluntarily included their British employees in their work councils have already reported benefits. Increased partnership within enterprises is bound to be good for business which is why we support and will encourage the development of employee share ownership plans and co-operatives. All this, surely, should be seen not as a burden but as an opportunity.
The previous Government had a lamentable record on unemployment and inequality. The Government are committed to taking 250,000 young people off the dole. We will also offer opportunities to the long-term unemployed.
We hear a lot of scaremongering about the minimum wage and job losses. The case for a minimum wage is accepted in the rest of Europe, the USA and Japan, many of whose economies are far more competitive than ours. We fully appreciate the importance of getting the level right. That is why we shall seek advice from an independent low pay commission including both large and small businesses.
The minimum wage will help underpin the in-work benefit system, encourage people to work, and work better, and to feel that they can play a real part in building and sharing in the nation's growing prosperity; rather than being hopelessly isolated, rooted at the bottom of society—a neglected underclass. Alongside this we have stated our long-term objective of a new lower rate of tax of 10 pence in the pound, again to increase incentives to work.
We want greater opportunity for individuals, but also greater opportunity for all companies. Competitiveness abroad begins with competition at home. This Government will make sure our markets will work better for us all. We will reform competition laws in order to provide a strong deterrent against restrictive agreements
394
and abuses of market power. We shall introduce more effective penalties against proven anti-competitive behaviour.
Around 60 per cent. of our trade in goods is with Europe. There are few greater opportunities that we can provide for UK business than the completion of the single market—in for example, gas and electricity, in telecommunications, financial services and in relation to the development of trans-European networks. Those are ambitions which were undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, and myself back in the days of the Commission, between 1985 and 1989. Those purposes remain extremely important.
Let me be clear. This Government want reform in Europe. We propose to use our presidency of the EU to complete a genuine single market by June 1998 free of the distortions of hidden barriers and unfair state aid. We will endeavour to make the EU more democratic and open, which is essential if we are to make the EU more efficient and positive and to prepare for enlargement to the east. We will press for reform of the common agricultural policy. While we do this we will retain our veto in areas important to our interests. The Government will take a full part in the debate on the single currency but we will only join if it is in Britain's economic interest and if this is approved by the British people in a referendum.
The Government will be open with all the British people, and open to ideas from all the British people. This Government are pledged to bring in a freedom of information Act that will lead to more open and honest government.
We will start the process with a full public consultation through a White Paper, which we will aim to prepare by the summer. The White Paper will set out the standards of openness that the public can expect of government and will contain proposals on what a freedom of information Bill should contain.
The needs of business are continuously changing, therefore we need to listen continuously to the views of business. To the business community we say: "Talk to us openly, criticise us, share your ideas with us, we are ready to listen". This will be an open, radical Government. But our radicalism is not about ideology, it is about achievement. Our philosophy can be summed up in what I said earlier: what counts is what works.
We approach our tasks in government with a due sense of humility but also a determination to provide leadership and a new vision. It is distinctly noticeable that there is already a different feeling in the country, an atmosphere of hope alongside a yearning for new direction. The "feel-good factor" arrived at last on 2nd May. With a genuine partnership of trust between government and business and the people, Britain will succeed and once again we can all share and take pride in the economy of this great nation.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I mentioned this in the course of the Statement yesterday, but perhaps I may start on this more formal occasion by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, on his

395
senior appointment in the Government and wish him well both in his Department of Trade and Industry brief and also in his Treasury brief.
I suppose I should say to the party opposite that I congratulate it on a significant victory. It was made all the more significant to me about half an hour ago when I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, express her absolute support for Trident. I am afraid that I am old enough to remember the 1983 and 1987 elections when the party opposite was united in wanting to abandon nuclear weapons. My noble friend Lady Thatcher will equally remember the fight we had to retain our membership of NATO and the then Polaris missiles in defence of the West. So it is gratifying to hear the noble Baroness speaking for the new Labour Government, showing that at least they have learnt something from us, along with their conversion to privatisation and many other policies. I suppose we should be flattered.
The Government have a clear mandate—nowhere, I regret to say, clearer than in my part of the United Kingdom. First, I must say that we will accept no excuses from them from now on. They have a big enough mandate. They can govern and should not try to make excuses about the size of the majority—they cannot do that—or about past governments.
However, I can already see some of the excuses beginning to come out from under the carpet. Perhaps my sensitivity to that is increased by the fact that I live in the constituency of Glasgow, Govan. New Labour has still to deal with some accusations involving the goings-on of Glasgow city councillors. That was swept under the carpet prior to the election because it might have been difficult had it come out. Then there are the much more serious allegations in the Govan constituency. Those of us who live there watch and wait, but we do not expect to have to wait long for the positive action that we kept being promised on such matters before the election.
Before I turn to the subject of the debate—the economy and trade and industry—I wish to make one point. I am sure your Lordships will understand why when they hear it. I wish to talk about one serious omission from the gracious Speech. Your Lordships made it clear to me that you wished to see pension-splitting on divorce. I was quite happy to take that cause forward. I produced a Green Paper and a White Paper. I gave a clear promise to introduce legislation in this Session so that pension-splitting could happen in the year 2000. I was very disappointed, as I listened to the gracious Speech, to hear no mention of that at all. I was not satisfied with the assurance given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, on Monday. I was perfectly satisfied with some of the nice things she said about me, but not with the assurance. She said that she was determined that:
"despite a heavy legislative programme we shall not let slip the previous Government's date to implement pension sharing by April 2000".—[Official Report, 19/5/97; col. 248.]
I have never doubted the noble Baroness's determination, but, frankly, I have just a tinge of doubt about her ability to deliver that legislation this Session, with its absence from the Queen's Speech. I shall watch
396
with care and interest for the legislation as the months pass. I have a fair idea of when the watershed date is beyond which there is no chance of getting implementation in April 2000.
I return to the economy. Perhaps I may quote an item:
"Britain's economy is in its best shape for several decades. It has entered its sixth consecutive year of growth with GDP rising fast, unemployment falling, inflation low, exports growing and the balance of payments healthy. There is now plenty of evidence that Britain's century-long relative economic decline has been arrested and, indeed, that it is well placed to improve its relative performance over the next few years".
Those are not my words; they are the words of the Economist on 12th April 1997. It is exactly that position that we have bequeathed to the party opposite and we shall watch carefully and critically to see that it maintains the position. The British economy is healthy and in an excellent state. As I have told your Lordships from the other Dispatch Box month after month, unemployment is declining, in contrast to the unemployment rises which we have seen on the Continent. That has not happened by accident. It has happened because of the work we put in to ensure that difficult decisions were taken, that our economy was less regulated, that our labour markets were open labour markets and that we were in a much better position to receive the very inward investment that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has just underlined as so important to our economy.
I hope that this Government will do nothing in their pursuit of regulation of the labour market, in pursuit of items of the European Social Chapter and in pursuit of the minimum wage which will damage the huge number of people who come here from outside and inside Europe to invest. It is investment which is making a vast difference to certain parts of this country, which did have huge problems when their old industrial base began to fade—places such as Scotland and the north east of England, where the new investment has come and new jobs have been created. It is very important indeed.
In the gracious Speech we read of the windfall tax. When the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, answered a Question on Monday, I could not help but notice that she wished to call it a windfall levy. No doubt that change in name has been ordered by the chief spin doctor. At risk of being sent to the Tower, I intend to continue to call it a windfall tax, because that is what it is. It is a tax on, we are told:
"the excess profits of the privatised utilities".
But which utilities are they? What is to be the basis of the tax? At what level will it be imposed? Is it not amazing that something talked about by the party opposite again and again and again has so little detail attached to it? We are still told, "Wait, we are thinking about it".
We want to know the basis. Whatever that basis is, we suspect that the Government will want to raise perhaps £5 billion—sometimes I read £10 billion, but let us say £5 billion. If it comes from the customer—will it come from the customer? We do not know that—or if perhaps half of it comes from the customer, it will mean a rise in household bills of about £50 a year. That

397
is a good deal more than the savings which will be made to those households by the reduction of 3 per cent. in VAT on fuel. Your Lordships will remember that when we put VAT on fuel we increased the pension in order to recompense pensioners for that increase. If the windfall tax lands ultimately on the customer, will the Government compensate the pensioners for the increased charges for their gas, electricity, water, telephones and whatever else? Will they do that?
Will that money come from the shareholders? If it does, it will damage many small shareholders. It will reduce the income of institutional shareholders. It will damage the return on savings. It will also damage the return to the pension funds, which ultimately will damage the pensions of those relying on those pension funds to pay out. But will it damage the fat cats? Of course it will not. They are quietly purring away, untouched and unaffected by that tax.
Which utilities are involved? All we know is that British Telecom had clearly understood its deal about two years ago with Mr. Blair—your Lordships will remember that to help make him business friendly he was able to announce at his party conference two years ago that BT would connect all schools and libraries to the information superhighway for free. What we thought at the time—clearly we were right—was that a little deal had been done. Of course it had, but now it is falling apart. Poor old Sir Iain Vallance is quoted in last week's papers as saying:
"I wouldn't have voted Labour or put this Government into power if BT had been mentioned in the manifesto".
Well, well, well! I shall give Sir Iain Vallance a little piece of advice. I look to the Bench of Bishops for it. I believe it is Psalm 146, verse 3:
"Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help".
I am sorry, Sir Iain, there is no help from Chancellor Brown.
But, of course, the windfall tax, as we heard from the noble Lord. Lord Clinton-Davis, is in order to put lots of people back to work—to provide training and work experience schemes. I must say to the Government that the one thing that we know from the work that we did on this issue in the Department of Social Security is that these schemes do not in fact save money. They cost money. Undoubtedly they cost money. They do so for a number of reasons and I shall list just one or two.
The fact is that most of the subsidy goes to people who would have got jobs anyway. Therefore, it is quite clearly wasted. The second reason is that there will be a danger of replacement of unsubsidised jobs by subsidised jobs. That is something of which we were mindful in the pilot schemes that we set up to try to help encourage people back to work. I hope that the Government will be very mindful of exactly the same problem when they come to run their schemes. We certainly intend to look carefully at the detail.
I find it interesting to read how much money will be involved and how employers will be given £60 or £75 a week in order to take someone on. The Government clearly believe that, if they lower the cost of employing
398
people, more people will be employed. Why do they not believe the converse: if you increase the cost of employment, fewer people will be employed? The Government will do that when they sign up to the Social Chapter, with the minimum wage and whatever else comes along. They will have to address those issues very carefully.
From windfall tax, perhaps I may turn to taxation in general. We know that we have a windfall tax and that is the first tax. How many more will come along? The Government clearly promised the people out there that there would be no increase in their income tax. Yet I read in the newspapers that there are threats to MIRAS and mortgage holders will be faced not only with increased interest rates but will see a reduction in their MIRAS. There are threats to the married man's allowance. It would be strange if that were to be abolished by the party which made so much of its admiration of the family and of marriage.
There are dangers to tax relief on pension contributions. Even if changing from the marginal tax rate to the basic tax rate were all that the party opposite were to do, many people would be adversely affected. If that were to happen, in defined benefit schemes, for example, contributions would need to rise from either the employer or the employee. So I hope that the Government will do nothing to upset the way in which pensions are taxed: the money that we put into our pension funds is untaxed, the money as it grows—the growth part—is untaxed and it is taxed on the way out. I gather that it is called exempt taxed. I hope there will be no double taxation by the party opposite. But I keep reading rumours in the press, presumably coming from silent spokesmen of the Government, which suggest otherwise, and especially on that middle exempt section—the exemptions given on investment income, dividends and interest, rents and capital gains.
The abolition at worst of ACT tax credits on dividend income to pension funds would have a very damaging effect on all types of private pension provision. Pensions would either have to be reduced or contributions increased. If we have some short-term capital gains tax on pension funds, again they would lose out and the amount of money that they can earn for their pensioners would decrease.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, who is not in the Chamber today, taught me, when I was a Minister, always to think of the consequences that my actions in my department might have on the actions in another department. I should say to the Government that any actions that the Treasury takes on taxation ought to be discussed very closely with the Department of Social Security, with its responsibility for pensions, to make sure that we do not damage the important increase in pensions that we all want to see.
I want to make one other tax point which relates to the other proposals in the gracious Speech for a Scottish parliament. I understand that the Scottish parliament is to be financed by the block grant which comes about under the Goschen-Barnett formula, named after one of the forebears of my noble friend Lord Goschen and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. I understand that,

399
if I live in Scotland and another 3p is imposed on me, I shall just have to pay 3p more and the Government will get about £450 million extra out of the Scottish taxpayer. But I am always told that they may reduce taxation in Scotland. Your Lordships may flock across the Border to join me, if it were not for other problems about which I can tell your Lordships. However, I do not think that we have long enough to go into them.
But what happens if the Government decide to reduce taxes by 3p in the pound for lucky Scottish taxpayers? How would that work out for Her Majesty's Treasury? I should be paying 3p in the pound less than those of your Lordships who live elsewhere in the United Kingdom. So the Treasury would receive about £450 million less from the taxpayers in Scotland. Would that £450 million come off the Scottish block? Would there be a reduction in the Goschen-Barnett formula outcome for £450 million to compensate the Treasury? I should like to know the answer to that question. I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, might have some difficulty in answering it. This may be another question in the "unanswered" box to join the West Lothian question and others. If she is unable to answer, which I quite understand, I hope that she will write to me and explain how that will work.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, made much of private/public co-operation, and that reminded me of one major item of private/public co-operation in Scotland; that is, the bridge to Skye. We no longer have to go over the sea to Skye; we can go over the bridge to Skye. It is a privately financed bridge and there is a toll to pay for that private funding. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that I shall believe his dedication to private financing for infrastructure if he will have a word with his honourable friend the Minister of State for the Scottish Office, Mr. Brian Wilson, and suggest that he stops his virulent campaign against that piece of public/private co-operation. Otherwise we will find the assurance that the Government believe in public/private co-operation to be pretty shallow.
I do not want to go over at too great a length what we discussed yesterday; namely, the Statement in relation to the Bank. However, a number of questions asked yesterday were not answered, neither here nor down the corridor. One of the main ones was how independent the nine people will be who will make up the Monetary Policy Committee. Dare I suggest that I do not believe that they will be very independent because they will all be appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? I do not believe that that makes them terribly independent.
I asked whether Scotland would be represented; even whether the Scottish parliament, if it came about, might be consulted or if it might have a nominee on the policy committee. After all, interest rates will have a considerable impact on the Scottish economy as they will everywhere else. But my main question was why it was done so quickly. As I said yesterday, it was only in February that Mr. Gordon Brown said that the Bank must demonstrate a successful track record in its advice and build greater public credibility. I asked this question yesterday and did not receive an answer. I ask it again: did the Bank manage to establish a successful track
400
record and build this greater public credibility over the first weekend in May? Did it really do that? Was it as quick as that, because that would be very impressive indeed?
The Bank will have to prove its track record in getting it right. Current inflation is 2.5 per cent., as Kenneth Clarke said it would be. It is also thanks to Kenneth Clarke, backing his judgment two years ago against the Government, that we are at 2.5 per cent. and that we have the other healthy aspects of our economy. If Mr. Clarke had allowed the Bank its head two years ago, we would have had higher interest rates and lower growth and possibly we would not have seen unemployment falling as fast as it has done.
The danger is that the Bank, left to its own devices, will act as bankers do and be over-cautious, always erring on the deflationary side. Interest rates must be set to meet inflation targets, but they must not be so high as to damage growth, investment and employment. Though it is a little before my time, the record of the Bank of England's independence in the inter-war years does not give me such a huge amount of confidence that I believe it can be trusted to look at the slightly broader picture.
I wonder also why, on the same day that it was announced that the Bank of England would be independent, it was felt necessary to increase interest rates by 0.25 per cent. Factory gate prices are low; earnings increases remain low; sterling is strong—indeed, it is 20 per cent. higher against the deutschmark today than it was 12 months ago. If the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is keen on export performance and says that our export performance is not good enough, he can ask his noble friend Lord Paul—who I am happy to see behind him—or the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who will both express the same concerns they expressed to me some weeks ago when the value of sterling was nothing like as high as it is today.
In addition, the government borrowing requirement is likely to be significantly lower than we forecast. The data this week show a budget surplus in April and show us well on target, as I predicted in this House, to meet a balanced budget in three years. I suspect that the increase was designed to reinforce the image of the "iron" Chancellor. An iron used properly and rightly can iron out the creases in a shirt; that iron used with a heavy hand and with too much heat can damage the shirt. The same is true for the economic well-being of our country.
I started with a quotation from the Economist; I should like to end with a quotation—again about the economic position of our country—this time from Anatole Kaletsky in his column in The Times the other day. He said:
"it is simply untrue that the Tories have left a mess in the public finances".
That is one of the excuses I have little doubt we shall hear in the months to come when the Government start to find the going a bit tough. He makes it clear that they have no excuse; it is untrue. We have left very sound public finances. The last sentence in the paragraph I quoted from the Economist stated:

401
"But will the result of the general election threaten this rosy scenario?".
Sound public finances; rosy scenario: we will be ever watchful on behalf of the people of this country against government damage to that economic rose garden.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, I congratulate both the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, who opened the debate so effectively, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, who will be closing it, on their important new ministerial positions.
For my colleagues and myself in this party who remain in our seats in the new Parliament, it is interesting to see how the Members of the other two parties behave in their different roles. Judging by today's debate, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, on the skill with which he has donned the ministerial robes and the clarity with which he enunciated government policy. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, in opposition, as in government, remains as vigorous as ever and it is always a pleasure to listen to him.
My noble friend Lord Thurso, will be talking about industrial policy with particular reference to small firms. I intend to concentrate on economic policy. I am glad to note that the Government accept that the biggest challenge in the management of economic policy is to achieve an acceptable level of growth which can be sustained over a long period. The record of Britain in that regard has not been particularly good in recent years. We have undoubtedly had periods of growth, but so far they have invariably been followed by recession.
As a country sharing in the global economy, we cannot expect to escape from world trade recessions. What has been noticeable in Britain, however, is that, particularly in recent years, recessions have been more marked here than elsewhere. So the challenge clearly for government is to make sure that those differences are smoothed over as effectively as possible. That is an issue to which many noble Lords have referred in previous debates on economic policy. For instance, in the debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Prior, on 5th March this year I drew attention to the fact that we could be moving in due course into another recession and asked what the Government's policies were to try to smooth that change.
Later, in the debate on the Finance Bill on 19th March, I suggested that the task of successive finance Bills should be to try to put the balance right between stimulating consumption on the one hand and increasing investment on the other—bearing in mind that the excessive growth in consumption led to the difficulties we experienced in past recessions.
I am glad that the new Government have already taken measures to stabilise the economy. Some of those measures coincide with proposals contained in our manifesto. As a party we shall certainly support the Government in measures which we consider to be in the long-term interests of the country. We shall make
402
proposals for further such measures. Where we feel that the measures that the Government propose are not in line with our thinking, we shall say so and I hope criticise constructively.
In considering how to achieve economic sustainability, dealing with inflation is obviously crucial. The Government explained their policies in that regard yesterday. It is satisfactory to note as a country that all parties are in agreement that we must now aim for a low level of inflation. The challenge is how to achieve that over a long period. I pay tribute to the achievements of the previous government in that regard. I welcomed the increased emphasis given to the meetings between the Chancellor and the Governor of the Bank of England. I welcomed the fact that these were transparent in the sense that the minutes were subsequently published and that there was therefore the opportunity of a general debate on the subject. I believe that the present Government have taken that a step further, and desirably so. They have given the Governor of the Bank of England and the Monetary Policy Committee the operational responsibility for ensuring that the target for inflation set by the Government is in fact achieved. I said that yesterday when the Statement was debated. However, I should like to draw attention to one sentence in the Statement. I hope the noble Baroness will be able to confirm my understanding of it. The Statement said:
"The Bank's monetary policy objective will be to deliver price stability and, without prejudice to this objective, to support the Government's economic policy, including its objectives for growth and employment".—[Official Report, 20/5/97; col. 303.]
Clearly there is concern, with the independence that the Bank is now going to have, which I think will be generally positive, that it could, in certain circumstances, go in one direction while the Government, in their decisions on fiscal policy, which they still retain, could go in another. It is therefore important for us to be reassured that there will be sufficient continuing contact and preliminary discussion between the Government and the Bank, if not exactly on the lines that the previous Government engaged in, then on some other lines to ensure that no divergence between those two major directions of policy ensues.
Another potential weakness, apart from inflation in the past, in achieving sustainability is the lack of adequate investment. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to that. Much to the boredom of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, I have referred to it frequently in debates on the economy, debates in which the noble Lord took his usual vigourous part. In this country we tend to suffer from being a consumption driven economy. As I have said repeatedly, we need to get a better balance between consumption and investment. We have undoubtedly fallen behind other countries in our relative levels of investment. In the recent upturn, investment has been noticeably weaker than expected. I was glad to note that the issue was highlighted in the gracious Speech, which said that the Government,
"will aim to deliver high and sustainable levels of growth and employment by encouraging investment in industry, skills, infrastructure and new technologies".

403
That is an excellent sentiment. I should now like to help the Government by suggesting how they might achieve it. Perhaps the noble Baroness the Minister will comment on some of my proposals, although, as there is to be a Budget shortly, she may not feel as free to speak as she might otherwise.
The question of investment in industry, particularly in manufacturing industry, is crucial. As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, reminded us, investment in manufacturing industry actually fell last year. At a time when we had growing consumer demand and a growing visible trade deficiency we had less investment in manufacturing industry. Our trade balance on visible account, excluding oil, has been worsening in the past three years. In 1994 the imbalance between imports and exports was £14.7 billion. In 1995 it was £15.8 billion and in 1996 £17.4 billion. By comparison, in 1983 we were in balance on that account and in previous years there was actually a surplus. We have, over that period, substantially deteriorated in our visible trade with the rest of the world. I believe that the present reasons for that imbalance are, on the one hand, the inadequacy of our manufacturing capacity and, on the other, the continued growth in consumer demand. It is therefore urgent that action should be taken to stimulate investment in this sector. That could be done by improved investment allowances, to which I have referred on many previous occasions, and also by more self- financing.
It is a fact that the corporate tax regime in this country discourages firms from reinvesting profits. If they borrow money for investment the costs are counted against tax. If they reinvest their profits they have to pay corporation tax. That requires careful reconsideration. We have tended to have an undue increase in dividends in this country, a point frequently referred to. But it is not only the utilities which have paid high dividends; it is also many other companies. There is an encouragement to do so through the tax structure. I hope that some regard will be paid to that in the forthcoming Budget.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, also mentioned, the infrastructure badly needs more investment. As he was kind enough to say, I drew attention to the problems caused by lack of investment in the London Underground. The Post Office, too, needs to invest more. I am much encouraged by what I believe to be the Government's policy—to try to give the Post Office the ability to raise money commercially, outside government sources. More investment is clearly required in hospitals and schools. I am glad that the Government take this seriously and I look forward with great interest to the recommendations of Mr. Malcolm Bates in his inquiry into how the private finance initiative can be made more effective. Those findings are, I believe, expected in the middle of June.
There is no doubt that this is a very important area. We shall shortly have put before us for Second Reading a Bill which will improve the possibilities for the private finance initiative in the health sector. I fully agree with the Government, and indeed with the previous Government, that in these basic
404
infrastructure investment requirements the private sector should play an increased role. We must find ways in which that can he achieved.
In the recent election manifestos, all parties emphasised the need to invest more in skills and training. We look forward to the specific measures which the Government will be announcing in due course. But it is not only a matter for government. Enterprises also have a major responsibility in this area. Recently, in an enterprise in which I am involved, we spent some time talking about employability. Employability is wider than just training people for the skills required in the jobs which they perform. It is to widen their skills in order to give them greater job satisfaction, to add value to what they can contribute to their company and, above all, to make them more employable if and when they leave their current employment. This area requires a great deal more emphasis. It is the responsibility of both government and enterprises to improve the employability of the labour force.
Another relative weakness in Britain has been the inadequate level of investment in basic science, technology and technology transfer. Here also in terms of the percentage of GDP that we invest in civil research, we lag behind other countries. I well remember the debate in 1986, introduced by the late Lord Sherfield, which drew attention to the low level of civil R&D in Britain. Regrettably, that situation still exists. It is therefore of great importance that there should be a major transfer of resources into that area. Perhaps the Minister will be able to give us some indication of how that can be achieved.
I realise that all these things need more resources. We require priorities to be set about the allocation of public resources, and innovation with regard to the ways in which private finance can be drawn into those desirable objectives. But that, after all, is the challenge of government. Indeed, that is why I believe that the present Government were voted into office. They were voted in to provide some new thinking on such matters.
In conclusion, I reiterate that the overriding economic policy objective must be to bring about an acceptable and sustainable level of growth with its attendant industrial and social benefits. The Government have already made a good start, but much more needs to be done. In their manifesto and in the gracious Speech, the Government appear to be committed to positive action in this area. I look forward to further developments and to anything that the Minister can tell us later.
4.21 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I add the congratulations of these Benches to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, on their ministerial appointments. Perhaps I may also say how keenly we look forward to the maiden speeches to be made later this afternoon by the noble Earls, Lord Derby and Lord Cork and Orrery. Finally, I congratulate the noble

405
Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, on his admirable knowledge of the Psalter and the maxim,
"put not your trust in princes".
However, I could not help reflecting that of all the members of the Cabinet perhaps Mr. Gordon Brown would be the most reluctant to be promoted to the rank of prince—think of the sartorial implications of that!
I should like to speak briefly about the Government's stated aim in the gracious Speech of securing a "high and stable" level of employment. I welcome that commitment wholeheartedly, echoing as it does the words of the 1944 White Paper on employment. We need to consider carefully how those admirable aspirations can be fulfilled in the very different economic and social circumstances of today.
With that in mind, I should like in particular to draw your Lordships' attention to the important report of the Churches' inquiry into Unemployment and the Future of Work, which was published on 8th April. That inquiry was conducted on behalf of the Council of Churches for Britain and Ireland. All the main Christian denominations were represented on the sponsoring body. The working party was made up of industrialists, academics, theologians and those working closely with the unemployed. Andrew Britton, the former director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, was its executive secretary. It was an extremely able group of people. The inquiry team spent 18 months at work. That work was completed only at the beginning of this year, so the report is fully up to date. The inquiry team consulted extensively and visited most of the geographical regions of the country.
The members of the team described being "shocked and saddened" by the contrast that they saw everywhere in Britain and in Ireland between the favoured majority on the one hand and, on the other hand, those who are left out. Those are contrasts which we have uneasily tolerated for a great many years. The inquiry team saw such contrasts as intolerable. Wherever they went, the members of the team saw increasing riches and poverty side by side. They came across much bitterness and despair. They found communities destroyed by a lack of economic opportunity. However, their report also offers hope that the problems can be solved if the issues are given high enough priority.
At present, the economy is doubly crippled by virtue of the fact that so many people are not contributing creatively to it by their work and because the payment of benefits to the unemployed places such a heavy burden on the public purse. Archbishop William Temple wrote in 1942:
"The worst evil … is creating in the unemployed a sense that they have fallen out of the common life. However much their physical needs may be supplied … the gravest part of their trouble remains: they are not wanted!"
That is as true today as it was in the 1930s when Temple conducted a major inquiry into the effects of unemployment on society. Unemployment is isolating, depressing and often humiliating and now, much more obviously than in the 1930s, it is a very fertile breeding ground for crime and drug addiction and for yet more crime to service the addiction.
406
People must be able to participate fully in the life of society. That means that they must produce goods and services as well as consume them. It is especially through their work that most people serve the community and serve God. It is also often in our daily work that we can be most truly creative, sharing in the creative work of God and using the gifts that he has given to us. If such claims sound Utopian and absurdly idealistic, that is perhaps a measure of how low we set our sights, our hopes and our expectations of people, all of whom have immense potential for joys and griefs, for hopes, dreams and concerns and, above all, for relationships that bring deep and lasting fulfilment. Work confers dignity, gives meaning to life, and socialises people. Work creates the context in which families can flourish. It is not surprising that without reliable dependable work, family life has suffered so grievously in recent years among so many sections of society.
In the gracious Speech the Government are pledged,
"to mount a fundamental attack upon youth and long-term unemployment".—[Official Report, 14/5/97; col. 6.]
I am sure that that objective will meet with approval from every Member of your Lordships' House and from all sections in society. However, we need to examine carefully exactly how that attack is to be mounted. We should be concerned not only with broad principles, but also with the implementation of the policies in detail. Will the new programmes be a real improvement on what has been tried in the past? Will they actually be attractive to young people? Will they address the most intractable areas where unemployment is, and has long been, exceptionally high? Most of us never go to such places. We are unaware of the levels of decay and depression that mark them out. We are unaware of the corrosive demoralisation of belonging to the second or third generation without the prospect of real work. There is a lack of awareness of what it is like to be trapped in that sort of hopelessness or to live in that sort of place.
I have therefore been grateful for the work of Church Action on Poverty in conducting hearings at which the unemployed can speak for themselves and tell their own stories. They are harrowing stories, as well as in many cases being uplifting because of the spirit with which such privation is borne by some people. However, those areas of high unemployment continue to be largely hidden and unknown to the inhabitants of comfortable Britain. The churches are there and have always been there. The Church Urban Fund is at work there. The inquiry team for Unemployment and the Future of Work went to such places and I believe that that explains the indignation and passion which underlies the report.
We need to feel deeply and strongly about this problem and not rest until it has been solved. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, spoke of a mood of optimism, of partnership and of involving everybody. I associate myself with those hopes and I am glad to acknowledge that in recent months there has been a significant reduction in the number of people unemployed, but it remains a deeply serious problem and I make no apology for dwelling on it in this speech.

407
Perhaps I may suggest two practical measures. First, in the private sector, we must reduce the costs associated with jobs. In particular, we must reduce the employers' national insurance contributions for relatively unskilled work. We must reduce the effective marginal tax rate on people taking those relatively low-paid jobs and ensure that the benefits associated with unemployment are not lost as quickly as they are at present. We must introduce a much more gradual tapering of benefit loss. That is vital if people are to be encouraged into work. Secondly, in the public sector we need more jobs. We must be prepared for some additional taxation to make those jobs available, above all in education and the National Health Service.
The Government are committed to fairness at work and will introduce a national minimum wage. I warmly welcome that undertaking, which will do so much to redress the injustices that have flowed from the abolition of the wages councils. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, said that that would increase the cost of work, but at least that money would be going to those in work. I believe that we must increase the amount that goes to those who work while we try to reduce some of the other costs that fall upon employers. This policy is also in line with a concern that is expressed in the report of the Churches' inquiry about the quality of the jobs that are being created. At the moment there are some very low-grade and desperately low-paid jobs.
I should like to mention briefly another aspect of fairness in the labour market which is emphasised in the report of the Churches' inquiry. I refer to racial discrimination at work. This problem has not gone away despite existing legislation. Indeed, there is some evidence that it is becoming even more serious in some parts of the country. Young people from ethnic minorities grow up with no expectation of any satisfactory employment. They believe—and, I fear, with justification in many cases—that they suffer from racial intolerance and unfair discrimination. In its work the Churches' inquiry visited Northern Ireland to review the very tough legislation in place to outlaw religious discrimination. It suggested that some lessons should be drawn from that legislation for effective action against racial discrimination in all parts of this country.
The future of work is the key issue of economic and social policy that we face. We cannot sit back and assume that the market on its own will solve our problems for us. We cannot acquiesce in a system which allows employers to think of labour merely as a cost of production to be minimised, with the cynical assumption that the taxpayer will foot the bill for income support. As a nation we need to change our attitude to employment and unemployment quite fundamentally. Unless we get it right, the divisions within society will grow deeper and the sense of community that we so urgently need to rebuild will be comprehensively damaged.
I believe that the Government understand the gravity of these matters. I fervently hope that public opinion will support them in going beyond their manifesto commitments and taking the policy initiatives that are
408
required to heal the very deep wounds that unemployment has inflicted upon our fragmented society and to release the potential of all our people.
4.33 p.m.
The Earl of Derby: My Lords, it is an honour to be able to address your Lordships' House. I ask for your Lordships' indulgence as I deliver my maiden speech. A recent Financial Times survey on Merseyside carried the front page headline "Pace of recovery begins to quicken". It is on that subject, the Merseyside economy, its decline, problems, renaissance and future, that I wish to address the House.
By way of scene setting, although I may be addressing this distinguished House for the first time, in the previous century six of my antecedents served in or formed the governments of this country. They held posts in Tory, Whig and Liberal administrations—perhaps that is why I sit on the Cross Benches this afternoon—but they all spoke for Liverpool where the Stanley family has lived for over 600 years. The subject of Liverpool and its future prospects is therefore one on which I speak with passion.
Your Lordships will be aware of the great historic significance of Liverpool as Great Britain's main west coast deep port. Sadly, Merseyside, which is centred on Liverpool, has been Britain's most difficult manifestation of urban decline. The reality is that the city's economy was too narrowly based on shipping and associated services. It has been in decline for much of the second half of the 20th century. Liverpool has lost one-third of its population since 1961. Each successive recession has resulted in more factory closures and higher unemployment. Containerisation at the docks resulted in a huge loss of jobs. Your Lordships will recall the riots in Toxteth in 1981, the problems of council debt caused by Militant Tendency, and the council strikes.
By the mid-1980s Merseyside's male unemployment rate had peaked at 24 per cent., and in the worst areas of the city it was up to 50 per cent. This occurred mainly in the over-40 unskilled manual labour category for whom finding new jobs has been very difficult. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford referred to the problems faced by these individuals. The press rightly reported just how bad the situation was. There were reports contrasting the success of other areas which showed up the failures of Liverpool and Merseyside even more starkly. The North East has attracted huge inward investment. It has done so by ensuring close liaison with all interested parties who speak as a unified body with one voice. This Merseyside has failed to do for far too long. The city was in a mess. The council was in disarray and many councillors were disqualified. After years of isolation and infighting the region now speaks with one voice and can start to shed its old image. The tide of press comment is now turning, as demonstrated by the quotation from the Financial Times with which I began. The Mersey Partnership as marketing agent is working hard to improve the image and perception of the area.

409
For the renaissance to start the building blocks had to be put into place. Here, the Merseyside Development Corporation played a great part. That body was funded by the Department of the Environment and the European Regional Development Fund. Now increasingly it funds itself from rental income and property sales. That self-funding is a measure of its success. In the early years the Merseyside Development Corporation had to get the infrastructure right, and on that it spent about £300 million. The MDC is on target to achieve its ambition to create 25,000 new jobs by the millennium.
In the past five years unemployment in Knowsley, one of Merseyside's five boroughs, has fallen by 6.5 per cent. against the national figure of 3 per cent. Knowsley industrial estate has been successful in attracting investment, including the £300 million northern press of News International and QVC, a US television shopping channel. Importantly, QVC came to Knowsley in spite of hot competition from Dublin which provided incentives to go there. It currently employs 1,100 people and the figure is set to double in the next two years.
The Mersey Docks and Harbour Company's tonnage fell year after year to a nadir of only 9 million tonnes in 1984. I am happy to report that last year a record 31 million tonnes passed through the port. That represents an increase of three and a half times in only 12 years. Between them Ford and Vauxhall have invested £700 million in the past seven years and plan to invest a further £300 million in the next three years.
That Merseyside was eligible for Objective 1 funding demonstrates how serious was the problem. The Objective 1 budget has undoubtedly benefited the region through its five drivers: inward investment, local business development; innovation and new technology; tourism and culture; and human resource. As to the last of these, some have been critical that too much money has been spent on training rather than job creation, but jobs are being created. According to the MDC, already nearly 17,000 jobs have been created. If investment is to continue, then a supply of skilled labour is an important point in attracting inward investment.
The MDC has developed five industrial and technology parks. These are proving to be very successful. The largest number of jobs is in technology, software and call centres. Recent investment examples include Kodak, Sony, Halifax and Abbey National. What Merseyside has not yet attracted is the giant size multinational inward investment. Now that so many of the Merseyside agencies are working towards a common goal and Speke-Garston can offer a 400-acre site we hope that this could be just over the horizon.
The ends of Objective 1 and the MDC are not far away. Between them they have been instrumental in so many ways to help restart a very depressed Merseyside. The signs of improvement are there, the jobs are being created, unemployment is now down to 11 per cent. That is still a very high figure against the national average. There is no doubt that much of the good will only come after Objective 1 and the MDC have gone, but we must ensure that the patient recovers. To help
410
this, it is vital that there is close liaison and co-operation between public and private sectors. A healthy economy needs a thriving private sector that attracts more investment. Continued support from European structural funds will be required in the early years of the new millennium to help the region achieve self-sustainability.
It is not just improving business outlook that makes the region a success; it is broader quality of life that contributes as well. Liverpool has two excellent universities. They attract tens of millions of pounds from industry for research every year. The student campus has grown dramatically and helps the local economy. Many students are staying on to work in Merseyside after they finish their degrees.
The National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside are home to some of the finest collections outside London. The Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra, of which I am president, enjoys a global reputation. The Albert Dock is a bustling 1.2 million square feet of retail, exhibition and residential space. Knowsley Safari Park, which my late uncle had the vision to establish, is home to the largest herd of African elephants in Europe. The Groundwork Trust, started in Knowsley, was a pioneer development in environmental improvements in communities working with the inhabitants that has now been replicated in many other parts of Britain.
In short, Merseyside is an attractive place in which to live, work and invest. We are all aware of the tremendous problems the region has faced through changing industries, depopulation, severe recession and economic depression. After some years in the doldrums, the many agencies involved are helping the city and the city is helping itself to rise back towards the great position it held. We can only hope that the new Government will see fit to support the many initiatives which are taking place on Merseyside and in other similar regions to improve the quality of life for all their inhabitants.
4.43 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will join with me in congratulating the noble Earl on his admirable, informed and caring maiden speech. As he reminds us, he comes from a distinguished political family. He himself speaks from experience. Already he has a distinguished career in business and financial affairs as well as engaging in many activities and organisations which enhance the economic, cultural, gastronomic and sporting life of Liverpool and Merseyside, where his family has had some influence over the centuries. We hope that he will soon speak again, and that we may hear him on many occasions, in this Session at any rate.
I want to talk about the contribution that universities make to our economy. In doing so, I declare an interest as chairman and pro-chancellor of the University of Bradford. I welcome the emphasis placed on education in the gracious Speech. That is central to economic success. For too long we have failed to accept that our competitive position vis-à-vis Europe and the rest of the world is in the long run dependent upon our creating a

411
highly educated and trained workforce, capable of adding value, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, to whatever task is undertaken, at all levels in the workforce, whether managerial, professional or operational.
I welcome also the spirit of co-operation between government and industry. Our wealth and prosperity depend upon that co-operation. It is infectious, and, in turn, some of the wealth and prosperity of industry depends upon its relationship with the universities. The universities are an important source of innovation and insight. The association is important, not just in science and technology but in the social sciences, which are too often underestimated.
The Government's aspirations to inject new dynamism to modernise our economy and equip it with skills, technology and industrial capacity for the future mean a yet closer association with the universities.
Our university system is a national resource, underpinning the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of the country. Universities have risen to the challenge of doubling the number of home undergraduates over the past 16 years. That has been done by increasing the efficiency, effectiveness, and variety of the many programmes on offer. Our place in Europe as an educational provider for European students generally is second to none.
UK higher education is still recognised internationally as providing a high quality product and good value for money. We now teach three times as many international students as we did 10 years ago. Students from abroad will add £1 billion per annum to the UK's GDP.
In a global knowledge-based society, the UK must invest further in the nation's education at all levels, in higher education no less than at other levels. Such investment has fallen in recent years, and in higher education is still falling. A new funding system is needed which motivates the higher education sector and the staff working within it. Like industries, universities cannot be asked to continue to operate in a stop-start system. Something like a quinquennial, triennial, or even rolling triennial system is desired. We must ask: what is at risk if we get it wrong?
Since 1992 the number of internationally rated university research departments has increased from 290 to 480. UK universities are second in the world-wide league of industrialised countries and above the USA for the rate at which they attract income from industry. Decisions to invest in the UK by international companies are influenced by the known quality of the university's expertise.
UK universities employ more than a quarter of a million people and in many cities are among the largest employers, second only after local government. In the North East, five of the biggest 30 employers are universities. UK universities have a turnover of £10 billion per annum, compared with Marks and Spencer, reported today to have a £7.8 billion turnover, or ICI with £10.6 billion.
Universities' contributions to competitiveness and economic generation are well documented and I hope this House needs no reminders. These contributions
412
occur in all of the four primary roles of our universities: first, undergraduate taught level, much of which is for vocational and mature students, often commissioned and sponsored by industry and commerce; secondly, postgraduate taught level, much of which is post experience and linked to continuing professional development, again often commissioned and sponsored by industry and commerce; thirdly, research and development and consultancy, which increasingly is more applied and relevant to companies' profitability; and fourthly, resource and facility centres, which assist short-term and long-term needs of companies, especially in periods of expansion and re-equipping.
There have been a number of studies made which have described, confirmed and quantified the real contributions made to the success of UK companies and to the UK itself. Such studies, whether for the country as a whole, or for regions—Yorkshire and Humberside being an example—or for individual universities, all show value for money represented by our university system.
Higher education is big business and public expenditure, which is currently around £6 billion per annum, is not the only source of income. International student fees, research grants and contracts from companies and outside agencies such as charities, foreign governments, consultancy work, etc., produce an estimated total greater than £2.5 billion per annum.
For the future the participation rate for the 18 to 20 year-olds is likely to need to increase in order to meet the demand from below. The Council for Industry and Higher Education believes that the current figure of 60 per cent. participation rate of 17 year-olds in full-time education could apply to participation in higher education by the year 2000.
If there is to be this expansion in full time and/or part-time—and part-time higher education is growing and is of growing importance—the goodwill of the higher education sector and its staff is at risk if the new funding methods anticipated do not also show due recognition of the contribution made by the staff in higher education. Surely the time has come for an independent pay review body to assess and advise on the pay for university staff paid for from public expenditure, as happens now with the police, in the teaching profession and with doctors and nurses.
Many universities are involved as partners, and unique partners, in the regeneration organisations which exist in many cities and regions. My own vice-chancellor, for example, is a member of the DTI Advisory Committee for the Teaching Company Scheme, chairs the local Business Link and is a director of the local TEC. Such examples can be multiplied many times over and are, as I say, an indication of university participation in regeneration.
I have outlined these contributions because it is important that we acknowledge the full extent and scope of university activity. These activities have increased in size and value, despite the hostile climate in which universities have operated over the last two decades, from the 1981 cuts onwards. Whatever has been asked of them they have delivered, and more, even though this

413
has been at the expense of the unit of resource, penalising students; uncompetitive salaries, penalising staff; and creaking buildings and equipment, putting the future in jeopardy. Indeed, one of our major pharmaceutical companies has threatened to take its research to America because of the perceived state of our university laboratories. This cannot be allowed to continue. We have now reached the stage where across the board increased investment in our universities is critical to meeting our economic objectives, and one hopes, indeed expects, that the Dearing Report, due in July, will indicate clear signposts for this.
4.57 p.m.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, I must add my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Derby, on completing his maiden speech. I trust he will be able to commiserate with me in just starting mine.
I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis had to say in his opening remarks and I feel that a great deal of it will help to underwrite what I am about to say. I pick on one particular phrase, if I may, and I trust that the noble Lord will remind his noble friend the Leader of the House of it. The phrase is, "What counts is what works". I trust that he will arrange for this to apply to your Lordships' House.
I am no economist. I am rather glad about that because I believe it a truism to say that no two economists ever agree with one another. It is, however, appropriate to bring to the attention of the House the engineering and construction industry which has few representatives here or in the other place. When I set out to prepare my maiden speech I was not sure that I could make it a worthwhile length. After some research and seeing how it impinges on almost all aspects of the last days' debates I am fearful that it may be too long. We can all agree with Winston Churchill who said that he must have engineers but heaven forbid that they should all be the same. Sir Winston, who mercifully was educated in the historic tradition, took care to have excellent technical support. But it is, of course, our artistic friends who put the icing on the cake. I want to talk about the cake itself and I hope to find a few plums.
This year we celebrate the Year of Engineering Success. The Engineering Council sets out to persuade us all, especially the younger generation, of the importance of engineering and of success in visible results and in less visible results as well as earnings at home and abroad. For instance, consulting engineers, perhaps some of the cream of the profession, have earned £1.8 billion in fees, nearly half of it overseas and, of course, this represents only a small percentage of the capital costs. There is plenty of room for an ambitious young man to set his sights on.
Many people have a vision of an engineer as a man in a greasy overall with a spanner in one hand and an oil can in the other. We are very pleased to see him when he comes to mend our washing machine or our telephone. Out of sight, more than 1½ million more labour mightily to produce the countless things we nowadays regard as necessities of life—everything
414
from, as we have lately seen, the longest bridges and tunnels in the world to a razor blade or a microchip. The Channel Tunnel is a good example as it embraces almost every engineering discipline. We all use our cars, our computers, our lights, our water taps, even our amplifiers and our air conditioning, without much thought as to how they work. The men who put the roof on Westminster Hall performed a world famous, almost miraculous, feat with the materials available at the time. I have not mentioned the TV cameras.
The skilled men, craftsmen and technicians are the shock troops of the industry. They produce 8 per cent. of our gross domestic product and export 60 per cent. of it, earning £160 billion of foreign exchange annually. Only farmers contribute more to our basic needs. And engineers have revolutionised farming, too. They are the drivers of progress, but we largely ignore them. Kipling knew how little they were appreciated when he wrote in his poem, "Sons of Martha":

"They are concerned with matters hidden—

under the earth line their altars are…

Wary and watchful all their days that their

brethrens' days may he long in the land".

Nowadays, as technology advances and invades all our lives, the need for education and skill becomes more pressing. I greatly appreciated the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, who told us about the importance of education. A skilled and educated workforce can and must replace the old worthies of the heavy hammer and brute force. It was encouraging to hear in the gracious Speech of the continuing emphasis to be placed on education at all levels. I was especially interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, on this subject yesterday and I wish to support his plea for more adequate funding. But however important fundamental research is, we still need a different breed of men to put their findings into practice and we require adequate educational support.
Engineers have allowed their ancient and honourable title to be debased. Engineering is a profession several hundred thousand strong in this country but still not strong enough. We need 30,000 of our brightest young people every year to maintain it, more if we are to compete successfully at the breakneck speed of advancing technology worldwide. At present, our universities are producing little more than half the engineering graduates we need. I emphasise that. It is vital to our survival to double our output of engineers and to ensure their lifelong education and re-education to increasingly high standards.
Around the great hall of the Institution of Civil Engineers just across Parliament Square we can read the names of the great men who led the world into the industrial revolution: Telford, Stephenson, Whitworth, Faraday, Brunel, Parsons and others equally proud and distinguished. These men were famous in their time and their names live on, but their modern counterparts are largely unknown to us. Sir Frank Whittle, for instance, whose inventions almost single-handedly have radically changed the lives and the outlook of every one of us, received scant recognition in his lifetime for the truly fantastic revolution in world travel which we now take for granted. Today, great projects have grown so large

415
that they can be handled only by co-ordinated team work. It is an exciting development when architects and engineers can combine in teams under the leadership of such outstanding men such as Sir Ove Arup, who was both. We can be proud that he decided to settle in Britain, though we should learn a lesson from the fact that he was educated in Germany and Denmark.
Engineering is exciting, thrilling at times, and fun. Even if it appeals mostly to the numerically minded, simple arithmetic can take you a long way. It takes as long to train for as the professions we recognise more easily, such as law, medicine, accountancy and the others. But it is the one which actually discovers, develops and produces things which we all want and need. In fact, it creates wealth rather than regulates it. All other professions depend mightily upon engineers and their work is intensely satisfying. Every profession has its academics, but for those so inclined it is a first-class introduction to management because the basic discipline involves detailed analysis of problems and the formulation of solutions. Nearly all our top hundred companies have at least one engineer on the board. It is a shame that other less well qualified people have at times attempted to usurp the engineer's management functions, even in his own field, sometimes with unfortunate results.
Engineers are not much interested in politics until they have to be. What they ask from politicians is a stable environment and that their industry should not be used as an economic regulator. Otherwise their work is too absorbing. The laws they obey are made by God and by nature and the penalties for disobeying them are far swifter and more drastic than any imposed by man. In the past, their remuneration has not always kept pace with the responsibilities and the risks they carry. Happily, with improving prosperity, the situation is improving and the signs are that they are catching up with the architects and the accountants. There is still a little way to go before the doctors and lawyers are overhauled. Unemployment is under 2.5 per cent. and now that opportunities in the Armed Services are declining, I submit that noble Lords could perform a useful service to the nation by encouraging their more adventurous children and grandchildren to take up this very important and demanding work, so vital to our future, as my own grandson intends to. It will take them to fascinating scenes and places all over the world, especially if they choose the outdoor environment of civil engineering. There will be lots of hard work, but that is true of any occupation that is going to lead to such a potentially satisfying career—surely more exciting than watching a screen in the City.
Engineers are rapidly developing their care for the environment. Yesterday I was fascinated by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rogers. As ever, engineers mean to support their sister profession, morally now as well as physically in the past.
The early non-military engineers founded the Institution of Civil Engineers, the senior institution, about 20 years before the foundation stone was laid for the present Palace of Westminster in which we stand. It is now the single parent of 38 other specialised institutions which must indicate the diversity of interest and choice for aspiring new entrants. It has a Royal Charter but no Royal name. I wish to conclude with a humble petition to
416
Her Gracious Majesty and her Privy Council, if any of its members are here, to grant Royal status to the senior institutions. They surely deserve to be Royal at least as much as the surveyors and the architects.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, first, it is my pleasant task to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, on his maiden speech which combined experience and conviction in equal measure. I believe that he was educated on the other side of the Strand from the one which I know best and what he said demonstrated the continuing fruitful tension between those two great colleges—King's College and the London School of Economics. I gather from the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, that it is now a political statement that we wish to hear from the noble Earl on many future occasions. Nevertheless, I shall say so.
Like others who have spoken in the debate, I wish to take as my starting point the statement in the gracious Speech that says:
"The central economic objectives of my Government are high and stable levels of economic growth and employment, to be achieved by ensuring opportunity for all. The essential platform for achieving those objectives is economic stability".
In that connection, I wish to make only one point, a footnote almost, although it is combined with a modest request. Stability has something to do with the way in which we see things and the way in which we see things has something to do with the information which we receive and take in. Indeed, I have sometimes felt that one of the problems with economic stability in this country is that too much information is requested and published too frequently: there are too many monthly and quarterly figures; and one loses sight of the longer term development which alone gives us true knowledge of stability.
My modest request on which I wish to spend a few moments is primarily a request to the Government but perhaps one to the whole House. Please let us have meaningful, comparable, sensible figures. Please let us be sure that when we have quantitative information there is something we can do with it which makes sense. At least make sure that we are spared meaningless information—bad figures.
I illustrate what I mean by making three brief points. The first has to do with bad figures. I went through one of the volumes of our proceedings in your Lordships' House and it did not take me long to find examples. I picked up the volume for October/November 1996 to find examples. I shall not quote names, nor shall I attack anyone personally. I merely give examples of bad figures. A prime example is percentage figures on an unknown base. In Hansard it is stated:
"I can assure the noble Lord that last year applications for post-graduate training courses rose by some 7 per cent.".
No further evidence is given around that figure. Is it from 30 to 32, from 100 to 107 or from 10,000 to 10,700?
That is not the only example. Another example is:
"Of the partnerships which won bids for the single regeneration budget, 80 per cent. had local authority involvement and about 50 per cent. had been led by local authorities".

417
Of how many? Was it 10 or 50? The percentages are suspiciously round figures in any event?
I give a third example:
"A recent report indicated that walking has declined by 20 per cent. in the past 20 years. That is a major figure. It says that, if the trend continues, walking will disappear completely by 2025".
It is quite amusing to go through your Lordships' debates with a view to identifying more or less informative figures.
In the same chapter of informative or uninformative figures, I count dubious success stories. The following statement was made:
"I shall let the record speak for itself. In the five years since the reforms, general and acute activity has grown by 33 per cent. compared with an estimated growth of 10 per cent. in the five years before the reforms".
It refers to "estimated growth". By whom? What does it mean in any case? Is it good or bad? In other words, what are we to make of such stories?
In order to be clearly non-partisan, I give a third example. We should beware of irrelevant references to what happened under a particular government. To me, the following question makes very little sense:
"Can the Minister confirm that the balance of trade on tourism under this Government, which was always in surplus under the Labour Government, has, in fact, for the first time in history, turned into deficit?".
It is perhaps quite useful to examine whether, when figures are given and related to governments, they have anything to do with what governments have or have not done, can do or might do or whether we can leave out governments and concern ourselves just with those figures.
As I pondered those examples, I wondered whether it might not be a good idea to have someone at the Clerks' Table with a little bell which he rings every time one meaningless figure is presented to your Lordships' House. That is my first set of examples as part of my modest request.
Somewhat more seriously, it is important that the information that we have is comparable and relevant. We are all pleased about the relatively low unemployment figures in this country. We know also—and I think we all know—that the picture is quite complicated. For example, it is complicated in the sense that there are a large number of households, larger than one would expect from the basic unemployment figure, in which no one is employed. I hear the little bell ringing, because your Lordships will remind me immediately of the fact that in this country and the United States there are many more single person households and, therefore, the household figures do not necessarily give a clear additional indication.
But I am bound to say that I was delighted to read in the newspapers that the Government intend to do something about the two sets of figures on unemployment and the relationship between unemployment claimants and the Labour Force Survey and that the Office for National Statistics is asking for comments on that. This is as good a time as any to make that change because as soon as this Government have
418
published their first figures, they will develop a vested interest in relating everything else to them and not changing the basis on which they are calculated. Therefore, I hope that those changes will happen very soon.
I do not necessarily suggest that the two surveys must be rolled into one. They can both be published if they are published together and thereby allow analysis, which, after all, is one of the objectives of publishing figures in the first place.
My third point is that I hope that we can think of new and meaningful ways of measuring stable growth. That is a difficult one. We read that "Britain is booming", at least if we went through the streets of London and probably other cities. Of course, in one sense, that was a correct statement. Yet many of us knew that, in another sense, it was not. We are going through a phase in which we are experiencing a curious combination of macro-success stories and micro-misery. None of us really knows how to put those two together. In particular, we do not know how one expresses that by using the traditional language of describing what is going on—and notably the traditional language about macro-success stories.
On 21st February 1996 the House discussed—and I hope noble Lords will not regard it as arrogant if I refer to it—a commission report on Wealth Creation and Social Cohesion, with which I had something to do. At least one member of the committee which I chaired is now a reforming member of the new Government, so I assume that what was said then may not be a million miles away from prevailing interests. One recommendation was that we should try to work out a wealth audit which would not intend to put everything into one figure but which would combine the gross national and domestic product growth figures with other relevant data in one context so that one was able to form a judgment of the true complications of economic development which we are now experiencing. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, has in his own works produced fascinating and important examples of what might be added to such an audit, as have some of our common friends, not least Professor Partha Dasgupta in his book which was published a few years ago.
I wonder whether the Government could have a look at ways in which the latter should be done. Alternatively—and this is the most important comment that I want to make; that is to say, important from my point of view—perhaps I should have said that it is not something for the Government to do. We should perhaps encourage the Office for National Statistics to do it. I am all in favour of greater independence for the Bank of England, but I would be even more in favour of greater, or, indeed, near total, independence for the Office of National Statistics. I say that because that office need not be, as we read in its description. "accountable to the Chancellor of the Exchequer". That office is supposed to help all of us hold government and others to account. It gives us basic information which is relevant to our task in Parliament. There may be other ways of locating the Office of National Statistics, or at any rate making sure that that important source of information is one

419
which gives us meaningful, solid and comprehensive information rather than cheap weapons in an unnecessary debate.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Tugendhat: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by adding my tribute to that expressed by other speakers to the two noble Earls who have just delivered their maiden speeches. I know that that can be a daunting experience. However, it is one through which both noble Earls came with flying colours. For as long as the party opposite permits them to stay here, I am sure that they will enrich the quality of our debates.
I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Richard, on their positions in the Government. As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, will agree, the club of former Commissioners in this country is sufficiently small so that we can all rejoice in the success of its members. I have no doubt that the presence of these two former Commissioners in the Government will be a further impetus to the creation of better relations with our European partners, which has been such a notable feature of the first two or three weeks of this Government's life.
As today's debate focuses on industrial and economic affairs, it is inevitable that almost anything that I say could be interpreted as bearing on the interests of Abbey National and Blue Circle Industries, the two companies of which I am chairman. Therefore, I declare that interest at the outset. I should particularly like to focus on what has been happening in the financial field. Here I pay tribute to the whirlwind start that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Gordon Brown, has made. I believe that the broad thrust of what he has announced on both supervision and the responsibility of the Bank of England for setting interest rates is absolutely in the right direction. Of course, considered judgments must await the detail of the proposals and, indeed, the detail of the legislation; and there will be plenty of that. I very much hope that the Government will allow adequate time for scrutiny and, where necessary, for amendment when the legislation is brought forward.
I began my career on the Financial Times. The editor at that time, the great Sir Gordon Newton, always used to say that it was more important to be right than first. One might wish that other editors these days followed the same dictum. However, the idea that one should be right rather than first is certainly one that I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues will pay heed to when this very important legislation is brought before us.
Pending the legislation, perhaps I may say a provisional word or two on the supervisory aspects of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced. I believe that there are three points which particularly need to be borne in mind. First, the transparency, integrity and effectiveness of the new system are as vital to the City's international role and reputation as they are to the interests of the investing public. Secondly, the new SIB will be supervising very different organizations
420
and activities. Therefore, it is very important that its structure should reflect the extreme complexity of its task.
For my part, I think that it is right to have a single supervisory authority. However, it will be extremely difficult to establish it on an effective basis from the beginning. I very much hope that there will be the closest possible liaison and co-ordination with the Bank of England. So far as concerns banking, it is perfectly true that the central bank and supervisory authority in other countries have been separated. But I believe that experience shows that very close co-ordination between the two is absolutely essential. In that respect, I think that the appointment of Mr. Howard Davies is certainly encouraging. I am sure that he will do his best to ensure such co-ordination.
Thirdly, it will be vitally important to strike a balance between effective rule-making and enforcement on the one hand and, on the other, not stifling enterprise and initiative. If the supervisory authority tries to prevent any failure from ever occurring, the result can only be atrophy. It is important for us not to get into the position of regarding a supervisor as failing just because one of the institutions which it is supervising happens to fail. It is the way in which failures are dealt with which is important, as well as the integrity, effectiveness and transparency of the supervisory system.
I turn now to the operational independence of the Bank of England. I hope, under this heading, that the Government will reflect on why it is that the Bundesbank and the Federal Reserve are held in such very high repute in their own countries. There are many reasons for that. But one is the fact that the individuals who have been appointed to them are of very high calibre, of great independence and, in a certain sense, representative of a great number of interests within Germany on the one hand and the United States on the other. It will be harder to achieve that degree of independence of background and of representativeness in a unitary state such as ours than in a federal state such as Germany or the United States.
However, it is of the greatest possible importance that the individuals who are appointed to the new monetary policy committee and court of the Bank of England should come from different intellectual and professional backgrounds, different interest groups and—I agree here with the noble Lord who introduced the debate from this side of the House—different parts of the country. That exhortation applies to the monetary policy committee and to the court but may be most difficult to achieve in relation to the monetary policy committee because of the need for the members of that body to work closely together to produce coherent advice and to be able to bear the strain of having their minutes and their votes published.
It will be a difficult body to set up and run. We are extremely fortunate to have an outstanding Governor, Mr. Eddie George, in situ at present to launch this great constitutional and institutional experiment. There are bound to be teething problems. Those problems may lead to misunderstanding and even condemnation of the new policy framework. All those who support the

421
innovation, regardless of which part of the political spectrum we come from, need to support the institutions as they grapple with new and unfamiliar problems.
Some commentators have suggested that the Chancellor has handed over the keys of economic management to the Bank of England. But that is absolute nonsense. Monetary policy is only one part of a complex structure that includes fiscal policy, exchange rate management, labour market policy, the social security system, and much else.
That leads me to my final point. After this impressive burst of activity at the start of his period of office, I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not try to do too much in his Budget. The Government have, I believe—they tell us that they have—far-reaching ideas and plans for all the fields that I have mentioned. The Budget is the time for establishing the processes and structures for bringing those reforms and innovations into effect after adequate public consultation. It would be a great mistake if the Government were to pre-empt or make it more difficult to carry through their subsequent ideas by too much tinkering or innovation with the tax system at present. They must remember that they will be judged on the basis of four, or even five, Budgets and not simply on the basis of one. This Budget should provide the basis for putting into place the processes for introducing wider reforms.
In any case there is no need for radical restructuring or tinkering with the tax system at present. The economy is in good shape. Indeed, this Government have received the best inheritance of any incoming government since the war—better than the Labour Government in 1945; better than the Conservative Government in 1951; better than the change of government in 1964, 1970, 1974 or 1979. I pay tribute to Mr. Kenneth Clarke for the contribution which he has made to putting the economy into its excellent shape. I very much hope that my friends in the House of Commons will bear that in mind in the election upon which they are about to embark.
The economy has a good rate of growth. Inflation is under control. Unemployment is falling. Savings are rising. Competitiveness is improving; and tax revenues are exceeding expectations. Of course rebalancing is required. No doubt the Government will wish to offset largesse in one direction with tightening in another. They may wish to counter some of the effects of de-mutualisation windfalls. They may wish to do something to curb consumer spending. But there is no crisis in the macro-economy; quite the reverse. The public finances are in good order. There is no need for urgent or unpopular measures designed to blacken the reputation of the Government's predecessors or to provide excuses for problems which may arise later. This Government are a very fortunate government; and I hope that they make the best use of the inheritance which they have been lucky enough to receive.
5.36 p.m.
Lord Currie of Marylebone: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to take part in this debate from the novel
422
perspective of this side of the House. My sojourn on the opposite Benches was rather brief as a new arrival in your Lordships' House. However, I look forward to a rather longer spell on this side of the House.
We debate issues of economic industrial policy after an historic shift in British politics—a shift that has excited the imaginations of many people around the country. The sense that things have changed is widespread. People even feel better off, according to the latest measure of consumer confidence; consumer confidence rose quite markedly after the election. That carries both risks and opportunities for the new Government: risks of disappointment, and opportunities to press for change. I am delighted that the new Government have shown no signs of disappointing by the flying start that they have made on many policy agendas, and that they have established their own distinctive mark. Those who thought that a change of government would make no difference have been clearly proved wrong.
The economic policies that have been announced to date have two features: first, they have been long overdue; and, secondly, they have been designed not to interfere with and obstruct market forces but rather to improve the policy framework within which markets work, regulating only where necessary to enhance their effectiveness. One example is yesterday's imaginative announcement of a radical reshaping of the regulatory structures. Reform was long overdue. The patchwork quilt of regulatory bodies may have been justified by pragmatism but it meant poor regulation, and overlapping and divided responsibilities. SIB's lack of powers over the self-regulatory bodies made for weak, toothless regulation; and that led to the call for the SROs to be folded into SIB.
However, I am delighted that the Government have gone further to create an overarching single body. I hope that mortgage lending will be included in its responsibilities. For the market reality is that the functional divisions between financial institutions have been dissolving fast so that a regulatory map based on institutional distinctions is increasingly irrelevant and ineffective. Worse than that, differences in approach between regulators can unfairly distort the operation of business and market forces. Yesterday's announcement means that the structures of financial regulation will be updated to reflect the modern realities of a fast-changing international financial marketplace.
It will of course be necessary, given the size of the new organisation, to guard against the dangers of an overbureaucratic and unwieldy SIB. In addition to getting the structure right, we also need a thorough debate and review of what we can expect from regulation in financial services and how best to regulate in this fast-moving world. I fully agree with the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, that a failure of a regulated company need not be seen as the failure of regulation. We need to understand what regulation can achieve in this area.
SIB's record is freer from embarrassment than that of the other regulatory bodies. That is a welcome point. However, it is worth noting that that is largely because

423
it has had very little front-line responsibility for regulation. It will have to prove itself. Again like the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, I have every confidence in the ability of Mr. Howard Davies to ensure that SIB rises to the challenge.
The announcement of operational independence for the Bank of England was equally overdue. Previous Chancellors, including the noble Lord, Lord Lawson of Blaby, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, favoured that change but were unable to effect it. We all paid the price in terms of the excessive boom of the late 1980s and the recession of the 1990s. The British economy has been one of the most volatile of any of the major industrial economies. This is my only statistic, and I hope it does not suffer the criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf: we have suffered two of the five worst recessions in OECD countries since the war, both under the last Conservative Government. That volatility owes much to the way interest rates have been influenced by short-term considerations. It is time that changed.
We have already seen the benefit in financial markets. Gilts futures jumped 2¾ points on the day of the announcement, and most of the rise took place within half an hour. That compares with a trading range over the whole of the past year of about 10 points and is the largest gain in five years. It is a signal that the markets not only think that current long-term interest rates will be lower, but that they will be lower into the future. That extra confidence is good news for investment and the long-term health of the economy.
Critics of the change suggest that allowing the Bank of England operational freedom will mean higher interest rates. I believe I am right in associating the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, with that charge. That is wrong. The City clearly does not believe it. The historical evidence from a range of countries is that greater independence and the extra credibility it gives to monetary policy tends to mean not only less volatile interest rates but also lower interest rates on average, to the benefit of all.
The method of choosing the new Monetary Policy Committee and the court is also important. They need to be seen to be independent and sensitive to different interests in the economy. Those appointments will be particularly sensitive. The financial markets will be watching them.
I also welcome the fact that the Government will introduce this Session a comprehensive reform of competition policy. That, too, is long overdue. The previous Government produced a White Paper on the subject in 1989, a Green Paper in 1992 and a blue consultative document in 1995. Even someone like myself, somewhat insensitive to colour, recognises that that is not progress, given the colour coding normally associated with these documents.
There were plans for a limited reform of competition policy in the last Session. However, they were dropped in favour of what were judged to be more politically appealing measures—perhaps wrongly in the event. The measures planned were simply to deal with horizontal cartels and horizontal agreements.
424
That provides the opportunity for the new Government to introduce a comprehensive reform dealing not merely with horizontal restraints on competition but also with vertical restraints and restrictions on the abuse of dominance and market power, essentially along the lines of Articles 85 and 86 under European law but suitably adapted to British concerns to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy. These measures are needed to provide the level playing field that ensures that competition is effective and beneficial. Without it, companies can abuse market power to the detriment of other companies and consumers.
The problem with the limited reform proposed by the last Government was that it would have banned actions inimical to competition undertaken by a group of companies in concert but would not have banned the equivalent action if the companies were merged together. That is a logical nonsense. It would have been an absurd policy to have adopted. Action against abuse of dominance is required for that reason.
Reform of competition policy will bring benefits throughout industry. But it will be especially important in the utility sectors—telecommunications, gas, electricity and water. For historical reasons, related to the way in which they were privatised on an unsatisfactory basis, those sectors are dominated by major players. They will be dominated for the foreseeable future by major players who can exert market power. If effective competition is to emerge in those sectors it is vital that that market power is not abused. The Director General of Telecommunications, Mr. Don Cruickshank, rightly emphasised that in his adjudication on the BT price cap last year. With competition provisions in place which limited the capacity of BT to abuse its market position, he felt able to limit the price cap to about one-quarter of BT's retail business; in the absence of it, he rightly felt that he would have to price cap some two-thirds of the business.
Putting in place competition policy allows regulators to get out of the way of some of the big companies. That is a benefit. Mr. Cruickshank's proposed solution, which he adopted, of writing these provisions into the BT licence gave the advantage of those competition measures, but it had the major disadvantage of lacking any appeal mechanism. BT rightly felt that it was not being provided with an appropriate appeals provision. It is much better to do what is proposed; namely, to write the provisions into general competition law.
These measures—reform of City regulation, Bank of England independence, and competition policy—are all important. However, it is quite likely—and right—that the success of the Government's economic policies will be judged by two other major sets of issues: monetary union and the issue of unemployment. There is no time to discuss them in detail, but perhaps I may just touch on each.
It seems likely, at least in the eyes of dispassionate observers, that a number of European countries will proceed to a single currency. If that happens, although there are significant pros and cons on the issue, it is likely to be the case that it will be damaging to the UK's position if the UK stands aside, at least in the long term.

425
But there are also major obstacles to early entry, not least the need to win popular support for the proposal in a referendum. After years of general antipathy to European issues and much anti-European rhetoric it will take time for public opinion to change. So it may not even be easy for the Government to take us into monetary union if they wish in the second wave. It is an issue that will be important, and one upon which history will judge the economic record of this Government.
Equally important are the proposals to move the more disadvantaged in our labour market out of unemployment, off benefit and into work. The welfare to work measures are an absolutely vital part of the Government's economic strategy. Targeted at the under-25s and the long-term unemployed, they are greatly to be welcomed. It is not right to argue, as did the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, that they necessarily present problems. Carefully targeting these disadvantaged groups can result in substantial benefits.
The measures are to be funded by the one-off levy on the privatised utilities. We do not know the details yet; therefore it would be inappropriate to discuss them in depth. Nevertheless, there has been a line of criticism that the one-off nature of the levy makes it inappropriate to fund this type of programme. That is an incorrect understanding.
The accumulation of disadvantage over the past decade, particularly as a result of the last recession, has meant that a significant number of the long-term unemployed and under-25s need help out of the welfare trap. This measure, it seems to me, is a fundamental one to get that group back to work. If it is successful, then we can run our economy at a lower level of unemployment, with a lower level of welfare and a higher level of spending available for the other vital areas of education, training and health. We must make the programme of welfare to work effective. The Government have made a good start with a major innovative programme which can begin the process of transforming our economy and society for the better. I look forward to the more detailed discussions on the measures in the rest of the Session.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Roll of Ipsden: My Lords, first I wish to offer my apologies to the House because I shall not be able to remain until the end of the debate. I am particularly sorry to miss the winding up speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, whom I wish to congratulate on her ministerial appointment. Secondly, I wish to add my congratulations to the two noble Earls whose maiden speeches we heard today. They were model maiden speeches: brief, non-contentious, dealing—as your Lordships always appreciate—with matters of which the speakers have deep personal experience and knowledge.
In the 19—or is it only 18?—days since the Government came to power a great deal has been done and a great deal more has been set in train, especially the remarkable, important and weighty legislative programme outlined in the gracious Speech. If current expectations are correct, we shall in the next few weeks have an equally active and exciting time.
426
I do not intend to speak about the broader aspects of economic policy, which have been dealt with by a number of speakers. To my mind, so long as we stayed on the level of objectives and purposes there was a fair degree of unanimity in what the Minister and the noble Lords, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and Lord Ezra, said. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford made an urgent and moving addition to that. We shall have to discuss those matters in some detail, no doubt, later. If I have the opportunity, I hope to take part in the discussions.
First, I wish to refer to one or two aspects of the Government's approach to economic policy which, so far at least, have not been mentioned tonight. It is amusing to remember that the party now in power was criticised during the election campaign for not giving a great deal of detail about its economic programme. That was extremely naïve. The absence of detail is not at all unusual in election campaigns and the Government were entirely right. In any event, they have made up abundantly for the lack of detail in what has happened in the short time since they came into power.
On one aspect the Government have been precise in their electoral commitment. That is on the level of spending and certain points of personal taxation. They were fairly widely criticised for that, not only on the left wing within their own ranks, but also more generally it was considered extraordinary and perhaps unwise to shackle themselves to that extent in advance of being elected, as they were. But that criticism was totally misguided. If the Government intend—as now seems quite clear—to have a fundamental review of fiscal policy, it was more than prudent to put a temporary freeze on at least some important aspects of fiscal policy so as to pre-empt what I am sure would have been clamorous demands and pressures for policy changes, with immediate and important fiscal policy implications, without adequate consideration of the programme as a whole and its proper co-ordination. That is what is now intended.
I wish to say how much I personally welcome what was announced in that regard. It is clear that a fundamental re-examination of broad aspects of fiscal policy, particularly in relation to the social and economic objectives of the Government, is now on the agenda. I hope it will be undertaken thoroughly and completed as quickly as such matters can be. In all industrial countries of the world the question of what are the proper social and economic objectives, particularly how to reconcile the legitimate demands for social welfare with enterprise and with forces to foster growth and prosperity and so on, and the fiscal implications of policies are being thoroughly examined. It is absolutely vital that that should be done in our country and I am delighted to know that it has been put in train.
I now wish to say a few words about Europe. Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear me say that I thoroughly welcome the new atmosphere that has been created in a short time. The potent virus of hostility against the European Union which has been working away in our body politic for so many years now looks at last like being suppressed, giving way to a much more

427
sensible, sober, I might even say adult, attitude of co-operation and constructive participation. It was entirely right to agree to sign the social chapter, not only for the reason that is sometimes put forward: namely, that it will make little practical difference. That may well be true, as I know from my experience of continental companies and their boards. But in addition there is a much larger and more important positive reason for signing the social chapter. The founding fathers of the European Union, Common Market or European Economic Community, as it was earlier—foremost Jean Monnet, as I know from himself—considered that the economics of the European Economic Union and of the Treaty of Rome were primarily directed to fostering those forces which would encourage enterprise to deregulation, liberalisation, creation of a single market and a common policy towards other countries outside the Union so as to foster growth and prosperity. To a large extent, that has been achieved, as any objective observer would recognise.
But many far-sighted people have concluded that the benefits of the process for the broader working populations may he so indirect, so slow and so disproportionate as to create a sense of non-participation and thereby threaten the cohesion not only of the Union but of the individual members. The social chapter is designed to a large extent to avoid that danger. I hope that its signature will help to produce that result. In any event, it will help to create that atmosphere of which I spoke earlier.
Finally, I wish to say a few words about monetary policy and the new status of the Bank of England. It is well over three years since I had the privilege of chairing an independent panel precisely on the question of the status of the Bank of England. The panel consisted of distinguished academic economists and lawyers, highly experienced former central bankers and highly experienced former senior government officials as well as people drawn from the financial world. They came not only from this country but from France, Italy and Germany. The recommendations that we produced at the time—well over three years ago—were very much in the direction of what is now being proposed and what the Chancellor laid down in his letter to the Governor and has now been rounded out by the Statement made by the Chancellor yesterday.
We recommended the kind of independence and accountability that is now being put in train. We debated the question of the relationship between the Bank and the Government as regards government finance. Although the position is not entirely clear, the movement of the management of the public debt from the Bank to the Treasury may well also follow our recommendations for avoiding jeopardising the functions of the Bank in regard to price stability and monetary policy by overt or hidden financing of government deficits.
Our report also referred to the question of banking supervision and the pros and cons of leaving it with the Bank or taking it away. We did not reach a conclusion, although on the whole the report leaned towards separating supervision from the Bank and placing it with an independent agency. The 26 countries we looked at
428
are divided roughly half and half; one half has supervision as the responsibility of a central bank and the other of an independent agency, sometimes in conjunction with the ministry of finance and sometimes alone. As the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, pointed out, in nearly all cases there is provision for close co-operation with the central bank, even when supervision is in a separate specialised agency.
The changes that the Chancellor announced yesterday—I am sorry that I was not in the House; I read the report this morning in Hansard and was delighted to see that the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, with his great experience as Chancellor and Prime Minister, and tonight the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, were both in favour of the changes—are particularly necessary, as was pointed out a few moments ago, because the dividing lines between the different activities of different institutions in the financial services industry have become extremely blurred. There are now institutions that conduct so-called high street banking (commercial banking), investment banking, fund management and a whole host of other activities. In each of those respects they are subject to different supervisory and regulatory rules and, indeed, to different regulatory institutions and agencies. Some reform in that regard was essential.
I hope that what is proposed will turn out to be the right course, though certain aspects will need to be carefully considered, as the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, pointed out. In general, in this process it was extremely difficult, if not impossible, to leave supervision of the banking system—that is to say, essentially of commercial banks—with the central bank alone. Indeed, one of the arguments to which the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, referred—namely, that it would be dangerous if the supervisory authority failed to step in when some specific institution was on the point of failure, as our report pointed out—could arise in the case of the central bank as lender of last resort also having supervision of those who might need to have recourse to it in difficulty.
I come back to my starting point. A great deal has been done in this short time. The cataclysmic change which has taken place in the political landscape and which is so visible in another place though not yet so in your Lordships' House, has been greeted in some quarters as a new dawn. If it is, then it is like Kipling's "On the Road to Mandalay", and has come up like thunder. The energy, the pace and the determination which the Government are showing in trying to translate lofty purposes into realistic action and to deal with long overdue reforms are certainly impressive.
To one like myself who has studied our body politic and particularly our economy for 70 years now, the prospect of change in itself can only be welcome. However, we shall need to wait a little while longer before we can be certain that it is a new dawn and whether we can really say with Wordsworth,
"Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive".
Alas, for my part, I would not be able to add the second line,
"But to he young was very heaven!".
6.4 p.m.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I hesitate to participate in this debate, given the great amount of knowledge and experience on all sides of the House. In particular, it is with great trepidation that I follow the noble Lord, Lord Roll of Ipsden.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, on their appointments as Ministers and the noble Lord on his eloquent and spirited introduction of the debate. I wish also to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Derby, on his most impressive and interesting maiden speech. I was struck by his profound knowledge of Merseyside and his continuing strong commitment to the area with which his family has been so long and so happily associated. I was not surprised at the eloquent and well prepared contribution by the noble Earl because we are fellow directors of Robert Fleming, one of our few remaining independent British investment banking groups, and I am well aware of the high regard in which the noble Earl is held within the firm and elsewhere.
I would reassure your Lordships that even if the Bill to establish a Scottish parliament should become law, the promised related referendum having passed, there is, as far as I know, no present plan for Robert Fleming to return its head office to its country of origin north of the Border, even if a future Scottish parliament should ask for the creation of a Bank of Scotland to execute the functions of a central bank in that country as the Bank of England now does for the country as a whole.
I congratulate also my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery on his thoughtful and interesting maiden speech. It is clear that both noble Earls have a worthwhile contribution to make to your Lordships' House.
To mention the Bank of England reminds me that I should be talking about the gracious Speech, concentrating on what it said in relation to the economy and industry. In general, as many noble Lords have said, our economy is in very good shape and compares favourably with those of our principal European partners. Your Lordships will be pleased to know that I shall confine myself to two principal areas.
In common with many others who work in the City, I am not unhappy with the Government's decision to introduce a Bill to give operational responsibility for setting interest rates to the Bank of England in order to deliver price stability and support the Government's overall economic policy within a framework of enhanced accountability. Like my noble friend Lord Tugendhat, I am a great admirer of Mr. Eddie George. I can well understand therefore why the Government might consider that to reduce the level of their responsibility in order to increase that of Mr. George is a change which is likely to increase the confidence of international investors in this country and strengthen the stability of the pound sterling. To what extent that will help to deliver price stability, however, is less certain.
With regard to the "framework of enhanced accountability", I understand that that refers to the plan to establish a Monetary Policy Committee of nine members to decide on the appropriate level of interest rates. Your Lordships will have noted that the Treasury
430
is to appoint four outside experts and a second deputy governor. Now that Mr. Howard Davies—of whom I am also a great admirer—is to move to the Securities and Investments Board, the Government will have to appoint someone to the first deputy governor's position. The effect of that will be that the six new government-appointed members of the Monetary Policy Committee will constitute a clear majority. It appears that the Governor will be bound by decisions taken by a majority vote.
I worry also about the appointment of a second deputy governor with specific responsibilities. Whereas in the past the single deputy governor acted as a kind of alternate to the Governor across the whole range of his responsibilities, the two deputy governors will in future become an additional layer of management which will in effect diminish the responsibilities of the senior Bank officials carrying similar responsibilities, at the same time as senior officials other than the deputy governors will cease, in the normal case, to be eligible for membership of the Court of Directors.
The use of the term "operational responsibility" may also sound alarm bells in your Lordships' minds given the difficulty in defining clearly the dividing line between that and "responsibility for policy matters" which has recently become so apparent over another matter in another place. I hope that the Government will ensure that the respective responsibilities of the Bank and the Treasury are clearly defined within a comprehensible and workable framework.
Though I am prepared to welcome the change, with reservations as I mentioned, I am surprised that it was introduced so quickly and without detailed discussion of its ramifications. However, it will be a good thing if the change leads to an enhanced role for the Governor, whom I was privileged to hear speak at the annual dinner of the Japan Society held in London last month.
In a fascinating and illuminating speech he told his audience, inter alia, that monetary union would bring one crucial economic benefit to the euro area; it would provide exchange rate certainty, which, if not essential, would, other things being equal, be a desirable complement to the single market. However, Mr. George also explained that there is a problem with this because of the different monetary policy needs of each of the euro member countries that may apply at any one time. The risk is that the single monetary policy, the single, one size fits all, interest rate, which is a necessary corollary of the single currency, may not prove to be appropriate to the domestic monetary needs of each member country.
If Her Majesty's Government do indeed decide in due course, after a referendum and other consultations, to participate in the single currency, as your Lordships are no doubt aware, neither the Bank of England nor the Treasury will set interest rates because this function will be discharged by the European Central Bank in Frankfurt.
Your Lordships will have noticed the announcement yesterday of the Government's intention to legislate to change the regulatory framework within which the City operates. I wonder whether it was an oversight that no

431
mention of this was made in the gracious Speech. The current structure is perhaps somewhat cumbersome and practitioners and clients alike may well benefit from a clearer and simpler system. However, shuffling of regulation will not itself result in efficient supervision and regulation. I have some concern that the separation of banking supervision from the Bank of England will weaken the valuable and useful connection between the monetary authority and the regulatory authority. It may make it more difficult for talented "high flyers" within the Bank of England to be persuaded to spend some time working in banking supervision as a normal part of a successful career path. It is important to ensure that banking and securities supervision is placed in the hands of individuals of the highest calibre with a good understanding of how the markets work in practice. In framing the necessary legislation I would ask that the Government pay attention to these points.
There is one other important matter on which I wish to comment, although my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and other noble Lords have already referred to it. The gracious Speech refers to the Government's intention to introduce a levy on the "excess" profits of the privatised utilities which will be brought forward in an early Budget. I fear, however, that the Government have made a mistake in the selection of their target. Their target, surely, should not be the recently—or fairly recently—privatised companies. To levy, on an arbitrary and retrospective basis, an additional profits tax on certain companies would be most unreasonable and unfair and its effect would be quite different from that intended. I believe that it would harm the owners, the customers and the employees of those companies. The owners are the shareholders, who include millions of pensioners and small savers as well as both British and foreign institutional investors.
I believe that these people are not the Government's target. The Government's intended target is the relatively small number of directors who have benefited greatly from participation in share option schemes—the so called "fat cats". The Government are surely motivated by envy towards these people and, while I admit that the terms of some of these schemes may seem in retrospect to have been generous, at the time that many of them were established it was not appreciated that the economy would soon be in such good shape and that share prices would rise to reflect this.
The Government's intention to treat the privatised utility companies so inequitably will not have the effect they desire. Rather they will weaken the companies' ability to invest in the improved infrastructure which is so badly needed, particularly in the case of the water companies. Reduced leakage from pipes would help to alleviate the problems resulting from the water shortages that we have frequently experienced in recent years.
I welcome the Government's commitment to a new partnership with business, although I do not believe that the introduction of a national minimum wage will help to improve the competitiveness of British industry. I agree with the sentiments of those noble Lords who have questioned the wisdom of "opting in" to the social
432
chapter and with those of my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, who has covered other matters of concern to the House.
The Government's intention to work constructively with industry and with the City is to be welcomed. Nevertheless, I believe that your Lordships' House has an important part to play in persuading the Government to think again over matters where they may have got it wrong. I shall feel privileged if I am able to play a small part in this process. I am grateful to your Lordships for your patience in listening to me.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, there can be little doubt that the Queen's Speech last Wednesday set a new distinctive high tone to the parliamentary affairs of the United Kingdom. The 26 Bills outlined in the Queen's Speech range wide and dig deep into the rudiments required to promote effective democratic governance, economic efficiency and social justice. I believe that the gracious Speech, and the subsequent first speech by the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box in another place, brought about a precise new sense of parliamentary direction. It gave an earnest commitment to the effective resolution of the issues confronting the peoples of this United Kingdom. During the past week we can feel a refreshing sense of hope, of challenge and of revitalisation throughout all sectors of our community life. The broad spectrum of the media has clearly reflected and recorded this marked change.
There are some 1,700 words in the Queen's Speech. Sixty-eight of these address the difficult political situation in Northern Ireland. I am sure that noble Lords from all parts of the House warmly welcome and support the proposals in this Northern Ireland paragraph of the Speech, words which cogently mention measures justly to deal with terrorism, parades, the protection of human rights, discrimination in the work place, increased confidence in policing and measures to promote and foster economic development.
It is 19 years since I first entered this House and 18 years since I last sat on this side. Nevertheless, what I have to say today on the subject of Northern Ireland will not, in essence, be different from anything I have said on the many previous occasions when it has been my privilege to speak on the loyal Address. I am pleased that Her Majesty's Government are once again committed to a settlement which can command the support of the nationalists and Unionists in Northern Ireland and which is negotiated on the principle of consent.
No one in Northern Ireland, nor in this House, can have failed to have been impressed by the personal commitment of the Prime Minister in making his first official visit outside London to Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and her ministerial team all made personal visits to the Province on taking up office. Dr. Mowlam on her arrival in Belfast on Saturday 3rd May stated:
"I will join with you in confronting the obstacles that remain to achieving a new settlement for Northern Ireland. Labour in Government will be no different from Labour in opposition. We took up principled and balanced positions then and we will carry

433
them through in Government. We will be active in promoting the things we believe in, but we will listen to the views of the people of Northern Ireland and their political leaders and aim for more openness and accountability. We took the bipartisan approach in opposition because it was responsible and it was right, and we look forward to the same from the Conservative opposition. I wish Sir Patrick well, and I, like many people in Northern Ireland, would like to acknowledge the good work and commitment he put into the job".
I should like to be associated with that tribute to Sir Patrick and to pay tribute also to Michael Ancram, who proved to be a dedicated and thoughtful Minister.
A few days ago my noble friend Lord Dubs, now a Minister at the Northern Ireland Office, and I met the noble Baroness, Lady Denton of Wakefield, in the Press Lobby. Each of us had great personal pleasure in commending the noble Baroness on her outstanding work in promoting industry, trade and employment in Northern Ireland. We also acknowledged with thanks her committed support and encouragement for the active participation of Northern Ireland's women in employment, public life and politics. Her constructive contribution to Northern Ireland's industrial and commercial life will be a difficult act to follow.
I am sure that we would all agree with the Prime Minister's public endorsement of the work of his predecessor. When Mr. Blair spoke to the people of Ulster, he first paid tribute to the personal commitment of John Major. During my time in this House my opinion of the various Ministers who have served in Northern Ireland has, if anything, risen in understanding and gratitude as time has gone by. There have been many such Ministers and some are still with us in this House. I think of the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, and of the noble Lords, Lord Callaghan, Lord Pym, Lord Prior, Lord Merlyn-Rees, and Lord Mason. Many others also have given much in terms of time and effort and have sacrificed family life to try to bring peace, civilised living, justice, equality and honour to the Northern Ireland scene. Thanks to their firmness as well as their compassion the Province is now well positioned to benefit from a peaceful settlement which we hope will begin earnestly to be negotiated this summer.
The potential for agreement is enormous. Whenever I have had reason to discuss the policies and the work of the various departments of government in Northern Ireland I have been amazed at how much common ground our Northern Ireland political leaders share. Whether on agriculture, education, economic development, the environment, finance, or health and social services, it would be difficult for any professional political commentator—let alone an ordinary citizen—to tell what separates the main political parties in the Province. Indeed, when they meet to discuss such matters as planning, tourism, business or the price of electricity, the Alliance, the DUP, the Ulster Unionists, the SDLP and even Sinn Fein have broadly similar approaches—or at least share the same differences of opinion within their ranks.
Such agreement would be incredible in any society and it makes the divisions all the more frustrating and difficult to comprehend and to bridge. The answer to what drives people apart is fear: fear of loss of identity
434
and fear of violence. Those fears are rooted in actual bigotry, sectarianism and in the acts of planned violence and intimidation.
What can be done? Let me immediately endorse the Prime Minister's words when he said that we must harness more effectively those forces pushing us towards a settlement. How can those demanding social and economic objectives be achieved? If Northern Ireland were a company—and many international companies have bigger budgets—how would any chairman of the board try to steer it away from the risk of being engulfed by global competition and towards protecting and enhancing the livelihood of its employees?
Within the Province there are team builders; there are those actively engaged in promoting dialogue and those who have been building internal capabilities among their colleagues regardless of gender, religion or geographic location. There are leaders to be found in the public, private and voluntary sectors who have sought to encourage initiative, to heal division and to harness the talents of those representative of the community at large.
Let us hope that the peace talks will proceed with earnest good will and that honourable and just decisions will be made in the best interests of all, but let us not forget the basic needs of the people and their hopes for a better life for all. What about the bread-and-butter issues, such as the home and health difficulties, the employment and educational needs and the plight of the children and the aged? Meeting such needs is essential in any community.
There is an absence of public participation in the affairs of the Province. Much of that is due to intimidation and fear, but we have a secret ballot and I plead with the people of Northern Ireland to ensure that their elected representatives keep those basic human needs high on the agenda. I look forward to this side of the House participating in facilitating the achievement of those objectives.
I believe that the Prime Minister's speech in Northern Ireland on Friday 6th May encapsulated much of what I have attempted to say. Mr. Blair said:
"I have said Northern Ireland has a bright future if only we get the politics right and the gun out of the picture. You all know that to be true. Look at the advantages you have: dynamic and enterprising businesses and businessmen; a record of success on inward investment, despite the violence; a workforce ready to take every opportunity; a potential quality of life second to none in the United Kingdom; huge tourist potential.
This Government will be building on that potential. The raising of education and training standards, and measures to put the unemployed back to work, will be particularly relevant here. We will be introducing further measures to promote equality of opportunity in the labour market.
I and my Government have five years ahead of us to do this. With your help, we can. The chance is there, for now. It will not be there for ever".
Perhaps I may conclude on a pleasant note of hope. It gives me much pleasure warmly to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, who is now the Minister of State at the Department of Trade and Industry, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, who is now the Minister of State at the

435
Department of Health, on their appointment to government office. I join all noble Lords in wishing them both good health and every happiness and success.
6.27 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blease, in what I hope will continue to be a bi-party approach to Northern Ireland, a subject on which we have always respected each other's point of view. Northern Ireland has always been regarded in this House as an area in which party politics do not have a role to play because we are all concerned about the future of that part of the United Kingdom and it is only by joint effort that that future can be assured. I follow the noble Lord, Lord Blease, in this debate with very great pleasure.
As today sees the closure of the debate on the Queen's Speech and as I believe that from the beginning of June we are to enter a new phase of political activity with regard to legislative measures, it is particularly appropriate today to be able to congratulate the new members of the Government Front Bench and to wish them well. In particular, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, who opened today's debate with such effort and elegance. I should also like to wish the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, well. We look forward to hearing her reply on behalf of the Government.
Although the debate is directed mainly at the future, I believe that it would be a dereliction not to recall the speech made by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish on 5th March in this House when he set out the economic situation achieved by the previous Government in the knowledge that if there should be a new government following the general election, that government would have an excellent and sound basis upon which to advance their policies, a basis of steady growth and low unemployment. I warmly congratulate Mr. Frank Field, the Minister of State at the Department of Social Security on his appointment. He was quoted as saying that he condemned the doom and gloom analysis of the employment market, which was the attitude taken by the party then in opposition. How right he was!
The figures for temporary jobs quoted by my noble friend Lord Mackay are particularly relevant: 7 per cent. for the United Kingdom, 10 per cent. for Germany, 12 per cent. for France, 16 per cent. for Finland, and 11 per cent. for the EU average. I quote those figures, despite the careful wording of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, to show that the temporary work figures are very important in view of the attacks that were made on the then Government in relation to unemployment. Figures published today, in a report by the World Economic Forum based in Geneva, show that the United Kingdom has risen from 15th to seventh place in the global competitiveness league. The forum states that the long-term restructuring measures, deregulation and privatisation contributed to that move. The figures show which countries have the greatest ability to achieve sustained high rates of economic
436
growth. It is now a challenge to the Government to ensure that that figure is at least maintained, if not exceeded, in the next five years.
The Government have, however, already put the country's future at risk by signalling their intention to adhere to the European Union's social chapter. Whatever the cause—whether it be solely the effect of the social chapter—Germany has suffered a rise from 2 million to over 4 million unemployed, with consequent removal abroad of many of its leading firms, including such great names as Bosch and Siemens. No doubt the United Kingdom will benefit from those moves. Only two measures have been introduced under the social chapter. So far it has been considered a fairly weak and not particularly interesting activity on the part of the European Union. There are already four draft directives on other matters that may seriously affect the labour position throughout the Union. The proposal to introduce a national minimum wage is not one that inspires confidence that the regular reduction in unemployment will be maintained; on the contrary. Of course, it is an attractive proposition that those who enter the workforce should receive at least a minimum wage of, say, £4.20 an hour. That is perfectly understandable. One understands why people wish to receive that wage when they enter employment. But the fact, which has been proved in many countries, is that those who receive that sum deprive others of a job. That will increase rather than lower the unemployment figures. It is sometimes forgotten or not always realised that employers do not have unlimited coffers into which they can dip to pay this comparatively high sum to an earner who first enters work.
The introduction of a statutory right to interest on late payment of debts is encouraging and is to be warmly welcomed. It has been shown to work successfully in other European Union member states. It is intolerable that particularly small businesses and individuals with limited financial backing and steady outgoings should be uncertain about receiving payment for the delivery of goods or services within a reasonable and accountable time, thus preventing them from going to the wall. Of the number of small firms that have gone to the wall over the past few years, it has been said that a considerable proportion have done so because their debts were not met by larger companies or even government departments in the time due for receipt of those moneys. I very much welcome this proposal of the Government. I hope that it will come into force as soon as possible.
The Government have emphasised that high stable levels of economic growth and employment are to be achieved by ensuring opportunities for all. It will be interesting to see how "opportunities" is defined. It certainly does not provide any guarantees for all. I find that a difficult concept to grasp in relation to the economy. New competitive measures have been on the stocks for some time. We shall have to wait and see how the details of he Bill work out. It has been suggested that it will be revolutionary. It has also been said in the newspapers that the Government may merely bring forward the original Bill drafted by the previous

437
Government which was on the stocks but withdrawn before the election. There remains a question mark over it. We shall have to see how matters develop.
The proposals concerning the future role of the Bank of England have provided examples of give and take on a massive scale. We had hardly got over the immediate allocation of operational responsibility to the Bank of England for settling interest rates—it was considered to be a reasonable action on the part of the Chancellor and, indeed, was welcomed by many—when we heard that the Bank had lost its responsibility for the gilt market. Further, a new Securities and Investments Board under the chairmanship of Mr. Howard Davies would remove responsibility of banking supervision from the Bank of England. Whereas certain new attributes have been given to the Bank, even greater attributes have been removed from it. One wonders what is the concept of the Government as to the real role of the Bank of England at the present time. Is it to reduce it to a minimum so that it plays the role of a central bank if and when we join the single European currency? It remains to be seen how many more changes are to be made to the City's monetary and financial structures before the institutions adjust to their remaining tasks of ensuring high and steady economic growth for this country. We can only wish them success as we study and analyse their activities.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the world is bedeviled by enormous problems which, either obviously or fundamentally, are of economic origin. It is a familiar statement and a familiar list. I shall talk today not about how they can be solved—since that is seldom in doubt—but why it is that they are not being solved. The problem that will haunt us in future is the problem of getting on with it once we have understood it.
Let us remind ourselves what they are: famine, disease, weapons and the economic exploitation of human beings both living and to be born. These are the same old things that have bothered us at home from the beginning of recorded history. The difference is that they are now suffered not only by our neighbours but by billions of people we can see, although only through the protective glass of the BBC or CNN.
A new generation of problems comes up in the wake of new technology: climate change, the export of unethical clinical drug-testing, the genetic exploitation of the poor, privacy in the age of satellite bugging and so on.
I raise these matters on the day that we are debating industry and the economy because it is the unregulated growth of industry and the unfettered scramble for the advantages that are believed to accrue from economic growth that cause them. All solutions thus depend on these impulses being consciously mastered by means of conscious policy.
We live in a single world. I for one am grateful to the new Foreign Secretary for inventing, or at least popularising, a very useful idea towards the understanding of it. I first heard him formulate it at a
438
party conference fringe meeting a few years ago. It is that there is or should be a continuum between the improvement of things at home and the improvement of the same things in the world. We, too, have dreadful poverty in certain places here, as the world has dreadful poverty in certain countries, and so on. And, if that is so, the same sorts of measure as serve well here might be expected, within the limits of variety, to serve well there. One could call the general idea the "Cook Continuum". It tends towards a state of welfare in the world at large, though not of course to a world welfare state.
I shall plunge into that argument at random. Take climate. We know what our grab economy and the patches of civilisation it produces contribute both to global warming and to acid rain. In our need for oil, we freely degrade or even destroy the civilisation of people whose land or sea has oil under it: in Nigeria, and apparently now also in Colombia. It also brings war, as we have seen in the Middle East, and are only too likely to see around the Caspian.
Our grab for heat destroys nature's own heat arrangements. I think of the Atlantic heat-pump off Newfoundland which governs the Gulf Stream and which is breaking down. We are beginning to understand that now; but shall we have the will to do anything about it?
Take tobacco. In this country we are about to ban tobacco advertising, 50 years after we learned that tobacco was a killer. Good. The WHO has just put that in a wider frame with a report on the "lifestyle diseases" that industry is inflicting on its customers worldwide, of which tobacco is only an important example. And in the name of free trade we do nothing about it. Have we got the will to do anything about it worldwide? We Europeans do not even have the will to terminate the subsidy we pay, through the EU, to that killer industry, tobacco.
In 1981 the World Health Assembly adopted an international code of conduct about the export of "infant formula" powdered milk. The multinational firms that produce it should be observing that code, but are not. The free trade policies which exploit young mothers in poor countries through low wages also exploit the babies they cannot breast feed. Even in this country, local authorities are allowed to encourage the burning of waste which releases dioxin, which again harms breast-fed babies. In both the poor and the rich world, the next generation will be less healthy than it should have been.
We know what harm is being done to our fellow human beings, and to much of life on earth, by our pesticides and herbicides, our wrongly labelled and out-of-date medicines, our toxic wastes, and the infections we have made drug-resistant: malaria, TB, AIDS.
We know that those unethical products and practices are harmful, but the will is not yet there to end them. In government, as we know it, they are no one's undivided responsibility: they fall between departments. Tobacco; milk powder; dangerous chemicals and biochemicals; dangerous wastes. The practices include all those

439
mis-costed, de facto subsidised, activities that in the name of "free trade" distort the world economy and threaten our whole human future. There is at present no global public health.
We know also what our arms exports do. Today's exports of arms cripple the budgets of poor countries. The exports of 30 years ago are still alive and well, and causing civil wars and then fighting them. In effect, we do nothing about it. The departments that promote the arms trade here—DTI and MoD—are not accountable for the consequences of their success in making us the second biggest arms exporter in the world. That is for the ODA and the Foreign Office. In the US, about half the price received by the arms industry for its product has been straightforward subsidy, and that does not include taxpayer-funded R&D.
Given the enormous and to some extent mysterious subsidies our own arms exporters enjoy in all sorts of ways, a proper cost-benefit analysis is now overdue, and I hope that the new defence review promised by the Government will provide it. If it does, it will be not only for our own good, but for that of all other governments and peoples too. One cannot insist in the name of high employment at home on the right to widen the gap in suffering and poverty which exists between the rich and the poor worlds.
Let me enlarge a little on free trade and the WTO. There is something going on here which may be less well known than what I have been describing. The US Government, as we all know, affect the quaint belief that their "national security" is endangered by the existence of the Cuban Government, and claim that they are therefore entitled to exclude and fine non-American citizens and companies which are contaminated by trade with that country. All that is familiar; but now they have refused to accept the submission of the consequent trade dispute to the WTO.
And now another story. When the WHO recently determined that hormone-treated meat was not a very safe thing, and when consequently the EU imposed a ban on its importation from the US, that country had recourse to the WTO. So if it does not work one way around, try it another. All that is public knowledge, but will we stand up?
We know also that it is quite common for substances such as those concerned in this field to have their first bad effects not on the generation that consumed them but on the next. Any proper cost-benefit analysis would show those temporary and local benefits dwarfed by the vast potential costs in suffering, and indeed money.
Such a cost-benefit analysis should also take into account the burden of arms in the whole world economy.
I shall give some basic figures: 8 trillion dollars—12 zeros after the eight—has been spent on nuclear weapons since 1945, and that does not include the cost of clearing up after their manufacture, transport, storage and so forth. In 1995, military expenditures were still running at 1.4 million dollars per minute. And now the US military budget exceeds the total military expenditures of the next 13 countries on the league table together.
440
The world holding of arms and the world market in arms includes also all the earlier years' purchases of weapons still trickling down. Weapons, unlike prosperity, really do trickle down. The BBC and CNN show us.
To dwell on this issue is not to decry the importance of the Government's good decision about landmines, only to highlight how far there is to go.
There is one thing here which we often do not understand. It is this: the arms industry is the only one in the world to produce minus value. The most productive industry produces the capital equipment to produce new utility. The next most productive industry produces utility directly. The third most produces consumer durables. The fourth most produces consumption goods, and the fifth produces valueless things. Only the arms industry produces things which, when turned to their intended purpose, destroy value.
Big weapons also inflict another loss on society. The cost of clearing up after the nuclear generations has not yet been looked squarely in the face, beginning with our own obsolete nuclear submarines at Rosyth and Russia's up in the Arctic and the vast poisonous waste in the United States and in the ex-Soviet Union. They trickle down too; into the water table and the water courses. To say nothing of the cost of caring for the people who have been made ill by being unknowingly subjected to tests for the nuclear, chemical and biological arms industries.
We have also to face up to the role of banks, Swiss and others, in money laundering and other secret traffics. This is not only about the post-war and Holocaust victims' gold: it is also about the money that went to Mobutu, Duvalier, Marcos, Ceausescu and all the rest. In 1973 oil money was effectively forced on developing countries and was misused by anti-Communist tyrants, and the successor governments are still required to pay interest on it. The IMF now sees some 500 billion dollars a year change hands criminally. All this is the infrastructure on which the hard drugs trade's and the arms trade's illegal networks depend.
To conclude: in order to get global solutions to global problems, just as to get parochial solutions to parochial problems, two things are needed: understanding and will. What sort of will? Here is an example. The United States has recently mounted a new arms sales drive in Latin America which will, of course, produce new arms races. The Latin American reaction has been a conference on mutual confidence measures, not heroic, but constructive. Will, in this context, includes the courage to name stick-in-the-muds and back-sliders. It also includes the courage to name them, and then seek to persuade them in a voice loud enough to be heard by the rest of humanity. And if that fails, it must include the courage to penalise them, for which a world of treaty and convention exists—on paper.
Potentially, there is equality among individuals in understanding and in courage. Potentially, there can also be equality among states. In execution, in doing, there is no equality among states. But states are only the agents of the people who make them up. Equality in ideas also exists, and ideas spread. Here too there can be a "Cook Continuum".

441
Perhaps a revolution in human approaches to the world we live in has already begun. If so, it will do this country enormous credit. We led the way in imperialism, and then in peaceful decolonisation. We led the first industrial revolution, and now, with others, we could lead the way in the humanising of industry. Above all, we could, with others, lead the way towards the humanising of industrial humanity.
6.54 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I heard with great interest the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to congratulate him and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, on their new ministerial appointments.
Lord Clinton-Davis said that the Government will join the Euro—that is to say, the single European currency—"only if it is in Britain's interest and after a referendum". My purpose is to show that we must work with our European partners and not drag our feet. We must work with our European partners in order to obtain the right structure to govern the new currency, and not wait until after a referendum. The eminence and experience in the City of London can be of the greatest value in this and can help in launching a single currency, which I, as I have said already, believe is in our interests.
Those against argue—and the two noble Lords to speak next are probably against it—that it means loss of sovereignty, loss of powers in Parliament and somewhere patriotism is called to their aid. Surely, the events of the last years, the pound being driven out of the ERM by Mr. Soros and other speculators, despite the Government's efforts to stay in, and earlier at the time of Suez when Parliament could not face the threat of American and world financial pressures, shows that our sovereignty and parliamentary powers against the might of the financial world and its opinion, and indeed the history of earlier times when we came on and off the gold standard, all show that we do not have all that much sovereignty in such affairs.
I come to the millennium. As I see it, there will be three or four great currency blocs. There will clearly be the mighty dollar, the European currency, perhaps the yen combined with other Far Eastern currencies and somewhere or other India and China will come into the picture. Europe, with which we do over half our trade, is even now setting up, as your Lordships know, the rules for a central currency bloc, which will be strongly guarded by independent central bankers to ensure its stability. Germany, France, Italy, Spain and other countries all want to join from the start and to meet the Maastricht qualifications at great sacrifice.
The doubters say that it will not work, that disaster looms and that perhaps we could take advantage of this. I think that they are misguided. We must play a leading part now in setting up the new currency and, as I have already said, the City has an enormous contribution to make. We must be sure that the City's experience is used by the Government to ensure that the new structure and rules are right and drawn up, above all, with our help.
442
I recall that it took us many years and the efforts of Jean Monnet, Edward Heath and many others like the noble Lord, Lord Roll, and even yours truly, to let us join the Treaty of Rome. It would have been far better if we had been in all the time and certain things would undoubtedly be more to our advantage if that had been the case. Let us remember this in relation to the European currency.
The doubters argue that Germany. France and others are cooking their books in order to meet the Maastricht criteria and that the rules on such matters as the social chapter, run from Brussels and the European courts, have led to massive unemployment. There may be some substance in that, but let us remember that the minimum wage and the social chapter, which we have heard the Government are to join, is a small part of the issue relating to a common currency. Cooking the books is another matter, but one can be sure that the Germans, above all, will insist that nothing should be done in the new currency which will endanger or devalue the deutschmark. Therefore, we can derive much strength from that.
There is the parallel of the Federal Reserve and the Congress. The doubters can easily say, "That is just what we fear", but we must be realists in this matter. Already on defence and foreign affairs we have in degree ceded our sovereignty deliberately and rightly. The same is necessary in relation to a common currency for the reasons that I have tried to outline.
Furthermore, let us always remember that the German Länder, the French and Spanish regions and many other countries are at least as jealous of their independence and prerogatives as we are and are strongly against too much interference from the bureaucrats and even from the courts. We will be in a much stronger position if we are in from the start. Let us recall what happened when we failed and found ourselves faced with the Treaty of Rome from which we were kept out.
Today, the unrivalled skills and knowledge of the City are the envy of all. Let us use them to the benefit of Europe, of which we are an integral part. Business welcomes stability. I read that foreign industrial companies and, I believe, the CBI are calling for us to join in the common currency. I am sure that they are right and I am sure that the European powers will rejoice and welcome our help in setting up the new currency.
Finally, let us not be lulled by 50 years of peace to try to go it alone on such a vital issue as a common currency which will give a new bastion of strength to Europe as a whole to be combined with the existing defence and foreign affairs structures. Let us not wait until the outcome of a referendum. Let us make a start now and join the other European countries in working out the machinery of the common currency.
I plan to return to the Chamber for the winding-up speeches. I have a long-standing date and if I fail I hope that the House will excuse me now that I have reached the age of 90.
7.4 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I hope that in turn the noble Earl will forgive me if I do not refer

443
immediately to some of his observations on the single currency. I hope that if time permits I shall touch lightly upon the matter later. However, I wish to refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, about the necessity for accurate data and information. For a long time I have been an assiduous reader of my party's journals and publications and it is my understanding that work is well advanced on a freedom of information Bill. Indeed, during the past four years the matter was raised in the House of Commons on three separate occasions by my party and I was given to understand that a Bill was almost in draft. Therefore, it is a little surprising and somewhat disappointing that it is not a little higher up the list. I have no doubt that it will be pursued vigorously in due course.
In the meantime, perhaps I may echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, on the subject of accurate information. He is, of course, quite right. One of the greatest difficulties of a practising politician, whether it be in another place or here, if he takes more than a passing interest in the deliberations of the House and has more than a little affection in the affairs of his country, is to obtain accurate information. It is necessary to have a regular source of what are quite indisputable facts. During the past few years that facility has become sadly lacking. I need only instance, in addition to the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, the proceedings of the Scott Commission, where it was openly revealed that half-truths were regarded as whole truths; that it was the normal part of the drill that civil servants briefing Ministers gave as little information as possible under the circumstances. Of course, we have the immortal observation of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, about economies with the truth. That has occurred for a long time and it is high time that it was stopped.
During the past few Question Times, I observed that the answers of my own Ministers on this side of the House—whom I congratulate collectively and individually on their appointments—show that there has been a definite effort to reply factually to questions put to them. I can assume only that they put their foot down pretty firmly when they arrived at their ministries in order that this service could be provided to them.
There are two other aspects relating to the provision of facts. The first is the delay in obtaining information from the European Commission and the European Parliament. Apparently initially everything is in French. I am not sure of the reason; perhaps it was agreed in the Franco-German treaty of 1963 that French should be the official leading language and that everyone else should wait. However, it has happened time and time again in my searches not only on my behalf but, presumptuously perhaps, for your Lordships' convenience when I have had the opportunity of addressing the House, because noble Lords should have the facts at their disposal. They are most difficult to obtain. I am not the only person to make such a complaint.
The Select Committees in another place and the Standing Committee on European legislation have made repeated complaints about the delay in providing information to the British Parliament, about providing garbled information to the British Parliament and about
444
providing no information to the British Parliament. If any noble Lord wishes to document that—there is not time during the course of my speech—I will acquaint him fully with the Select Committee and Standing Committee reports which refer specifically to this matter. Some noble Lords may object to the words of slight and mild reproof which from time to time I offer to the European Commission. However, they should bear in mind that many of us do not intend to put up with this indefinitely. Other countries do not put up with it and there is no reason why we should.
Most of all perhaps concerning the provision of facts to Members of Parliament there is the whole question of the number of unemployed. Over and over again, knowingly inaccurate figures and estimates have been presented to both Houses over the past five to 10 years or even longer.
That was revealed most appositely by the Royal Statistical Society in a special report published in April 1995. It sets out in great detail exactly how the basis of the unemployment figures as made available to the public have been doctored over the years, specifically in Appendix A. Variations in the basis on which figures are counted and calculated occurred no fewer than 32 times up to that date; and were the unemployment figures presented on the same basis as when the Tories took over in 1979, there would have been 1.5 million more unemployed. Therefore, when we come to consider the wonderful legacy left to Her Majesty's Government by the previous Tory Government, among other matters we shall consider the unemployed that we are inheriting.
As regards unemployment, I say straight away that I would far sooner pay attention to the words that fell from the lips of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford this afternoon in his description of the effects of unemployment and its extent and causes than to some of the glib and cold remarks which fall from time to time from the lips of the so-called economists, whether of the econometric school or the more orthodox school. They want their brains examining.
Unemployment in this country is one of the most serious factors that we experience. Do not let anybody say for one moment that that has always been the case; that it is some miraculous visitation upon us; that fire and brimstone have fallen upon us from completely unexplained causes. From the time of the Attlee Government to the time of the first oil crisis and the quadrupling of the price of oil, unemployment was below 3.5 per cent. consistently, and moreover the rate of inflation was under 2.7 per cent. consistently. So that has been achieved. It has been achieved by parties, including the parties immediately following the war, which followed the whole policy as set out in the document published by the coalition government on employment policy, which no one in the party opposite now appears to have read. Listening to them, one would think that it was part of the inevitable order of things that there should be unemployment.
Therefore, when the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, referred this afternoon to the glowing position that we took over when we assumed office a

445
few days ago, he should bear in mind that not only did we inherit nearly 3.5 million unemployed people but we inherited also decaying housing which has needed repair for years; a rotten infrastructure; and, above all, a divided society which has become bitter and which knew perfectly well, in spite of the blandishments offered to it, that it was not receiving a fair deal.
Therefore, regardless of all the figures, and comparing ourselves very conveniently with Germany—although, of course, for 10 years it was the other way round—and saying how wonderfully we are doing, it is hardly surprising that the British public at large did not feel what they should have felt according to the previous Government's phoney figures and their record.
That is something we must now remedy. The noble Lord gave some indication, and my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place elaborated further, on ways in which we shall deal with that matter. Short-termism is out. There is no question about that. Indeed, it is made quite clear in the announcement by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, repeated here by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, that the decision to give operational control over interest rates to the Bank of England, given a certain target of inflation supplied by Her Majesty's Government, was done to prevent the menace of short-termism persisting.
I must say, with a degree of the utmost friendliness towards my noble friend, that over the past 10 years I heard no complaints at all from the Bank of England about short-termism. Short-termism was no particular problem for the Bank of England. However, I learnt from my party and my party leaders that short-termism in investment and industry and so on was our principal problem. Therefore, if I accept that short-termism should be dealt with, I should have expected it to be dealt with by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Her Majesty's Government. But no, they decline to accept responsibility for that and say that it should be the responsibility of the Bank of England. I trust sincerely that they will reflect upon that and work out the practical implications before they make it a permanent feature of a change to our constitution.
We are back once again to the question of unemployment. It was mentioned no fewer than six times in the gracious Speech. I must say that that makes a change because the Conservative Party regarded unemployment as a price worth paying for the alleged prosperity that the country was enjoying. It is not so. My party has put forward plans to tackle unemployment. One of them is the course that has been advocated repeatedly from the Back Benches by my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick and myself in order to start up the housing programme and release the funds in the hands of local authorities. I applaud that because it will ensure a push in employment among the 350,000 unemployed building workers at this time. Therefore, I applaud that.
As to the rest, we appear to be relying on the willingness of British capital to invest in both people and capital equipment in order that we can maintain some semblance of progress towards prosperity.
446
I should not query the intention behind that, which I find wholly admirable. It is of the utmost importance that the new Government should enlist the support of capital in investing in new projects and, indeed, in helping out in a whole series of ways on the basis of voluntary co-operation between the Government and private finance.
However, I must remind the House that the history has not been particularly good. Way back in 1972 Mr. Heath was complaining that, in spite of all the incentives given to private capital, there was insufficient investment. Investment of British capital in Britain over the past 20 years has been far lower than it was in the years following the war when the Labour Government were in office from 1945 to 1950.
I have one question for my noble friend. If, despite all the incentives on offer—whether it be capital allowances, concessions in tax, subsidies or whatever—capital does not respond, what happens? Will they then opt for the Keynesian solution to the problem of permitting or, indeed, encouraging the state to invest? Alternatively, will they leave it as it is? One thing is for certain—it will be no use leaving it to the European Commission. The Commission is bent upon one thing only; namely, increasing its institutional power. Indeed, it is quite frank about that and everyone knows it. Therefore, why cannot the Government take a more rational attitude towards their whole economic policies and one not based upon the shibboleths which are still mouthed as a sort of hangover from Hayek? Why do they not take a sane and calm view of the economic assessments that are available, not only from the students of Keynes but also from those who have developed Keynesian policies since? That would be much more sensible. It is in that hope that I warmly support the Government's efforts. I sincerely hope that they will be very, very successful.
7.21 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I start by apologising to your Lordships if I cannot be here for the winding-up speeches tonight. I have been committed for some time to attend a dinner which may now turn out to be largely a celebration of the new Labour Government's education policy. This may seem a strange thing for a loyal Conservative to be doing, but those of us who have been accused for many years by this country's education establishment of being "hard right" have much to celebrate. This accusation was made against us largely because we believed that our state education system was failing our children if it did not teach them to read, write, add up, subtract and divide—the three Rs—by the time they were nine at the latest.
It is therefore very refreshing to read the speech made yesterday by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in which she said that the new Government will be going back to basics and will begin with the three Rs. Better still, she said that the the Government will improve the present poor levels of reading by various methods, including through the teaching of phonics. So I would

447
like to take this opportunity to wish the noble Baroness well in these endeavours, and the very best of luck with her department.
I trust that your Lordships will forgive me if I continue with education for just a few more moments—a vastly improved education system is, after all, crucial to our future industry and economy—and mention one problem which the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, may have overlooked. This is that, just as our education system is at present failing to teach our children how to read and write, so it is also failing to teach our young people how to draw, with potentially disastrous implications for our art schools, and indeed for our very important art and design industries in the future. I would be happy to put the noble Baroness in touch with my contacts in this area, if by any chance she felt that to be worth her while.
I have to say that I noticed with somewhat greater apprehension the new Government's commitment to continue to integrate all children with special educational needs into mainstream schools, but was heartened by the noble Baroness's recognition that for some children special facilities are indeed necessary. I hope that we may return to this dilemma in due course.
In concluding my remarks on education, I should of course mention that the last Conservative Government had started to tackle many of the problems to which the noble Baroness referred in her speech, and so I trust that what I have just said will not be seen as being unusually disloyal to my party. In this respect I stand by what I said in the debate of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury on 5th July last, and very much hope that our education will continue to improve under the new Government, as it had started to do under the old.
I turn now to our relationship with the European Union, where of course, as a mild Euro-sceptic, I part company with the Benches opposite. Before doing so, I hope that I may be allowed a passing swipe at those who blame us Euro-sceptics for the size of the Conservative defeat at the recent general election. My noble friend Lord Cockfield took this line in our debate last Thursday, 15th May, and no doubt enjoyed what I would have regarded as the doubtful privilege of being strongly supported by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead; and there have been others.
My own view is rather different, and is certainly shared by large numbers of Conservatives, perhaps the majority of them. This is that the electorate felt that healthy democracy required a change of government. The electorate may also not have forgiven the Conservative Party for the disaster of our dalliance with the European exchange rate mechanism in 1992, nor for our subsequent lack of clarity about whether we wanted to join European economic and monetary union in future—EMU.
After Labour had done us the great honour of copying so many of our other policies, there really was not much to choose between us, not even over Europe, because the evils of the social chapter (to which Labour are committed but which we wisely eschew) have not yet been felt by the British people. All this would probably
448
have been enough to ensure our defeat, perhaps by a few dozen seats, and many noble Lords may agree with the electorate that that would have been no bad thing in the interests, as I say, of a healthy democracy. However, I submit that we suffered such an overwhelming defeat because we were an overtly divided party, and of course we were divided over Europe.
So my answer to my noble friend Lord Cockfield and others is that we would have lost much less badly if we had had a clear and reasonable Euro-sceptic manifesto, which at the very least committed us never to join EMU, that flightless bird which looks as though it may cause such huge damage to the Europe we all know and love—not, I hasten to add, the "Europe" which proceeds from the Treaty of Rome, the cuckoo in the true European nest, if noble Lords will forgive such a mixture of ornithological metaphors.
Anyway, we are where we are, and I for one do not regret it, because the Conservative Party now has the chance to go back to its healthy roots and rediscover its true place in our country's history, in our culture, in our relationship with Europe and the rest of the world, and thus in our future.
In all this I still see "Europe" as the burning issue. I do not think that it will have gone away by the next election. Indeed, under the new Government's plans, it is likely to be an even more significant issue at the next general election than it was at the last. I say this because the new Government have made the dangerous commitment to sign the social chapter. Because I suppose it is just conceivable that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, on the Government Front Bench will not take seriously anything I have to say about the social chapter, I propose to quote from a talk given on Monday night in London by Miss Haruko Fukuda, the Deputy Chairman of Nikko Europe Plc, who presumably knows a thing or two about the attitude of Japanese investors—and, indeed, American investors—many of whom are her clients. I should emphasise, of course, that she was speaking personally, but even so I would urge the Government to read her whole speech, and perhaps even to talk to her and other like-minded experts, both from the United States and Japan, before they commit this country to the folly of the social chapter.
Miss Fukuda was talking about the effect of social Europe on inward investment in this country, and the Government's intention so speedily to sign the social chapter. I quote extracts from her important speech as follows:
"This is alarming because it seems to me that a whole set of new circumstances will be brought into Britain without any further reflection or debate, which will have far-reaching consequences on the relative cost/price relationship in the British economy and on the general conditions Britain will offer in future to foreign investors".
I should point out to your Lordships that I am quoting extracts from the speech. Miss Fukuda continued to say:
"I am afraid that the deeper one looks into it, the more alarmed one becomes about Social Europe … It was the ground-breaking trade union reforms of the Thatcher government that finally cured Britain of what the Japanese called Eikoku-byo (the British disease). Without them Britain would never have attracted the level of inward investment that it has. The 'opt out' [from the social chapter] was not just a sentimental legacy of the Thatcher era; it was a part of the profound realisation that deregulation of the labour market, along

449
with privatisation, provided the key to restoring competitiveness to the British economy, creating employment, investment and savings, an environment apparently inviting to foreign investors.
"Signing up to the Social Chapter will wipe out at a stroke all this achievement of the last two decades, during which Britain managed to re-enter world competition for industrial growth, only to contract the virus of the European disease. There are currently some 19 million registered unemployed people in the EU. The unemployment rate in Germany and France is twice that in the UK and is still growing today. Few people doubt that Social Europe legislation is at least partly to blame…
"The important thing to recognise is that the Social Chapter (and the Social Charter) is not a given set of existing or intended legislation from which businesses can assess the potential burden of costs. It is a bulging pipeline of unspecified employment legislation".
Miss Fukuda goes on to remind us that businessmen need to know the risks they are to run. They do not like surprise. In that she foretold the comments this afternoon of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, who extolled the benefits of stability. She continued:
"One reason why so much less inward investment has come to continental European countries than to Britain in recent years may well be this overwhelming uncertainty over cost factors which are outside the control of foreign management … So we cannot know what the potential cost burden of a utopian Social Europe will be to businesses in Britain in the future".
She then compares social Europe to the common agricultural policy, and states:
"The philosophy of Social Europe appears to be one which finds its ideal where all European industry is equally uncompetitive".
Miss Fukuda concludes:
"Consequently, as we approach the twenty-first century, the complex centralised bureaucracy of the European Union protecting its regional solidarity against the rest of the world is becoming obsolete. It is precisely the inefficient form of Socialistic business organisation from which Britain has so recently and successfully struggled to escape.
"Signing up to the Social Chapter is a reversal of the hard-won radical change in the business culture of the UK of the last 18 years which has been so clearly recognised and admired by the international business community".
Those are not my words. They are the words of the European deputy chairman of one of the largest Japanese investment houses.
As for me, I would have only one humble question for the Government. How do they pretend that they can sign the social chapter and then avoid any legislation which they may feel is damaging to our economy but which can be forced upon us by the qualified majority vote under the chapter? I hope that the answer will not be that no such legislation will be forthcoming because I fear it surely will.
I should have liked to have had more time to welcome the new Government's possible reticence about European monetary union (EMU), but no doubt another occasion to debate that issue will present itself. In the meantime, I urge the Government not only not to take this country into EMU but to do everything they can to persuade the rest of Europe not to go ahead with such folly. The impossibility of getting the diverse economies of Europe genuinely to converge for any length of time, the prospect of Europe-wide exchange and interest rates, and the acknowledged immobility of labour in Europe
450
have the makings of a very dangerous cocktail given the colossal transfers of resources which will therefore be inevitable.
Furthermore, the transition costs to the new currency are so astronomic as to be literally unquantifiable, rendering the oft-quoted savings on transaction costs insignificant. Very few politicians appear yet to have taken a serious look at these transition costs—the cost of introducing the euro. I hear that a leading French bank has just estimated that switching to the euro will require it to make some 52,000 software changes, each requiring at least three man days. Our big five banks have estimated that just to switch their customer accounts into the euro will cost them at least £200 million each, and they are not quite sure who will pay for it. Software programmers are already in short supply and will have a whale of a time. I gather that IBM has recommended that EMU should be postponed for that reason alone.
In addition to all this, the legal and market difficulties which the euro would face in the world's currency markets during the two-year phase B of the EMU project—when the euro and the national currencies are supposed to run in parallel—appear to many of us to be completely insurmountable. Of course it will be uncomfortable if the project is called off before it starts, but it will be much less comfortable if it goes ahead and crashes, as I fear it certainly must.
I conclude by urging the Government to use their new-found influence in Brussels to persuade Chancellor Kohl and his friends to reconsider this ill-fated venture and to settle for the Europe of nation states which both the leading parties in this country appear to favour.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, in your Lordships' House I have usually spoken on health, international development or human rights rather than economics. Certainly ornithology in the shape of emus or cuckoos is well outside my range of competence. However, the economy is very relevant to all three of my usual topics. I intend to look at them this afternoon through economic spectacles so far as I am competent to do so. I shall concentrate on health—that may be of some comfort to my noble friend who will reply to the debate—because it will be familiar territory to both of us.
Perhaps I may briefly ask a few questions on international development and the arms trade. I feel great satisfaction that we now have a Secretary of State for International Development in the Cabinet. It signals the importance that our new Government give to the elimination of poverty in the world. I am sure that Clare Short will make a great success of the new department. Can my noble friend say what role the new department will play in the international financial institutions? Just as the Bank of England, as we have heard over and again today, plays a central role in our own economy, the World Bank and the IMF are crucial players in the international economy. Will the new Minister represent the United Kingdom on the governing bodies of those two institutions; and will their deliberations be more

451
open and accountable to Parliament? Despite frequent statements that the central role of the World Bank is to combat poverty, that has not always been evident. With structural adjustment, the International Monetary Fund has often increased poverty in the pursuit of fiscal rectitude. It will be of major benefit to the world's poor if a reforming Government can have an increased role in the decision making of those two important international financial institutions.
The regulation of the international arms trade has rightly been put forward by the Foreign Secretary as a priority aim. But, as he pointed out, this is a difficult area, since arms form a substantial part of the exports of many industrial nations. Can my noble friend assure us that the United Kingdom will play a leading role in achieving the international regulatory framework that is needed through the United Nations but perhaps starting in Europe? No nation can usefully "go it alone" in this area without detriment, however much it may morally disapprove of the arms trade. Can the noble Baroness say whether the Defence Diversification Agency for the United Kingdom which was proposed as part of Labour Party policy is going ahead? It was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech.
I turn now to the main part of my remarks: the relationship of health to the economy, or vice versa. In Britain we do not experience the gross poverty that afflicts a large proportion of the population of the nations of the South. But, as my noble friend knows only too well, we have seen, increasingly, relative poverty in the United Kingdom in the past two decades. It is a wonderful relief to me that I do not have to spell out to a government Minister the important effects that this has had on health; on the increasing disparities in health between the best and least well off. It is very welcome news indeed that a new task force, or working group, is to be set up to look into inequalities in health and their relation to poverty and the best way to tackle it. It should not take as long to report as the three years needed by Professor Douglas Black's working group to produce its report, because much of the research has been done—itself often stimulated by the Black Report. The appointment of Tessa Jowell, who is fully aware of this central problem, as Minister for Public Health, is a guarantee that it will be tackled effectively. But her success will be governed by how far other government departments play their part in creating a healthier nation. I look forward to the formation of a much strengthened, interdepartmental Cabinet level committee to oversee this.
The disparity in income is reflected not only in terms of poorer health but also in increased crime, much of it drug or alcohol related. That affects all of us, not merely because of the extra costs imposed on the National Health Service. Incidentally, those costs would be much greater if true equity according to need prevailed. There is increasing evidence that, although disadvantaged groups see their general practitioners more often and may spend more time in hospital, the increased care they receive is not in proportion to their increased need.
Dr. Richard Wilkinson, whose work I have mentioned on previous occasions in this House, has shown in many studies, now amplified in his book, Unhealthy Societies: The Afflictions of Inequality, that it is the distribution of
452
income within developed countries rather than their GDP per capita that is most strongly related to better health and longer expectation of life. The wealthiest countries in the world are not necessarily the healthiest.
The United Kingdom has been moving in the wrong direction, to a more unequal income distribution. Dr. Wilkinson's work is confirmed by an American study which compared the different states of the Union. Those with the most equitable income distribution had the best health. Interestingly, the homicide rate followed exactly the same pattern. Extremes of wealth lead not only to worse health but also to increased crime. It is not only the poor who suffer; we all do, as was pointed out by Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, only a few days ago, when he described the links between drug abuse and crime and the huge costs to society.
If income distribution is fairer, then society becomes more cohesive. That is the society for which we should be aiming. A number of policies announced by the Government will help us, I am glad to say, to move in that direction—for example, helping marginalised young people back into employment, or into employment for the first time; and the setting of a minimum wage. I agree with my noble friend Lord Bruce that releasing capital funds for housing construction will be enormously helpful in reducing unemployment among the less skilled workers which has dominated the scene.
However, the Government have ruled out the most obvious redistributive instrument; namely. progressive direct income tax. That will slow down redistribution. There are of course other means available which will have the effect of taking more money from the better off and diminishing income disparities. I know that my noble friend the Minister knows about those so I do not need to spell them out. But there are possible additional "bad habit" taxes—taxes on undesirable activities which have adverse effects on health or the environment. These could be used for continued support of the welfare to work programmes that will initially be funded by the wonderful windfall tax. I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, and some of his impatience, while waiting for details as to how the tax will be collected—although I hope that I shall not personally be much affected, unless the cost of telephones and fuel rises excessively.
While on the topic of taxation on bad habits, I congratulate the Government on having the courage not only to ban direct tobacco advertising but also to tackle the thornier question of sports sponsorship. There is a worry about where the substitute money is to be found. Perhaps I may remind my noble friend and her department of the very successful scheme in Victoria State in Australia, the Health Promotion Foundation levy. I described the scheme to your Lordships nearly eight years ago. Under that scheme, 10 Australian cents is added to the cost of a packet of cigarettes and goes to the foundation, whose object is to promote sports and other beneficial projects. It has been so successful that all the previously tobacco-sponsored sports have been funded and a surplus has been available for the arts and other cultural activities. In the United Kingdom, one

453
penny on a packet of cigarettes would raise £40 million, which would practically deal with our sports sponsorship problem at a stroke.
I am aware, however, that earmarked taxes are unpopular with the Treasury. I am afraid though that, if such an additional levy were to enter the consolidated fund, there are so many urgent uses for it that it might be swallowed up. An additional levy on tobacco products would be effective in its own right—especially if it were more than 1p—in reducing smoking and would be one of the several additional measures needed to back up the advertising ban.
Recent research has shown, however, that the poorest people, who also smoke the most, are the ones who are least able to give up. Since increased tax will thus leave them with less money and possibly lead to a worse diet and increased debt, special efforts should be made to help this group stop smoking. A good step might be to include nicotine chewing gum, one of the most effective ways of helping people to give up, on the "white list" of National Health Service prescribable items. It is presently not prescribable. Those on low incomes would then receive it free.
There are several other bad habits or unwanted environmental habits on which we could home in; for example, large cars. We could devise systems of road pricing or congestion taxes at certain times on certain roads. If the elderly could be fully protected—and it is a big "if"—there is a strong case for a carbon tax to encourage energy saving. I suggest that some way down the road there is the possibility of partial legalization and taxation of addictive drugs. That would be a very big earner if properly handled. We need a serious debate on drugs, as suggested by the Liberal Democrat Party. Many members of the Labour Party and the Standing Committee on Drug Abuse would also greatly welcome that. After all, other departments have been told to "think the unthinkable."
To end on a more strictly economic note, it is a fairly central tenet of the Labour Party and the Social Justice Commission that education counters unemployment. We are committed eventually to a high skill, high wage economy. That means, in the manufacturing sector at least, that we shall be producing more high value goods with a smaller workforce. As productivity increases, redundancies tend to follow; even redundancies among highly skilled people, although the less skilled are usually the first to go.
It must be the Government's aim to create an economy that will absorb those excess workers. There is an enormous need, as many noble Lords remarked, to improve our infrastructure and public services, including the National Health Service and education service. But arranging a proper economic structure to do that will require some very able lateral thinking and wide consultations with very wise people. The teaching of J. M. Keynes, as my noble friend Lord Bruce said, should not be forgotten.
454
We have a very able crew on the bridge. However, there are plenty of icebergs ahead. Let us make sure that the depth-sounding and radar equipment is in excellent order so that we can make the passage through after such a promising start to the voyage.
Lord Acton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, did I hear him aright? Did he say that he wanted to drive out nicotine but allow in other drugs?
Lord Rea: My Lords, I said that it is time now to have a widespread debate, possibly a Royal Commission, on the whole question of the law in relation to drugs and that it should be possible to regulate the supply of drugs and tax them rather than allowing them to be available only through the black market, with the attendant high cost to society that the present situation encourages.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, on his new post and wish him well for the future. I welcome many—though not all—aspects of his speech. I noted with great interest that the Government are ready to listen to industry and work together with it and that technology will be the centre of this Government's actions, particularly high tech, start-up companies. I was delighted that the Minister acknowledged the notable achievements of British companies in export markets and the importance of inward investment to our economy. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and look forward to her speech.
I should like to address one aspect of the gracious Speech—the proposed legislation to ban tobacco advertising, which the previous speaker touched on. I speak as a lifelong non-smoker. On Monday the Secretary of State for Health widened the ban to include the sponsorship of sports events, which was not in the manifesto or the gracious Speech. That is likely to have a dramatic effect on one sport in particular, British motorsport. I declare an interest as honorary president of the Motorsport Industry Association. I should like to draw attention to the success of the industry. I can safely say that Britain is looked upon as world leader. Estimates put the annual value of the industry at £1.3 billion, with over 40 per cent. of that accounted for by exports and inward investment. Approximately 50,000 people are directly employed and 100,000 indirectly.
While it is the success of Formula 1 teams such as Williams, Jordan, Stewart and McLaren that tends to feature in the media headlines, the real strength of the industry is the high number of small to medium-sized businesses that provide a range of motor sport-related products and services. These range from race car manufacturers such as Reynard and van Diemen, which have become world leaders in export sales of their cars, to specialist businesses such as racing driver schools and race circuit owners.
Worldwide demand for motor sport hardware and its leading edge technology is growing and UK firms are well placed to exploit that expansion. Technical

455
expertise available in Britain, like the design and production of high performance transmission systems and electronic data logging, is being sold across the world. Major Japanese manufacturers such as Nissan, Toyota, Mitsubishi and Subaru base their motor sport divisions here and make great use of British technology. While the majority of the Formula 1 teams are based here, British manufacturers have for many years dominated the American scene, with the World Indycar Championship a prime example.
Commercial sponsorship is, without doubt, the lifeblood of the motor sport industry. In Formula 1 there has been a high level of tobacco sponsorship for many years and there will not be immediate adequate substitutes. The collapse of Lola, one of the UK's most internationally famous motor racing manufacturers, which went into receivership yesterday, should provide a salutary lesson. Despite being the sole provider for the Indy lights series and Formula 3000, it was unable to attract adequate sponsorship for its Formula 1 team.
If rapidly introduced legislation prevents teams from benefiting from tobacco sponsorship the ripple effect throughout the industry will be extremely damaging in terms of jobs and company stability. Sponsorship money flows to the top teams and permeates through to other sectors of the industry, from component manufacturers to engine tuners, from gearbox specialists to wheel manufacturers. If the flow of sponsorship is drastically reduced, this will have a far-reaching effect on what is now a highly successful British industry.
I have been encouraged by some of the responsible comments senior Ministers have made in the last few days. I was heartened that the Secretary of State for Health said that he did not wish to harm any sport and that he would give sports time and help them to replace their dependency on tobacco sponsorship. He said:
"We intend to look at all the issues carefully".
I was also heartened by the comment of the Minister with responsibility for sport in the other place on Monday when he said that he did not want to see British motor sport suffer as this country benefits enormously from its technology, skills and other spin-offs. Tessa Jowell, Minister for Public Health, said that the Government would need to look carefully at how to remove tobacco advertising from sporting events without creating any risk to those events in the United Kingdom.
However, although no motor sport events are directly sponsored by tobacco manufacturers in Britain, many foreign events in the World Rally Championship and Formula 1 are held in countries which take a less restrictive view of tobacco sponsorship. This enables Formula 1 to attract an estimated £100 million a year from the industry, the lion's share of which is invested in this country. ITV coverage, and BBC and Sky highlights, of the series would be threatened as races in countries where a ban is not in place clearly show trackside hoardings and sponsors' logos on cars. Can the noble Baroness say whether the ban will include the broadcasting by television here of motor sport events in countries where sponsors' names are still allowed to be displayed? Britain is committed, as a member of those
456
two championships, to showing the events on British television. If they were not allowed to be shown, we would be forced out of the British round of the championships. Other countries where there is no tobacco ban, which are eager to take our place, would ensure that that happened.
The RAC Rally and the British Grand Prix which both generate millions of pounds for this country and enormous worldwide prestige for the RAC—the world's largest motor sport governing body—would move abroad. If the ban will include foreign events and television contracts are unable to be honoured, can the noble Baroness tell me what timespan the Government have in mind?
I understand that the Government are organising a seminar of British and international experts to formulate a policy for a White Paper later this summer. I hope that the motor sport industry will be allowed to have some input. If legislation must be introduced, let it be done gradually, allowing teams to develop new commercial partners so as not to jeopardise many British jobs. I should be grateful for some assurance on the point.
8 p.m.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, let me first add my congratulations to those of many other noble Lords to the new Government Front Bench and to the two maiden speakers earlier today. I should also like to congratulate the Government on the robust actions that they have taken in their first few days in office.
The first brave action I applaud is the delegation to the Bank of England of operational responsibility for setting interest rates. As the son of a central banker, no doubt your Lordships would expect me to approve of such a step. My experience, naturally, of central bankers is that they are honourable men. I have no doubt that the present Governor and his new committee will serve the country well, but I hope that the Government will take note of the warnings of the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, that the government appointees to the new committee should not be just creatures of the Treasury.
Perhaps I might be allowed to quote two short sentences from a speech made by my father to the Overseas Bankers Club in 1958. My father was deputy governor at the time of the nationalisation of the Bank in 1946 and was subsequently appointed Governor by the Labour Government of that time. He said:
"The Bank of England must be a bank and not a study group. The prime requirement must be operational competence";
and,
"The only thing which matters is that the Bank should be in the best position possible to perform its duties as a servant of the public and as banker and adviser to the Government of the day".
I believe that both those comments are apt in the present circumstances.
The move to partial independence is long overdue. It was recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, when he was Chancellor, and by his successor Norman Lamont. In the run up to the election, we have seen a clear case of political imperative clashing with the recommendations of the Bank. We shall not know for

457
several months to come whether the political decision not to raise interest rates before the election has done any lasting damage to the economy.
I also welcome the second part of the Chancellor's Statement yesterday; namely, the restructuring of the regulatory system. There will be plenty of time to debate the new proposals in detail, but at this stage it is important to stress that the expanded SIB must not be allowed to become a monolithic, bureaucratic burden on the financial services industry. It must allow for innovation and be quick to respond. The tradition of innovation and quick response has made the City of London the financial capital of the world. The new SIB must not just become an expensive, stifling bureaucracy, loved only by lawyers.
I also welcome in the gracious Speech the commitment to:
"play a full part in the debate about Economic and Monetary Union".
Despite the disarray on this subject in the previous administration, this country has been participating actively at the technical level in the discussions on how monetary union will work in practice. Such issues as the continuity of contracts, redenomination of debt and interlinking of real time wholesale payment systems have been actively debated within the City of London Joint Working Group, under the watchful eye of the Bank of England. Detailed representations have been made to both the European Monetary Institute and the Commission and the majority have been adopted.
It is simply not true, as some of our press insists, that monetary union will be a German closed shop. This country is immensely strong in financial services. Our influence, our experience, our legal system, our language and the size, depth and variety of our financial markets have and will continue to have a crucial impact on the development and subsequent operation of the single currency, whether or not we join it. The key decisions on monetary union are due to be taken next spring, during the life of this Parliament and during the six months' presidency of the United Kingdom. It will thus be a testing time for the new Government.
So far, the level of public debate on that vitally important issue has been pathetic. I hope that the Government will raise the level of debate and set out clearly the pros and cons of British membership, instead of indulging in the yah-boo slanging match of the recent campaign. The big decision that faces this country is whether we are more likely to be able to maintain, let alone increase, our standard of living and quality of life in the next century by going it alone or by working together with our European partners. Can we best compete with the emerging economies of Asia by ourselves, a small nation of 60 million people, or as part of a single European market of perhaps 500 million people? If it is the latter, we must work hard at building the European single market and making it more and more efficient. We are winning, not losing, the arguments in Europe these days.
Despite the feelings of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, a single currency is potentially a big step towards greater efficiency. A single
458
currency in a single market of 500 million people could produce huge economies of scale. It would create the largest and most liquid capital market in the world. Such a huge pool of savings should lower the overall cost of capital for European business, encouraging investment and jobs. Government and industry would no longer have to pay a risk premium to borrow in sterling. One balance of payments for Europe would reduce the exposure of the whole economy to external trade to around 15 per cent., compared with 12 per cent. in the United States and about 40 per cent. currently for Britain. That means less volatility and less buffeting in the international storms—the stability desired by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, in his speech earlier today.
Those are just some of the economic opportunities presented by monetary union. I hope that the Government will make sure that they are expanded and explained to the British people well in advance of any referendum. Happily, the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Highbury—again I congratulate the Government on his appointment—has personal experience of the value of joint management of money flows within a pan-European business, and, indeed, of the entrenched resistance to such moves encountered in most countries. His experience will be of great value to the Government on this subject. I wish him well in his move from BP to UK plc.
Finally, I make one suggestion. The Government have announced plans to look at the distribution of lottery money and have pinpointed health and education as potential new recipients. I suggest that another worthy use of lottery funds would be to establish what I might call an Enterprise Lottery Fund that would support business start-ups. We have a well established venture capital industry in this country but that cuts in only when a new business has proved itself. The first £25,000 to £50,000 to succour the fledgling entrepreneur is where there is a huge gap. I believe that that would be a good use of lottery funds and would be a real stimulus to enterprise and job creation. I hope. therefore, that something along those lines might fit into the plans of this new Government of reform.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, like other noble Lords I welcome my noble friends who have become Ministers. I congratulate them on the speed with which they have mastered their briefs and their competence in presenting their case at the Dispatch Box. I also congratulate the Prime Minister on his stunning victory on 1st May. The incompetence, betrayal, vacillation, lack of democracy and profligacy of the previous Government were all swept away at the election by the steely determination of the voters to bring about a change. And what a change it is!
However, a government with such a huge majority have the duty to use power responsibly, especially when they have pledged to unite the nation and heal the divisions of the past 18 years. I trust, therefore, that the new Government will not only act in the interests of the majority but will also protect and uphold the rights of minorities. Above all, I trust that they will strengthen

459
Parliament and recognise the rights and privileges of Members of Parliament and indeed Members of this House.
It must be recognised by all of us that, while Members of Parliament owe a loyalty to their party, they owe also a loyalty to their constituents and have a duty to represent their interests and protect their rights through Parliament. Members of Parliament also have a duty to their country and should understand that they are there to represent the interests of the British people and to ensure that the British interest is paramount. They are there to resist all measures to undermine the sovereignty of Parliament itself.
This House too has its responsibilities, and we should discharge those responsibilities without fear. It is the only second Chamber that Britain has and it must do its duty within the existing constitutional framework. Gutlessness will not enhance our reputation; it will merely earn contempt and hasten rather than retard abolition. An early test of our resolve will come about when the Firearms (Amendment) Bill arrives here. I know what I shall do. I did what I had to do in the last Parliament, and I know what I shall do in relation to the Bill in this Parliament. It will be interesting to see how many others join me in opposing the Bill. There will be a free vote on this side of the Chamber.
One of the reasons for the utter rout of the Tory party was its querulous, wimpish policy on Europe. Mr. Major put himself at the heart of Europe. Had he put himself at the heart of Britain he might have saved himself and his party from humiliating defeat. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister made sure that he did not make the same mistake. The whole country noted his declaration that he was a British patriot.
It is about time people were proud of being British. I am therefore glad that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made it clear where he stood at the general election. Indeed, I was pleased to note that at all the press conferences and party meetings the backcloth was the Union Jack. Even in the hour of victory when the Prime Minister arrived at 10 Downing Street to take his proper place, Labour Party officials were handing out Union Jacks to wave. We know now therefore where the new Prime Minister stands; that is, at the heart of Britain. At last we have a British patriot at 10 Downing Street. For so long as he remains a British patriot, resists any further erosion of parliamentary sovereignty and makes British interests paramount, he will receive my support.
As an earnest of my right honourable friend's intentions he could announce now that Britain will not join a single European currency in the lifetime of this Parliament. There are many claims made for a single European currency. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold: we have heard it all before. We heard it about the "snake"; we heard it about the ERM. What a disaster that was and how Mr. Major must wish that he had not taken us in. So we have heard it all before.
I am sure that this Prime Minister is sensible enough to realise the dangers ahead from a single currency. If he ruled it out during the lifetime of this Parliament, that would not only establish that his patriotism was more
460
than empty election rhetoric; it might also stop this crazy venture in its tracks and save Europe from future disintegration and humiliation. Furthermore, it would enable economic planning and decision-making to proceed in a more stable climate and foreign investors would know exactly where they stood.
The most far-reaching measure of the past 18 days has been to hand over monetary policy to the Bank of England. That was not in the manifesto. I regret that because such a profound change of policy—it is a profound change of policy—should have been foreshadowed during the election in order that it could be debated. In my view, to hand over such an economic power to the Bank of England virtually without consultation is a huge mistake. In fact, within a couple of days of his new freedom Mr. George was advocating higher interest rates, thus talking up the pound. That is the reverse of what the real economy needs at this time.
The City and big business, which welcomed the move, were soon whining that the higher pound was hurting exports. As most noble Lords are aware, real interest rates are extremely high at 3.75 per cent. and unsustainable if our economy is to continue to grow at a reasonable pace. There is no need for higher interest rates at this stage, bearing in mind that the British people are saving as they have never saved before. I hope that that will be taken into account. Fears have been expressed that the transfer of monetary policy to the Bank of England is in preparation for joining the single currency. That need not be so and I sincerely trust that it is not so.
In his address to the CBI last night the Chancellor repeated that this Government are committed to business and industry. There is nothing wrong in that—I applaud it—provided he remembers that business and industrial success depends on people working in those areas just as much as on those who are the leaders. Furthermore, I remind the Government that, with their huge majority, they do not need to join the social chapter to bring about the desirable reforms for workers' rights that are needed. They can do that without joining the social chapter and without the constraints that exist in other countries.
I hope it will also be remembered that monopolistic big business and City short-termism are bad for long-term economic success. Small and medium-sized businesses are vital to our economy and are entitled to proper assistance, consultation and consideration. The CBI speaks for the monopolists and corporatists. I sincerely trust that the Government will not allow the voice of the small and medium-sized businesses to be drowned out by the juggernaut of big business and corporatism represented by the CBI. Let the Government ensure that one nationism extends to business as well.
Having said all that, I wish the Government well; I hope sincerely that they do well. I shall be watching them, as will other noble Lords. As long as they do what is right for this country, I shall support them.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, in the privacy of your Lordships' Chamber—and at about 8.15 in the evening

461
there are few more private places in London—I should like to make a small confession that I regarded it as fortunate to be one of all of us in this Chamber without a vote in the election. It is not that I felt that the Conservative Government would not have continued to perform extremely well. I have the highest possible admiration for John Major and a number of his colleagues. But perhaps it is as a result of being too long a mere observer and commentator on politics—some 16 years—rather than an active participant that I have taken this slightly detached view.
There is no doubt in my mind that the new Labour Party—let it never lose the word "new"—deserved to win and that is why it won. Why Labour won by so much may be partly due to foolish behaviour inside the Conservative Party. But overall Labour had become safe to elect and so New Labour was elected. The tribute for that must go to my noble friend Lady Thatcher, because had she not confronted socialism in all its forms and removed it from the political map virtually of the whole world, we would not have had the long manifesto, for which one paid £1.99—it was extremely good value—without the word "socialism" anywhere in it. That I regard as a huge achievement. Incidentally, I think it is a pity that W. H. Smith, which used to sell them, withdrew them immediately after the election. That showed a certain lack of commercial nous because I believe that it would have been a best seller for many months to come.
It is quite exciting for someone like me—this probably applies to everyone in your Lordships' House—that for the first time in my life capitalism has not been up for grabs in this country. That is a huge change and it is one which I think we should celebrate. I believe, therefore, that the Conservatives have nothing to reproach themselves for. There is no need for them to go back to the drawing board and rethink all the policies. The present Government have taken on virtually all the policies. I cannot expect the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Donington and Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and my noble friend Lord Pearson to agree with me when I say that there cannot have been a more sensible statement from Mr. Major than that he wished to be at the heart of Europe and it was right for him to have kept open the options in order that decisions were made in the interests of this country.
I greatly admire the new Prime Minister for the way in which he is handling his party. He clearly has a majority somewhat larger than may be healthy for him. But to relegate Mr. Tony Banks to the football field and to exile Mr. Peter Hain to a remote valley in south Wales was brilliant man management.
I feel that we probably need in this country to end to some extent politicking. That means that the Tories must take New Labour at face value. We must not have premature or carping criticism of the Government. Equally, the new Labour Government must stop saying that they had a bad inheritance. For some time politicians have never been less powerful in the face of international markets. Mrs. Thatcher once said, "You can't buck the market". Now the action of any government almost anywhere in the world has its
462
financial consequences certainly within weeks, sometimes within days and occasionally even within hours. That means that all governments in the capitalist world today—the greater part of the world—have to play by the same rules of the same economic game.
Perhaps I may emphasise some of the crucial points of the economic inheritance. I cannot agree statistically with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. There were a number of occasions on which inflation was high in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Inflation was 12 per cent. at the time of the Korean war. I have the figures. Perhaps we can discuss them later. It was essential to make inflation our first objective. Previously dealing with unemployment had been the first objective. We had whole flocks of lame ducks and many people without real jobs. Making inflation the first objective—it has very successfully been made so—enabled us to deal to a large extent with structural unemployment.
There are all kinds of definitions of unemployment but I strongly recommend to your Lordships the excellent monthly publication produced by the House of Commons Library which sets out unemployment measured by constituency. The number of claimants is expressed as a percentage of the economically active population resident in the constituency. In saying that, I hope that if the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, were here, he would not be ringing his bell. The figures expressed as a percentage are available at the moment only for England and Wales. The base figures for Scotland under the new boundaries have not yet been produced. For England and Wales, out of 569 constituencies, 93 have unemployment of below 3 per cent., the Beveridge full employment measure. Two hundred and fifty-one constituencies have unemployment of under 5 per cent. and only 66 have unemployment over 10 per cent. There are, of course, islands of deprivation and degradation in this sea of prosperity. I recognise fully that that is where the targeting must take place.
I greatly welcome the fact that Mr. Frank Field has such a crucial role in helping to re-shape social services. He will continue on very much the same radical lines as Mr. Peter Lilley started. One word expresses how to get right our social services and welfare system. The word is "targeting". I am sorry that no right reverend Prelate is present, but in so far as there is an ethical dimension to this matter, I believe that it is immoral to hand out welfare benefits to those who do not need them at the cost of having insufficient for those who do need them.
Perhaps I may move on to one of the hardest problems with which politicians have to deal. I refer to the restructuring of an economy. It is hard because it has a long-term return and a short-term cost. On the whole, politicians do not like taking hard short-term decisions which will be unpopular. In the case of Britain, we have carried out the most remarkable degree of restructuring of our industry. Few people at work in this country today do not have real productive jobs. I admit that we had a big bonus to enable us to carry out the restructuring. We had North Sea oil, which came at exactly the right time. North Sea oil revenues hardly exist now. North Sea oil revenues in 1995 were in real terms only 6 per cent. of the level in 1985, but North

463
Sea oil revenues did their job. They enabled us to make tolerable temporarily a high rate of structural unemployment while we made our economy a home for much good foreign investment.
I am sorry to keep getting at the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, but he was talking all the time as though what mattered was British investment. That simply is not the case. I do not think it matters at all where investment comes from provided it comes. Our motor car industry was virtually eliminated. We now have a wonderful motor car industry, but it is basically not British owned.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way to me. Will he please bear in mind the complete truth: British capital was exported abroad at roughly twice the rate it was invested at home?
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I have no problem with that. It gets itself good returns and it goes where it thinks it can do best. The important point is that our country is now seen as a place in which it is desirable to invest. More than 40 per cent. of all investment in the EU from both Japan and the United States has been in Britain. That is a tremendous achievement.
We have made this great progress with restructuring which other countries are only just beginning to face up to. Germany, having had to make that one-for-one deutschmark decision to prevent a huge uncontrolled exodus from East to West, is now faced with very real problems in its uneconomic industries in the East.
France is a very special problem. The French have never been able to face up to restructuring. The difference between France and Britain is interesting. In Britain, if the Government decide to do something which is unpopular with the people adversely affected and those people protest, that is acceptable. However, if the protests become violent on the streets, public opinion swings behind the Government. We have seen it again and again at Grunwick, Wapping and with the miners. In France, on the other hand, the more violent the opposition becomes, the more public opinion swings behind the protesters. Again and again, French Governments have had to give in to protests. I have often wondered why, but I believe that the crucial difference—this might be a little more melodious to the ears of the noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Stoddart—is the very special position enjoyed in Britain by Parliament. For all their sniping and sneering at politicians through the media, the British people fundamentally believe that when there is a real problem, Parliament is there to protect them. I do not believe that the French people feel that. They often appear to believe that they must support the protesters because they might well be the next ones to have to take to the streets.
I believe that that is one of the reasons why France is encountering such considerable difficulties and why President Chirac has had to call an election prematurely. I believe that one of France's few opportunities to restructure will come if M. Chirac—this is assuming that M. Chirac wins the election—were to appoint as Prime Minister M. Alain Madelin, who was briefly
464
Chirac's finance minister when he first became president but who left because he found that he did not get the support that was needed to make the necessary changes.
I should like to refer briefly to the windfall tax. I am not against it in principle. The companies that will be affected were certainly sold too cheaply, but I do not blame the Government for that because the important thing was to sell them. Once those companies had been sold, we could then think again. The Government will have considerable difficulties with the legislation because the spectre of hybridity will hang over it. If the windfall tax Bill were once declared hybrid, it would be for the birds. It would not be a matter of receiving two years of revenue; rather it would be two years before the legislation would be enacted. The Government may talk about reforming the House of Lords, but I advise them that getting a hybrid Bill on a windfall tax through Parliament will be far more difficult. Indeed, I cannot see quite how they can avoid hybridity. If I have the definition correctly, "hybridity" is where a Bill discriminates on a material matter between bodies which are in other relevant respects similar.
Why do I support a windfall tax? I believe firmly that once companies have been privatised, it is crucial that they are properly regulated. It is far easier for a government to regulate industries which they do not also own. The regulation has not been tough enough and the behaviour of the utilities has sometimes been very bad. There have been excessive share options. I know of particular cases where the standard of corporate governance has been deplorable. British Gas, for example, has behaved in the sort of arrogant way which, in the days of Rackman, gave private landlords a had reputation.
I believe that to some extent the windfall tax is acceptable to the people of this country because it is seen as a justifiable penalty for misbehaviour. However, the consumers should not have to pay for that windfall tax. There should be no question of that. The regulators must ensure that the consumers do not pay. The people who should pay are the shareholders. I hope that in the future shareholders—I am talking primarily about institutional shareholders—will be much tougher with companies which risk doing things against their own advantage. That is an important lesson to learn.
There are other ways in which tax revenue could be increased. I am obviously talking against my own book, but the council tax, which was introduced by Mr. Michael Heseltine to replace the extremely unpopular poll tax, has been a considerable success. However, I do not think that it is equitable that the top band, band H, should cover all properties worth more than £320,000. I suggest that we need three further bands: one covering properties up to £500,000; one covering properties up to £750,000, with a further top band for houses that are worth more than £1 million. I suggest that there should he a 20 per cent difference between each hand in the

465
amount of tax to be paid. That might raise quite a sum. I have overshot my allotted time. I am most apologetic and I thank your Lordships for listening.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, it is without the least hesitation that I join the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and others on both sides of the House in warmly congratulating New Labour on forming its first government. Of course, I have a number of reservations although perhaps fewer than some of the old loyalists on the Benches behind the Ministers.
My favourite comment on the election result comes from a correspondent to The Times who wrote succinctly:
"In the past I have always voted Labour, but they did not seem to be running this time".
So far, so good.
If I may speak plainly, my own modified rapture at Mr. Blair's remarkable success dates from the leadership campaign in 1994 when he courageously committed himself to what he called "a dynamic market economy". I hope that I may be forgiven for claiming to have been a little ahead of Mr. Blair in that respect. Indeed, back in 1957, about half a dozen members of what was thought of as the awkward squad joined me in founding the Institute of Economic Affairs. Our modest purpose was to question the post-war all-party collectivist consensus—which used to ride by the name of "Butskellism". But our ultimate goal was to try to restore an earlier 19th century consensus when both of the great parties of state broadly accepted a market economy as the indispensable bedrock of a free society. So for me this Government appear to mark a decisive stride in the right direction.
By far the most welcome feature of the Queen's Speech is all the mangy dogs that did not bark. I hesitate to speak with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, watching me. I looked for some ringing declaration on renationalising the commanding heights of the economy, or on restoring the ancient rights and privileges of the trade unions, or on throwing more billions at the failing welfare state or on pursuing full employment without concern for inflation, or on squeezing the rich until the pips squeak. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, dared to say: we are all tending to be somewhat Thatcherite now.
Against Labour's understandable euphoria, I have a sobering reflection on that party's great victory which is prompted by, of all things, the threatened ban on the advertising of tobacco. The journalists who helped Labour considerably on its way to victory during the election campaign have begun to whisper about signs of the Prime Minister's moral authoritarianism. Now we have this trifling persecution of smoking, paraded in the gracious Speech amidst grandiloquent talk of global poverty, world peace, human rights and the proliferation of weapons of war. A ban on tobacco advertising! What priority do we think that such a piffling piece of nonsense would really rate?
466
In my view, the war on smoking is revealing. It is unquestionably fuelled by the calculation that we smokers are a declining minority whose opinions or preferences merit scant respect. I have news for Mr. Blair. His record share of the poll on 1st May was 44 per cent. of those who voted. The turnout was unusually low at 71 per cent. of the total electorate. That gave New Labour the support of a mere 31.6 per cent. of the entire adult population. This compares with almost 33 per cent. of voters who still choose to smoke. As a general proposition I argue that a little modesty from New Labour on all fronts is very much in order.
As an economist I and others strongly welcome the bold decision to give the Bank of England control over interest rates. Its success would be more certain if the monetary committee about which we have heard was not over stuffed with Labour placemen but left room for one or possibly two of the awkward squad with special experience of these matters, such as Tim Congdon, Patrick Minford or even the dreaded Sir Alan Walters. These are shrewd and successful operators in the foreign exchange and monetary world. One good reason for welcoming this move is the effort to strengthen the defences against inflation. I was enthralled to hear the Chancellor describe his motive as being to insulate decisions on interest rates from short-term party political pressures, which after all have cumulatively reduced the value of the 1945 pound to about 5 pence today. However, this wholesome depoliticisation contrasts with a good deal of needless repoliticisation elsewhere. One example is the proposal to inflict on my native London a new political authority and an elected mayor. I predict that no good will come of that particular initiative.
To return to the dynamic market economy, New Labour is doing well but it has not quite got the hang of how free markets work. The centrepiece of market analysis is the role of price signals in checking demand and encouraging supply. But New Labour still believes that on occasions it can have it both ways. In the field of employment, on the one hand it proposes wage subsidies that are designed to reduce the cost of employment and so increase jobs. On the other hand, it bows to trade union pressure for a statutory minimum wage, which must tend to raise the cost of employment and therefore reduce jobs—all the more if it has a knock-on effect on wages above the minimum. Poor Mr. Rodney Bickerstaffe even claims that the higher the minimum wage the better it will be for employment because it will increase spending power and therefore jobs. He has not noticed that higher wages tend not only to reduce jobs but to be passed on in higher prices which then absorb the increased spending power and, at the same time, threaten to reduce the real value of wages. There is also the doctrinaire European Social Chapter. I join the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, in solemnly warning the Government that this is a Trojan horse pregnant with cost-raising and job-destroying initiatives.
Another flawed wheeze of the Chancellor is the promise of measures,
"to enable capital receipts from the sale of council houses to be invested in house-building and renovations."

467
I believe that is a bogus free lunch. Elementary logic confirms that increased local authority spending from hitherto idle balances will simply add to total demand on the economy and raise the effective borrowing requirement in the consolidated public accounts—the very thing he has committed himself to avoiding, saying in the Queen's Speech that he would,
"ensure that public borrowing is controlled through tough fiscal rules and that the burden of public debt is kept at a stable and prudent level."
At one time I was a member of the Magic Circle and I would very much like to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, who is to wind up, how the Chancellor will manage to produce that rabbit from his non-existent top hat.
My broad conclusion on the Queen's Speech is that, although it is a bit of an indigestible omelette of curates' eggs, it is above all welcome for what it leaves out. Like old lags who find that crime does not pay, after 18 years the Government appear intent not so much on turning over a new leaf as starting out on a whole new life. I welcome that. They will long remain on probation but I believe that they have made a promising start.
In a genuine spirit of goodwill I offer a warning against two economic dangers. First, in their efforts to assume responsibility for running the country the Government have tended in the direction of promising too much. It is likely that when economic difficulties occur they will have to draw in their horns. I suggest that they ask Mr. Mandelson as a penance to prepare a contingency plan to delay or ditch some of the aspirations for when the going gets tough. Secondly, in the global economy about which we have heard, which is at all times subject to unprecedented and unforeseeable changes, unalluring economic realities will in the end always prevail over well-intentioned politics. However important education and employment undoubtedly are for all our people, the economic watchwords for these and other shared hopes must be: alertness, flexibility and adaptability.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, it is getting late and I shall not detain your Lordships long. As I am sandwiched in the speaking order between two eminent economists your Lordships will be glad to hear that I shall not pontificate this evening on economics. I observe that there are a great number of experts on economics in this House. Having said that, I always reflect on the words of a well known staff college lecturer. He defined an expert as someone who had made every possible mistake in a very narrow field. Obviously, that comment does not apply to your Lordships' House.
I begin by congratulating the new Government on the gracious Speech, in particular the concern for young people referred to therein. In this context I should like to make a short plea for the family in this debate. Last year there were a number of debates in this place about the family and the need to support it both through practical means and public policy and the costs of so doing. Last week in another place the Prime Minister referred to the decline in strong family life as one of the
468
reasons for some of the problems that faced our society. I strongly support that statement. I go further and say that I believe the breakdown of the traditional family in this country is one of the most serious problems that we face today. It has financial, social and spiritual implications.
Perhaps we may consider for a moment the situation with regard to law and order in this country. Noble Lords will judge for themselves and have their own opinions on law and order. This issue causes me great concern. For example, I will not allow my wife to travel on the Underground after 10 o'clock at night because I judge the risk to her health to be unacceptably high. That is an appalling situation. It is one of which every Member of your Lordships' House should be thoroughly ashamed. It should be put right as soon as possible. It is not good. The law and order situation in this country is caused more than anything else by the breakdown of the traditional family.
It exasperates me when one listens, in particular, to the Home Office. It is always saying that it is putting another 10,000 policemen on the beat. I am not against more policemen on the beat, but they will not solve the problem. That problem is the breakdown of the family. So a wise government would focus on building up the family.
With that in mind, I have been surprised by recent press reports suggesting the abolition of the married couple's tax allowance in the forthcoming Budget. Those reports are even more surprising as the Labour Party election manifesto contained commitments to supporting the family, and stated:
"We will also examine the interaction of the tax and benefits systems … so as to fulfil our objectives of … strengthening community and family life".
As noble Lords will be aware, I believe that the family forms the basic building block of our society. By that I mean what is commonly referred to as the traditional family unit of the married man and woman bringing up children. That fundamental unit should be considered when new policies are drawn up and there should be fiscal support for married couples. There is ample evidence that a stable marriage benefits both spouses and offspring. I urge the Government to study that research before making changes to family taxation.
A concern to support families through fiscal policy is a subject which has attracted cross-party support in another place. It resulted in a recent commitment to a major inquiry by the Inland Revenue into the taxation of married couples. I hope that the Government will ensure that that review is carried out. I understand that the Prime Minister recently made a written commitment that it would be. Perhaps the Minister will report on the review's progress when she replies on behalf of the Government this evening.
8.52 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be on this side of the House, from where I am facing the noble and learned Lord who was a Minister in the DTI and the noble Viscount the leader of the Conservative Party in the House of Lords. It is also a great pleasure to see

469
many of the people whom I have known over a long period of time becoming Ministers. I congratulate them all on the quick way they have learnt the job and adopted the good habits of power. The nice thing about being a government Back Bencher is that one has power without office.
It has been a good debate. The right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, may have put their finger on the problem with which I wish to begin. It is that in this country there is good macro-performance but a great deal of misery. We should put our minds to understanding what it is that has caused that contrast between the good growth record—there is no doubt that since 1993 we have had a good growth record: the inflation rate is down; house prices are rising, which is supposed to be a good thing; and more money is being spent by consumers—and the fact that there is a great deal of evidence at the micro-economic level that many people are unhappy.
One of the things we should do in the coming months is to try to achieve a real factual grip on why that is the case. A number of statistics has been bandied about. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, that statistics are often not properly interpreted. The idea that one household in four or one household in five has no one working is not a good statistic because we know that households can contain from one person to five. So that is not a good thing to say. It is using other people's misery for party political purposes.
It is important to understand that there are two phenomena. We have recorded unemployment, which I hope will be measured better. I should like to propose to my noble friend the Minister that she convey to the Government the idea that we should spend as much time measuring unemployment as we spend measuring inflation. Our measurement of inflation is good now. The Bank of England has put a great deal of money into three, four or five measures of inflation, and has done a great deal of research on it. We should have regular publications, carefully done, of different measures of unemployment, because they tell us different things.
The claimant count is one measure of unemployment by one definition. It is a good definition because basically that is where the budgetary expenditure takes place. But there are other measures. The Labour Force Survey is a more reliable measure obviously, but there are broader definitions and every month we should have published, perhaps in as colourful a format as the inflation report, a clear explanation of what the measures of unemployment mean. If we had that we might better understand the problem.
Many people who are miserable are not unemployed, according to the definition as we understand it. They are economically inactive for one reason or another. Because they are economically inactive and they cannot be economically active, their income entitlements have not kept pace with inflation or average earnings. Those people who are not in the labour market and who cannot be in the labour market for various reasons will not be looked after by any full employment programme. We
470
will have to understand that that is a big gap in our understanding of society with which we shall have to come to terms.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, whom I greatly admire, I am not a targeting man. I am a universalist when it comes to the welfare state. I would rather ensure, through something like a basic income, that everyone in society, whether they can or cannot work for payment—we all work, although some work in paid jobs and some in unpaid jobs—has some income entitlement to protect them from complete misery. Good as the safety net is, it is not good enough. That is the message that emerges from the micro-misery that we have.
When we reform pensions and welfare dependency we must also solve that problem. I think we delude ourselves when we think that welfare dependency relates just to the poor. Mortgage interest relief is welfare dependency really. So is cheap higher education. The middle classes have cheap higher education. That is welfare dependency. We should think about the people who have had good tax cuts over the past 18 years. Where did that money come from? It came from someone else. We delude ourselves if we think that welfare dependency relates only to the poor and not to the rich. We should correct that misapprehension.
Having, as it were, got that off my chest, I shall speak about the two major reforms which have been proposed since 2nd May. I have debated the independence of the Bank of England on previous occasions with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I am not quite sure that I am all for the Bank of England's independence, partly because what we really want is not reforms but results, and results about low inflation are not always delivered by an independent central bank. Some central banks are good and even some central bankers are good. Mr. Greenspan is good, not because of the Federal Reserve system which is independent—because the Federal Reserve system has made a mess in the past. Mr. Greenspan is very good, but that is another issue.
I do think that we should have rules, of course, but we should also have discretion. The much maligned Ken and Eddie show had a combination of rules and discretion and they had a target—the rules—and they had discretion. We have not abandoned discretion: we have abandoned one part of their discretion (i.e. the Chancellor) and left it all to the discretion of the Bank of England.
I am hoping that the monetary policy committee will temper the discretion of the Governor alone, because I think it is quite true to say that the Governor has not proved, in the monetary policy minutes that we have seen, to have the best judgment on inflation. Therefore, perhaps the monetary policy committee will improve that. We have gained, and the Chancellor has gained, the market's support, and what has to be said to his credit is that the long-term interest rate which used to be in excess has come down. We used to pay 1.5 per cent. in excess of what other countries used to pay. The market has welcomed the Bank of England's independence and marked down the long-term rate of interest by half a percentage point.

471
What we are going to see in the near future is high short-term rates of interest and lower longer rates of interest. If that continues it is not a bad thing because what we want is a shift, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, a shift in the economy from consumption to investment, and it is because of the lower, shorter interest rates the consumption is high and we have higher, longer interest rates as investment is discouraged. If we can have that shift it will be better. I think it will arrive sooner or later because basically the problem of UK financial policy was lack of credibility.
In the past four years we have had a good macro-economic framework, but perhaps when a new Government come to power I am afraid politics requires that an extra effort of credibility be made by a Labour Chancellor; and I think that is what forced the hand of my right honourable friend and he gave the Bank of England independence. I am hoping that the monetary policy committee will add the right mixture of opinion and discretion to the Bank of England which I think a central bank's independence alone will not guarantee. So I am looking forward to the members of the monetary policy committee.
Now the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, for whom I have great admiration, suggested a few names as to who ought to be on the monetary policy committee. One of the things that one has to do in these matters is to make quite sure that people who are appointed to these places are not too friendly with the Government, otherwise they lose independence, while monitoring the activity formally. Of course, if you appoint your friend to an independent position, as happened to Thomas à Becket, there could be murderous consequences.
I have a suggestion which may appeal to some members of the party opposite—that the right honourable Member for Rushcliffe would be eminently qualified to be the next Governor of the Bank of England, if not a member of the monetary policy committee. That would give him something better to do than leading the party opposite.
I welcome the withdrawal of bank supervision from the Bank of England. Again, as I have said in the past, the Bank of England has not shown competence in this matter and therefore it should not supervise. Although it did try in the past year to get Arthur Andersen to look after its surveillance systems and that did improve matters a little, I do not think it was good enough, and I hope that some expertise in the Bank can be used by the new SIB. But I think it will be a good idea for the Bank of England not to supervise.
When it comes to an expanded SIB I have to say this: this will be the first experiment of any major financial market anywhere in the world where a single authority will look after banking supervision, building societies, insurance and the standard stock market. I think Sweden and Denmark are the only two countries who have it all under one roof. We must be very careful, because there is going to be a lot of sorting out and co-ordination to do between now and when we get the system ready. And in the meantime we shall have to keep an eye on the
472
ball about the main task of regulation when trying to set up a new system since the transition is going to be a problem.
There is another matter which I hope will be taken into account. A lot of financial innovations take place, new products come up in the market, and if you make it too rigid new products will escape the system. You have to have a system that is flexible enough to take account of new product innovations but at the same time does not discourage competition. As the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, said before: do not be afraid of failure.
Lastly, I shall not attempt to say anything with regard to a single currency because that will take far too long. When the new Budget is introduced I want to add a small request to my noble friend on the Front Bench. I hope the Government will give time for a debate on the Budget as we have had in the past immediately after the Budget has been introduced. I have one caveat. Windfall taxes will be all right. However, I think that the problem with the labour market is more complex than we used to believe three or four years ago. When we come to look at the Labour Force Survey or the claimant count, we see that the labour market is running rather tight and not loose. In the past four years, if you look at the unemployment of youth (from the ages of 16 to 25), 348,000 young unemployed people were taken off the unemployment register and 600,000-odd are left. At this stage one must begin to think carefully. When jobs are created and when people are taken off the unemployment register, it must be done in a way that does not create inflationary pressure on the economy. It seems heartless to say that, but one must say it, because soon there may be a problem and one may end up spending money without creating new jobs, or creating jobs which lead to considerable labour market tensions.
I believe that, on the whole, a very good start has been made by our team and it can only get better.
9.8 p.m.
The Earl of Harrowby: My Lords, for the second time, I have discovered that there is considerable advantage in being last on the list of Back Benchers to speak. The House tends to fill up in case the speaker sits down rapidly and the Front Bench are found to be absent. I wish to make only one point, which I have made previously, so I shall not detain your Lordships for long.
We have had a great deal of discussion in a fascinating debate and frequently it has turned on the single currency. It has surprised me that there is an assumption—the Minister who opened the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, first made the assumption—that there can be only two answers to whether we should go in; yes or no. However, that does not mean that there should be only two answers to the course of action we should take. I submit to your Lordships that it is worth carefully examining whether there is a mid-course—I believe that there is—which is not one of weakness. It is that in the year 2002 the euro should be legalised.
I was first discussing the problem with Barclays Bank 10 years ago in connection with the ecu. Then came the recommendations for the hard ecu, which received

473
considerable support in this country. However, the recommendation was dropped because our partners had no enthusiasm for it; they wanted to travel the federal road and I can understand that. They discouraged us and we dropped the idea.
I submit to your Lordships that that possibility represents a very sensible way out for us. If we legalise the euro in 2002—I believe that it will not happen by that date because for various reasons not many countries will match up to the conditions, but that is a different subject—it is worth considering whether we should not do so alongside sterling, which would please the Euro-sceptics no end. Incidentally, I was slightly amused to hear my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch describe himself as a mild Euro-sceptic. I thought that that was a bit of an understatement. I am sorry that he is not here to hear that.
Nevertheless the move would please the Euro-sceptics; it would be the end of submission to the European Central Bank; it would be the end of surrendering one's gold reserves and foreign currency reserves; and it would take away so many of the objections which the Euro-sceptics rightly have—I believe that they have a very good case. Furthermore, it would please our Europhile colleagues and it would please our business partners in Europe.
It emerges time and again that we are in danger almost of regarding Europeans as our enemies. For many of us, they are our personal friends and business partners and we do the bulk of our business with them. The move would please them and it would be a halfway house towards Europe. It would be much better than saying "No, we won't have anything to do with the common currency".
Above all, the euro would float against sterling; above all, it would obviate the need for a referendum because the British public would be deciding for themselves. If the euro were strong and were a sound currency, which it might not be, over the years people would gradually do more and more business in the euro and less and less in sterling. If, on the other hand, it was not a success or had patches of weakness people would move back to sterling.
The first question people ask, which I submit is not valid, is, "Is it practical?". It is perfectly practical. In fact, it will happen in tourist areas whether we like it or not. There will be a dual currency situation where the euro will be prominently and regularly offered. Above all, it happens in our country already. It happens all over the world. In Moscow, it is happening every day against the dollar. On the Canadian/American border two currencies run side by side. In Mexico, there is the same situation. In our country, it happens on the Ulster border.
There is no practical reason why, with modem machinery and equipment, you cannot run two currencies side by side. I am not being dogmatic about this subject but there are so many advantages in that situation. The issue does not arise yet. Although we must prepare for it, it will not arise in practical form until the year 2002. But I submit to the Government that that proposition is well worth examination.
9.15 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I begin by joining with other noble Lords, particularly on these Benches, who have congratulated the Government on their outstanding victory. It is a great pleasure to see so many of our erstwhile friends from the front.
I offer also my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, on his ministerial appointment. He returns to the Department of Trade. In fact, it is a rather overdue promotion since I believe that when he was last at the department he was a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and he is now a Minister. Since I came into your Lordships' House not so long ago, I have formed a very high regard for the noble Lord. I have watched him at the Dispatch Box on this side of the House on many occasions. If it is not a youthful presumption, perhaps I may say that I have very high hopes for him now that he is on that side of the House.
I also wish to congratulate the noble Lord on his speech. In the extremely unlikely event that I ever found myself at a Government Dispatch Box, it is exactly the sort of speech, or very much the sort of speech, that I should like to make. I particularly liked some of the phrases he used with regard to the overall vision of the nation and the feeling of renewal. I think he used the phrase, "the vision of national renewal".
I offer to your Lordships two points. First, in his remarks, the noble Lord used the word "partnership". He spoke a great deal about partnership of various kinds. I should like to see the Government use the word "leadership" more often, particularly when it comes to small businesses and the sector of small business that I am in; that is, tourism. By definition, small business is very much fragmented and we need leadership from the Government. All too often I felt that the previous Government used the word "partnership" to hide their dislike of taking a lead. Therefore, I hope that this Government, as I am sure they will, will take on leadership as well as partnership.
Secondly, the words "humility" or "humble" have been much used by the Government. Indeed, on the second day of the debate on the Address, the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal said:
"This new Government are humbly aware of the hopes and expectations which the electorate has placed in them … As a government with such a massive majority in another place, we are, I believe, under a duty to use that power sensibly and wisely in the execution of our mandate".—[Official Report, 15/5/97; col. 30.)
In all humility, perhaps I may offer one point on that. Our rather quaint voting system allows 44 or 45 per cent. of the national vote to give 65 per cent. of the seats. It could well be argued that in cases of very fundamental change, particularly constitutional reform, that is not necessarily a sufficient mandate.
However, if you add to that the 17 per cent. who voted for the Liberal Democrats—and we agree. I think, on some 80 per cent. of constitutional reform—then there is a very clear mandate for change. Therefore, in a spirit of consensus and co-operation, I ask whether it is better to have 80 per cent. of the reform with 65 per cent. of the popular vote than 100 per cent. of the reform with 45 per cent. of the popular vote. Let us work on the common ground.

475
I am delighted to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, although I was fascinated to discover the Minister of Health replying to a debate on industry and economic affairs. It is a rather novel approach to combine health, the DTI and the Treasury. If I may borrow a phrase which my own industry, the health resort industry, currently uses, it is a rather holistic approach to our national well-being. I look forward to her remarks.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, was in his usual sprightly form. He is a great debater and I always enjoy listening to him. But his debating style is rather like a well-executed Scottish reel. There is lots of style, much movement, lots of euching, and at the end you find that you are back where you started.
I should also like to congratulate the two maiden speakers. The noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, spoke with authority and showed his great commitment to his chosen field of engineering. I felt most sympathetic to much of what he said. I rather worried about his criticisms—or almost criticisms—regarding economists when he said that no two economists ever agree, especially as my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf was due to speak after him. Indeed, I observed that my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and others seemed to agree in today's debate.
The noble Earl, Lord Derby, gave an inspiring and positive view of Liverpool, which his family has served extremely well. Given his Liberal antecedents, about which he spoke, and his praise for the city, which I believe has had a fairly substantial Liberal Democrat presence in local government, perhaps I may say to him that, if ever he feels like coming home, he will receive a warm welcome. I should also tell the noble Earl that I knew his predecessor well, although not actually in this House. He was a frequent guest at Claridge's when I worked there as a junior receptionist and I showed his Lordship to his room on many occasions.
There have been many fascinating contributions to today's debate. I have greatly enjoyed listening to all the speeches. In particular, I shall pick out the contribution made by my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf. The point he made, which was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, regarding the difference of feeling in the country between the micro and the macro economy was well made; indeed, it is one that should be well taken. On the macro level, there is no doubt that we are apparently doing quite well. However, when you go out to talk to people on the doorstep it becomes quite clear that something has gone wrong at the micro level. When a taxi driver in Luton of some 50 years of age who is running a firm of minicabs tells you that, for the first time in his life, he is going to vote Labour and not Conservative, you understand that that micro-economic level really has impacted deep into the nation.
I also felt that my noble friend's comments in regard to figures were extremely well made. I am afraid that I must confess that I shall be quoting some figures. However, I sincerely hope that I shall not cause that bell, to which my noble friend referred, to be rung. With his customary style, my noble friend Lord Ezra put what
476
I felt to be the case for the macro economy extremely well, especially as regards stability and investment. If I may, I shall return to that aspect a little later.
When I put down my name to speak in the debate it had been my intention simply to ride my own favourite hobbyhorse of tourism. I did not realise at the time that I would be given the honour of winding up from this Front Bench. Consequently, perhaps I may crave your Lordships' indulgence to speak for a few moments on my own subject. The tourism and hospitality industry is one of the major employers in the country. Indeed, in 1996 some 86,000 to 87,000 new jobs were created in the industry. That is more than the entire manufacturing sector in that year. The industry currently employs about 2.5 million people, which is equivalent to 11 per cent. of our national workforce. The industry spend is currently £50 billion, which is equivalent to 10 per cent. of annual UK GDP.
For the future, it is estimated that some 130,000 new direct jobs will be created before the end of the century and, indeed, the immediate previous Secretary of State at the Department of National Heritage estimated that something in the order of 1 million jobs would be created over the next 10 years. I have been told that the three great growth industries throughout the world are predicted to be telecommunications, information technology and travel and tourism. Britain has a substantial tourism industry. We are world leaders. It is therefore essential that this position is maintained and reinforced and that the Government are committed to supporting it.
While in Opposition, Labour produced an excellent policy document entitled Breaking New Ground. The document was largely the work of the then spokesman in another place, Tom Pendry, and clearly reflected the considerable time and trouble he had taken to consult within the industry. I was very disappointed that when the appointments were announced for the Department of National Heritage no place had been found for him since, through his tireless work, he has gained the trust and respect of the industry. I must tell the Government that within the hospitality and tourism industry high expectations have been created. It is important that those expectations are fulfilled. For most of the past Government's life tourism received little or no attention. It was only in the past few years that the industry saw itself being taken seriously and felt able to join in a constructive dialogue with Government. It would be a great shame indeed if that were to be reversed.
However, I have to say that I am fearful. I scanned the list of new appointments as they were being made with a growing sense of disappointment as no mention of tourism was made within the Department of National Heritage. Indeed, it is most disappointing to see that in the list of Principal Officers of State of Her Majesty's Government printed in the Official Report of 14th May the Department of National Heritage no longer contains any mention of tourism. Furthermore, the new Secretary of State has received wide publicity, and has spoken considerably, and so far as I am aware, has not yet made mention of tourism, concentrating instead almost wholly on the film industry, the arts and the cultural side of his department. I very much hope that that is not an

477
indication of the relegation of tourism and that we may look forward to that omission being corrected in the near future.
It seems clear to me that the focus of the Department of National Heritage is now firmly towards the cultural aspects of the department. That may not be a bad thing. If I may offer a personal suggestion to the Government, and one which I hope they will take constructively, I would say that it may well be right that the Department of National Heritage should become more culturally focused. Perhaps the time has now come for the formidable industrial force of tourism in Britain to move back within the Department of Trade and Industry. And that is my small riding of my personal hobbyhorse.
I now turn to the main subject of the debate. As I said at the outset, there is much in the gracious Speech upon which to congratulate the Government, and much which I shall look forward with pleasure to supporting. In particular, I wish to mention the minimum wage. When I spoke in the debate on the Address last October, I said that I believed the minimum wage to be a necessity if the jobs we are to create are to be sustainable and worthwhile. I simply cannot understand the logic which says, as so many managers do, that the biggest problem is that we do not pay people properly or train them enough; and in the same breath we vehemently oppose the most logical methods of remedying those ills. I also told your Lordships that in my own company I had introduced a minimum wage of £4 an hour.
In the Financial Times shortly before the election, I think it was Friday, 25th April, there was a letter from Professor Alan Walters in which he sought to argue that the minimum wage was immoral. If I understood his argument correctly, it was that the creation of the minimum wage meant that fewer people would do the same jobs for more money and consequently fewer people would be employed. I found that argument to be so daft as to confirm my view that the best place for economists is in institutions—academic institutions, that is.
What I find immoral is the persistence in the creation of jobs which are so ill rewarded that they are a form of institutionalised slave labour. It is essential to create jobs in quantity; but it is also crucial to create jobs of quality. What Professor Walters missed completely is that in the real world of companies it is not the amount you pay to any individual that counts but the total payroll cost. The introduction of a minimum wage means that the people at the bottom of the company are guaranteed a minimum income. Faced with that, I believe that management will simply rearrange how it spends the total package, most probably by reducing differentials. It is perhaps a little too much to hope that the directors will forego their annual bonus, but we live in hope. Certainly in my company the effect of the introduction of our £4 an hour minimum has been most interesting. The total payroll has remained within the budget that we set but some of the more arbitrary and archaic differentials which existed have ceased to be. Furthermore, when I wrote to all the staff to explain to
478
them what we were doing and why we were doing it, it was widely accepted as being perfectly just and understandable.
Earlier this week I had an opportunity to speak to the chief executive of a company which is probably the largest employer of staff in the hospitality industry. I asked him what the effect of the minimum wage would be on his business. His response was to say virtually none. In my view, therefore, the threat that the minimum wage will either destroy or prevent the creation of jobs is in my view complete bluster.
The key to a successful business remains successful people. In order for people to succeed at whatever level they operate within an enterprise it is essential that they are well equipped with good training. Furthermore, training is not about providing people with a skill and then forgetting about them; it is a continuous development process. My noble friend Lord Ezra spoke of "employability". I refer to precisely that. The training budget in a business is to people management what depreciation is to building management—it is a necessary and vital expenditure that must be made each year if the human resource is to be properly maintained. I therefore warmly welcome the statement in the gracious Speech that the education of young people will be the Government's first priority. Without doubt, a well educated workforce is one that has the potential to receive training. Although the gracious Speech did not mention training specifically, I believe that the Government are thoroughly committed to it. I suggest to them that the policy we advocated in our manifesto of the remissible training levy may well be a useful tool in achieving our mutual objectives.
I turn briefly to the thorny question of the social chapter. A moment ago I described the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, as debating like a well executed Scottish reel. I have to say that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, debates rather like line dancing—endless repetition of monotonous steps requiring great effort while remaining in the same place. I am sorry he is not in his place and had to leave earlier, as I should have liked to say that to his face. He strikes me as being to the Conservative Party what the Militant Tendency used to be to the Labour Party. He seems single-handedly to be trying to sink any form of recovery.
The last Government made a great deal of their opt-out from the social chapter and rather like an overbearing nanny threatened the infant child with the bogey man and warned us repeatedly of the dangerous evils contained within it. When I first read it I wondered whether Members of that Government and I had read the same document. My noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead put it very succinctly in his remarks last Thursday when he said:
"As a matter of fact, the social chapter has been a greatly exaggerated King Charles's head: it does not do all that much for welfare, but nor does it do all that much damage".—[Official Report, 15/5/97; col. 41.]
The significance of signing up to the social chapter is that the Government have sent an extremely important signal to Europe that we are opting in. That is the real value of their action. I was delighted, listening to the

479
Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech to the CBI on television last night, to note the very great emphasis that he placed on Europe, something of which British business is well aware and has known for some time. Everything contained within the social chapter as it currently stands is simply good business practice and human resources management. I have no fear of it whatsoever.
In conclusion, I have listened to some of the debates on all of the days, and I listened to today's debate almost in its entirety. I have been struck by the uplifting feeling that seems to have been derived from this gracious Speech. It reflects the mood of the country. I do not think it is any exaggeration to say that there is a great mood of renewal and a great mood of optimism throughout the land. It is a credit to the Government that in so short a time they have achieved such a revival of the national spirit. However, there is a danger with great expectations that the higher the expectations the greater must be the delivery if one is not to create disillusion. I am sure that the Government will deliver. But, if I may, I caution the Government that, while spin is fine in opposition, once you are in the driving seat it has a somewhat different connotation.
I was struck by a quotation which I read recently and which, not inappropriately, comes from the New World. It is from Oliver Wendell Holmes Junior and I feel that in certain ways it sums up the mood of the nation:
"It is now the moment when by common consent we pause to become conscious of our national life and to rejoice in it, to recall what our country has done for each of us, and to ask ourselves what we can do for our country in return".
9.35 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, on their appointments to high government office. In balmier days I used to play golf with the noble Lord. Lord Clinton-Davis, and on those occasions he invariably got the better of me. However, given the responsibilities now placed on him, if he has the odd afternoon off I have no doubt that in the coming years his handicap will not improve and I might have occasion for revenge. I congratulate the noble Lord. If in his time as Minister for Trade he becomes a greater expert than I on the most appalling waiting lounges at airports around the world. I shall willingly cede that position to him.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, not as a political observation but on a personal basis, that I regret her elevation to high office. I have had occasion to work with her in organisations outside Parliament and I am sorry that, because of her promotion, it will be necessary for her to resign. I believe that she discharged her duties outside with great distinction and energy.
I too, at one time in my career, was a health Minister. Indeed, in the history of the National Health Service, coming from Scotland where health spending is about 23 per cent. higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom, I can claim to be the highest spending health Minister in the history of the NHS. I have to reflect though that at the end of that period, I received a public approval rating of 8 per cent. However poorly
480
the noble Baroness discharges her duties as health Minister—and I do not suggest that she will—I have to reflect ruefully that I have no doubt that her rating will be better than my 8 per cent.
I join in paying compliments to the two maiden speakers. The noble Earl, Lord Derby, is a passionate and powerful advocate for the city of Liverpool and wider Merseyside. I have no doubt that the city ought to be grateful that he has continued the tradition of his family in supporting it. I have no doubt that your Lordships' House will continue to hear that powerful advocacy.
I also welcome the powerful advocacy of my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery for the profession of engineering. I confess that as education is being highlighted at the moment, it seems that we need voices such as his since he specialises in particular aspects of the profession. I reflect with some dismay that when I was Minister for the north-east of England it was possible to find that a hairdressing course would be at least four times over-subscribed. However, the new and exciting developing university of Robert Gordon in Aberdeen runs an excellent course on offshore engineering. I regret that today the course remains under-subscribed. I hope that in this year of engineering excellence we shall hear more from my noble friend on that most important profession.
I conclude the debate on the Queen's Speech for the Opposition. I say to the Leader of the House that I thought the debate began badly. Making one reference to the Labour Party manifesto proposal to exclude the hereditary elements in your Lordships' House from voting was bad enough in its gloating form. To have it expressed twice seemed to me, to say the least, unnecessary. If it were in any sense intended to be a threat or a warning to us that we should be compliant or that those of my noble friends who are hereditary Peers should keep their silence, let me say that he is wasting his breath. We shall continue to discharge the duty of a second Chamber, which is to scrutinise and revise. That is not just a legitimate function. I believe that in this Parliament there is every prospect that it will be more necessary than ever. Indeed, as my noble friend the shadow Leader of the House said, we now probably for the first time have a new role: to highlight the arrogance of this Government.
In another place the Liberals seem to me to have been extraordinarily supine. I trust that in this Parliament the Liberals in this House will not show the same attitude. So far, I am encouraged by one of them, namely, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who yesterday made it quite clear that he will expose the extraordinary vote face exhibited by the Government over social security matters.
I regret having to offer that criticism of the Leader of the House. I wanted to compliment him on what I understand to be his very worthwhile intervention behind the scenes over the referendum Bill. I understand that but for his intervention that Bill would not even have revealed the questions to be put to the people of Scotland or Wales. Indeed, there was every prospect that your Lordships would have been confronted by a

481
Henry VIII clause to beat all Henry VIII clauses. If I am right, I applaud the noble Lord for that intervention. So far as I am concerned, it is certainly a recognition from him that his responsibilities as Leader of the House extend beyond a narrow party interest and are duties that are owed to the House as a whole.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I am flattered by what he said about me. The only trouble is that it is not true.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I hoped that I would provoke an intervention from the noble Lord because I believed that Mandy's thought police did not operate much beyond the Central Lobby of this Palace and that we could expect from him an independence not exhibited down the corridor. If I am wrong, and he does not wish to accept the compliment, so be it.
Today's debate is on the economy, which is certainly in better shape than at any general election in living memory. That is confirmed by the recent unemployment figures, showing a continuing decline. I trust that at least in this Parliament we shall be spared the ritual of an incoming government claiming that now that they have had a chance to examine the books, they are in a far worse state than they had apprehended. On the contrary, the economy is proving to be in even better shape than when the Economist made the assessment in April to which my noble friend Lord Mackay referred.
I turn to the first important decision taken by this Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer; namely, passing responsibility for interest rates to the Bank of England. First, I welcome the proposal that there should be representation on the committee from the whole of the United Kingdom. If that is, as I understand it, a nod to the financial importance of the city of Edinburgh, he will not be surprised to know that I approve of it. Secondly, the reasoning which the Chancellor of the Exchequer adopted for giving independence to the Bank of England seems to me to chime almost precisely with the arguments advanced in your Lordships' House before the Dissolution by a number of Conservative Back Benchers, most notably the noble Lords, Lord Kingsdown and Lord Lawson. I hope that the wise counsel on economic and fiscal matters from this side of the House continues to be accepted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I promise my noble friend that, at the CBI dinner here in London last night when the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke, I wore a dinner jacket, although the 10 permanent secretaries there seemed to be under orders that they were not allowed to wear black ties. I noticed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer interestingly indicated his faith in 19th century values. I was fascinated by that remark. I am bound to say to the noble Lord that I hope at some point in the early part of this Parliament we shall be given the theological division between support for the much-derided Victorian values and the new acknowledgement and recognition of 19th century values.
482
If we have anxieties about the Bank, they echo those expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross. We want to see membership of the all-important Monetary Policy Committee genuinely independent. At first flush the numbers within the appointment powers of the Chancellor of the Exchequer do not fill one with the greatest of confidence.
Having said that, we offer every support to this Government in maintaining an export-led recovery. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that I welcome the fact that he is vested with responsibilities for both inward investment and export promotion. I hope that those on the Government Benches do not think that to be too constructive an observation. He will recognise, with some insider knowledge of the DTI, that that most logical joining together of functions is not one that will meet with immediate approval there. I believe it to be sensible and I hope that the noble Lord will fight his corner hard. After all, around 40 per cent. of exports from this country come from inward-investing companies. It is an absurdity in some way to put those inward-investing companies into a second category and not recognise them as being critical to our export effort. I wish the noble Lord well in resolving that conundrum when he leads a trade mission which is not made up of Rover, Morgan Grenfell and Parsons, but of BMW, Deutsche Bank and Siemens. I wish him well in trying to persuade the broader, commercial, industrial community that that is the same sort of thing.
I noted the noble Lord's proposal to establish a new trade forum. I do not expect an answer now—we shall watch its development with interest—but I am fascinated to know whether or not it is to meet in public; who will chair it; and whether it will report to Parliament.
The noble Lord spoke of a new optimism and a new confidence. I accept that the professionally orchestrated arrival at No. 10 Downing Street engendered something of a festival atmosphere. But I could not avoid noticing last night at the CBI some relief that what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said revealed so much an adoption of the policies that we had previously followed through, as my noble friend Lord Marlesford indicated. However, there was palpable unease in relation to a windfall tax.
I have to say also to the noble Lord with responsibilities for trade that there was real trepidation about the prissy and preachy statement of the Foreign Secretary. None of us cares for child labour. Certainly on this side of the House, with the tradition of Lord Shaftesbury in the 19th century, we do not need lectures about the undesirability of child labour. But if the noble Lord does not know already that countries in South-East Asia regard a preoccupation with that issue as not a genuine concern for children but as a smokescreen for western protectionism, he will soon learn.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way and for what he said

483
earlier. However, is he suggesting that it would be inappropriate for Britain to ventilate its views about child labour in the international labour organisation?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will read very carefully what I had to say. He knows very well that in the WTO there was a keen desire by those partners in South-East Asia with whom we wished to maintain a relationship that the matter of child labour should be kept for the ILO. If that is the noble Lord's intention, I express immediate agreement with him that that should be pursued. Otherwise, there is a genuine danger that, far from improving our export effort, the language and style that have been adopted will seriously damage it. Similarly, I am sure he is aware that, much as we all wish to see environmental issues approached, there is a concern from developing countries that what we are about is seeking to arrest their development rather than improving our global environment.
The noble Lord emphasised his determination to complete the single market. I cannot but wish the Government well in that endeavour. After all, along with him my noble friend Lord Cockfield, when Commissioner, first gave substantial impetus to that goal. The noble Lord mentioned a number of particular objectives—gas, electricity, telecommunications, financial services and the trans-European network. All are excellent objectives. I wish him well in pursuing them. In particular, I congratulate my successor as energy Minister, John Battle, who next week will have the first opportunity in the Energy Council to try to bring to a conclusion the negotiations on the gas directive. I thought we had got pretty close to it and I hope that he will be successful in achieving that.
In offering that support to him—I hope that Mr. Battle will accept my support—the noble Lord must appreciate that it causes us to bristle that from time to time the hustings language continues and we are caricatured as being destructive and negative in what we have done in Brussels. As the noble Lord well knows, on such matters as the completion of the single market we have been in the vanguard of securing both genuine and transparent liberalisation across Europe. That has been against some of the most powerful monopoly interests. I would enjoin those on the Government Benches to leave behind the language of the hustings and appreciate that we were the most powerful force in establishing the single market. Wherever one is positioned along the thermometer of warmth towards or coolness for the European Union, the whole exercise will be pointless if we do not drive towards the single market.
In contrast to the focus placed on liberalisation in the European Union—I do not know whether the noble Lord was short of time—he seemed reticent on further liberalisation within the United Kingdom itself. We would have wished to see a drive towards the completion of liberalisation in gas and electricity into the domestic market. After all, following liberalisation gas prices in the south west went down by some 20 per cent. That is of immeasurably greater importance to the consumer than taking some 3 per cent. off VAT. We had planned to achieve a further
484
liberalisation from the north southwards from the autumn of this year. I hope that is maintained. I regret to say that there are hints of delay. Dominant players are certainly first through the door of the new administration and there is concern that they might be given exclusive access. If the Government are really concerned for pensioners, the liberalisation of gas over the next winter will allow them a saving of around £10 per month. That seems to be a far more reasonable objective than the 3 per cent. off VAT.
My noble friend Lord Mackay spelt out fully and effectively the problems about the windfall tax. Would it not be a most extraordinary absurdity if the utilities, which are at present offering a bonus to old age pensioners, were to find that as a consequence of the imposition of the windfall tax they could no longer pay such a bonus? I ask the Government to look at that point carefully.
I accept that there is one unequivocal commitment in the manifesto that could not have been more clearly or prominently put before the British people. I refer to Labour's commitment that some 250,000 young people will be taken off the dole and that that will be paid for from the proceeds of a windfall tax. Noble Lords opposite know that we are doubtful about the efficacy of that. We are concerned about whether there is sufficient funding and, as my noble friend Lord Mackay indicated, about the extent to which they will substitute for existing jobs. We are also concerned about the sustainability of such an approach.
There seemed to be an interesting coincidence of view between the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The noble Lord spoke about the need for real figures and a proper identification of what is going on. Last night, the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised that all figures, estimates and forecasts relating to his Budget would be scrutinised in advance by the National Audit Office. If the Government are serious about achieving their objective, I invite them to apply the same approach to that most unequivocal of manifesto commitments so that we know on a regular basis that it is being achieved, how it is being costed and that we are not being conned in any fashion about how that number of 250,000 young people gaining work will be secured; otherwise, as the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, said, I fear that those sitting at the Clerks' Table will have tired wrists, ringing the bell in anticipation of yet further misleading figures.
On the payment of debts to small businesses, I agree that there is evidence—from France, I think—that where such legislation is introduced, there is for some a decrease in the delay occasioned. However, what happens more broadly is that the periods of payment for all are extended. I would be fascinated to know from such distinguished economists as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and others who now sit on the Government Benches how that weighs up as a balance of advantage.
This has been a long debate and I clearly do not have the time to reply to all aspects of it. However, perhaps I may advise the Leader of the House that I hope that it will be part of his proposals to provide us in advance with a clear acknowledgement of those parts of the

485
legislation that he proposes to introduce which are provisions that we would have brought forward. I do not yet know what the competition Bill contains, but I guess that at least 90 per cent. of it comprises our proposals. If the business of this House is to be expedited, it would help if we could know in advance exactly where such matters lie. That would allow us to concentrate on what is important, to explore what has been ill thought out and to expose those issues on which it appears to us that there has been something of a deliberate effort to conceal.
I rest with only one example. This Government have placed great prominence on the desirability of education—and rightly so. Both my noble friend Lord Mackay and myself have family who, in pursuit of a lifetime of education and experience, have crossed from north of the Border to this side of the Border to expand their careers and their knowledge. In the main, they wish to return home to Scotland. However, as they do exactly that activity which, as I understand it, the Government would invite them to follow through, under the terms of the referendum Bill they will be deprived of the opportunity to vote on a constitutional matter which they are being told is one of the most important events in their young lives. That is absolutely absurd, as I shall illustrate.
On Thursday night I was served a pizza in Scotland by an exceedingly cheery Italian waiter who was so delighted with the result of the English Cup Final that he would gladly have voted for di Matteo to be President of Italy. He was dumbfounded to know that it would be open to him to vote in the referendum on whether there should be a Scottish Assembly but that my children would be excluded from such participation. It seems entirely right for this Opposition in this House vigorously to pursue such bizarre absurdities.
Rory Bremner said of the Tory Party—perhaps rather too aptly—that it could not agree on the convergence criteria for a single cabinet let alone a single currency. I fear that in recent weeks that has been too apt. But in this the oldest of democratic parties we will shortly reach that convergence. There has been much spoken in your Lordships' House and elsewhere about the great victory of the Labour Party in 1945. I console myself with the quite remarkable recovery that my party made after the 1945 election. It certainly should not be underestimated.
10.1 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, it is a great privilege to reply on the final day of your Lordships' debate on this historic gracious Speech. First, I should like to thank all Members of the House who have congratulated me on my new post. Their warm support is extremely welcome. I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie. Like him, I shall miss our joint appearances at the hospital friends—an altogether cosier experience than we share tonight. With the weight of government responsibility it is certainly more daunting to speak for the first time from this Dispatch Box than from the other side.
486
Most of my noble friends and I who work in government for the first time have been buoyed up by the tide of enthusiasm for change that has been referred to several times this afternoon and enthusiasm for a new beginning that has swept the country since 1st May. I believe that that enthusiasm and the lively interest in the proposals in the gracious Speech have been reflected in all five days of debate in your Lordships' House. As always, that novel enthusiasm has been tempered by the measured authority and experience of your Lordships' opinions on every area of policy.
I confess that I was a little surprised by the rather uncharacteristically acerbic tones of some contributions in the early stages of the debate. Words like "arrogant" have appeared in the debate, as they have tonight. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, in replying to a remark by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, described part of his speech as a farrago of nonsense. Those seemed to me to be somewhat uncharacteristic sentiments. However, by the second day the exchanges of noble Lords had settled into what I regarded as the customary friendly and courteous vein. That was perhaps best exemplified by the confession of my noble friend Lord Winston of his affection for the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, based on late night gifts of chocolate biscuits. I ask noble Lords to note that these were chocolate biscuits, not boxes of chocolates nor bouquets of flowers.
This evening, I shall with your Lordships' permission attempt to reply to some of the points that have been made during today's extensive and erudite debate on economic and industrial matters. I shall then review some of the major themes in the gracious Speech. I hope that your Lordships will be forgiving and understand if I am unable to respond to each and every issue raised today. I shall write to any noble Lord who feels that a substantive point has not been appropriately answered. In reviewing the gracious Speech I hope not to offend the sensibilities of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, about today's video technology if I refer to this as the edited highlights of the previous stages of the debate.
In turning first to today's debate, I begin by congratulating the distinguished maiden speakers, the noble Earls, Lord Cork and Orrery and Lord Derby. Their contributions were both interesting and extremely vigorous. I welcome the positive picture of economic life on Merseyside given by the noble Earl, Lord Derby, especially the role of his African elephants.
The aims of the Government's overall economic policies are equally positive. They are higher and more stable levels of growth and employment coupled with low inflation and rising living standards. First, we need more long-term stability in managing the economy. During the recessions of the 1980s and 1990s good businesses were bankrupted, good jobs destroyed and homes repossessed on the roller coaster ride of boom and bust. For too long British people and British business have been let down by governments that have not looked to the long term. That is why we aim to restore stability to economic management so that businesses can plan ahead and invest with confidence and people know that the jobs that they have today will be there tomorrow.

487
One of the key challenges facing the Government is to put right the problems created by years of short-sighted economic management. We have always said that we would waste no time in taking steps to start to unravel those problems. That is why my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, within days of taking office, announced a fundamental reform of the Bank of England to give it operational responsibility for setting interest rates—a subject which has taken much of your Lordships' attention during today's debate.
I am glad that that change was welcomed by noble Lords on all sides of the House. Perhaps I may say—I know that he has had to leave—that I was particularly impressed by the lucid reflections of the noble Lord, Lord Roll of Ipsden. I think that I am right that the only generalised opposition expressed to the change came from my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon, but he and I are used to disagreeing while remaining friends.
The noble Lords, Lord Tugendhat and Lord Ezra, sought reassurance that the Government and the Treasury will maintain close contact on policy. I am happy to offer that reassurance. The Chancellor has stated that the Treasury will be fully represented at the monetary meetings by the attendance of a member from the Treasury. In any case, both monetary and fiscal policy will be set to achieve the common goal of providing economic stability, and under the new arrangements there is no reason to fear that there will be any conflict of interest.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and other noble Lords were worried about the genuine independence of a reorganised court at the Bank of England. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that the Statement yesterday specifically mentioned that the reformed court will take account of the full range of industrial and business views in this country, and will he representative of the whole of the UK.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I was concerned with the independence of the Monetary Policy Committee not the court. That is quite different.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for misunderstanding. As I understood it, he was talking about the reorganised court. That of course will be as independent as I described, and that was in the Statement. The membership of the reorganised monetary committee will, of course, depend upon appointments by the Government, and that has not been specifically represented. Whether or not it will be wide enough to include the suggestions of my noble friend Lord Desai that the Member of Parliament for Rushcliffe, the right honourable Kenneth Clarke, should be included is something we look forward to discussing.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, raised the point, perhaps I may ask whether, on balance, he and noble Lords on the Benches opposite are in favour of the independence of the Bank of England, however that is defined in the context about which we have been talking. The noble Lord made several assertions—I must ask his forgiveness for
488
misunderstanding one of them—about the possible consequences of the Bank's independence, but I do not believe that he revealed where the Opposition stood on the principle of that important matter. I shall be delighted to give way to him again if he wants to comment on that at this time. We shall be interested to see how that affects our detailed discussions on the proposals as they move forward.
In yesterday's significant Statement the Chancellor also took the opportunity to reform the other side of the Bank's responsibilities, namely, the supervision of a financial sector. It has long been clear—these points were made by several noble Lords who took part in today's debate—that the existing regulatory structure is not delivering the high standards of supervision and investor protection the public expect and need.
Reform is long overdue to simplify the system, to reduce costs for those being supervised, to remove outdated distinctions between the supervision of different types of institution, and, above all, to increase public confidence. Placing an enlarged and integrated SIB on a statutory footing will deliver those objectives. As my noble friend Lord Currie of Marylebone said, it will make the regulatory framework more appropriate to the complex picture of modern financial services.
The Chancellor announced another important change. From now onwards the Treasury will open its books to independent National Audit Office scrutiny to ensure that the assumptions and conventions underlying the public finances are credible. A report on the NAO findings will be published before the Chancellor delivers his first Budget. The NAO will have a continuing role in auditing forecasts and subsequent Budgets. There will be no more hiding behind obscure forecasting assumptions. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, may be assured that there will be no more building on non-existing percentages of unknown amounts. I also hope that my noble friend Lord Bruce will continue to see an improvement in ministerial answers to statistical questions, as he was kind enough to mention this afternoon.
I share my noble friend Lord Bruce's concern about the integrity of employment statistics. I hope he and my noble friend Lord Desai, who both raised this point, will be pleased to learn that the Office of National Statistics has recently launched a consultation exercise on labour market statistics. The ONS, in particular, intends to give greater prominence to the internationally accepted labour force survey measure of unemployment rather than the claimant measures.
Stable and credible economic management is vitally important, but it is not on its own sufficient to make Britain a world class economy. Its ability needs to be matched with policies to raise the long-term trend of rate of growth in the economy. We need to raise Britain's investment and productivity in performance and we need more business dynamism. All of this my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis emphasised in opening today's debate.
The main focus of the forthcoming Budget will be to begin the task of equipping the country for the challenges in the next century. We want to switch public

489
spending from the welfare associated with economic and social failure towards investment, particularly investment in education and skills. I am glad that this approach was welcomed by noble Lords speaking from all sides of the House today. The Chancellor will, therefore, use his first Budget to raise money from the excess profits of the privatised utilities to fund our welfare to work programme and, in spite of the scepticism of noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench, this is a programme that will provide real work or training for the hundreds of thousands of young and long-term unemployed who are currently on benefit.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and even the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, somewhat mischievously perhaps both seemed to be asking me to speculate about the content of the Budget as regards the details of the tax arrangements. Even as a very new Minister I can resist that temptation, although I will say again that the windfall levy—and I use that word deliberately as that is the technical definition of a one-off exercise—will not affect the disadvantaged in the way the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, seemed to suggest. With respect, I would remind him that this is one-off levy on excess profits. There is no reason for prices to rise. Regulators ought to be able to ensure that. The windfall levy has been considered in detail by the Chancellor and his advisers over the past three years. In spite of your Lordships' impatience for the details, they will rightly be explained in the Budget Statement later in the summer.
We have heard a number of views expressed on the minimum wage today. I am grateful to those who have defended the right of every worker to have a decent wage. That included the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. However, we have also heard it alleged that a minimum wage will cost jobs. During the election campaign the Conservative Party claimed it would cost one million jobs. As my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis said in opening the debate, such claims are scaremongering.
The minimum wage will be introduced sensibly after wide consultation with employers and employees, and set at a level which takes account of the prevailing economic circumstances. It is part of the package of measures that the Government are introducing which will make jobs worth while and attract more people into work.
Prosperity in the long term requires more than getting macro- and micro-economic policies right. This Government believe that social policies, whether in the area of education or health, as my noble friend Lord Rea suggested, are important not just because they increase opportunities for the individual but because they underpin the increase in skills and productive capacity that will boost underlying levels of growth.
My noble friend Lady Lockwood made this connection clear in her speech today, and that approach was reflected widely in many of the speeches made by noble Lords in yesterday's debate. In a maiden speech yesterday, which I thought was full of imaginative insights as well as practical suggestions, my noble friend
490
Lord Rogers of Riverside rightly said that systems in our cities must operate in unison. Getting the infrastructure right can be of crucial importance, even to every community's economic development.
In another contribution—neatly, though I am sure coincidentally, building on those points—my noble friend Lord Borrie spoke of the importance of the role of the regions in regeneration. He told the House that he was delighted with the instant creation of the combined department of environment, transport and the regions. Again, that was a swift, sure act from literally day one of the Government.
Yesterday's was a very wide-ranging debate. I certainly did not envy my noble friend Lady Hayman, who had to reply to it—very deftly, I may say—covering issues ranging from organic farming to parents with long working hours. However, at the centre of that day's debate was education and at the heart of the remarks of many noble Lords was the issue of raising standards right across the system. The gracious Speech made clear that education, particularly improving standards, was the Government's first priority. As my noble friend Lady Blackstone explained, the immediate Bill will deal with the need to ensure smaller class sizes. Common sense says that this must be a crucial first step as an example of how the Government will ensure that the interests of many come before the interests of the few. Later reforms will be introduced to improve the framework of schools, to enhance teaching as a profession and to respond to the recommendations of the Dearing Committee on the future of higher education. The breadth of this approach from postgraduate research down to the early years shows the breadth of the task the Government are to undertake.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, who highlighted the enormous human and economic costs if we were to fail the under-fives, gave notice that people will come, as he said, "yapping and snapping" at the Government's heels if progress is not made speedily. I believe that the evidence of the past few weeks is that this is a Government who do not drag their feet.
Solid moves are being made, too, in another priority area for the Government; that is, reform of our constitution. The Government's commitment to devolution and early referendums in Scotland and Wales is close to the hearts of many of my noble friends. My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies reminded us on the third day of the debate that Welsh devolution has been fought for for over a century. He has been fighting for it himself for the past few decades.
From north of the Border, my noble friend Lord Ewing of Kirkford admitted that he had begun to believe that his political life, which had at its heart his great ambition for a Scottish Parliament, would be lived in vain. I am delighted that he knows now that it will be fulfilled. I am also glad that today we heard my noble friend Lord Blease speak with his usual authority about another long-standing and complicated problem for the United Kingdom in Northern Ireland.
The second day of the debate on the gracious Speech saw a fascinating discussion on foreign affairs and defence. A number of noble Lords—among them the

491
noble Lords, Lord Wallace, Lord Weidenfeld and Lord Grenfell—were enthusiastic about the new Government's approach to Europe. I am pleased that the fresh and positive approach demonstrated by the new Foreign Secretary and his colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has met with such a welcome in this House, as it has among our partners in the European Union and beyond. This Government are convinced that our interest in Europe—in the negotiations in the Intergovernmental Conference, for example—are best met by such an approach.
We have returned to the subject of Europe today. There have been a wide variety of views expressed on monetary union by the noble Earls, Lord Perth and Lord Harrowby, the noble Lords, Lord Cobbold and Lord Pearson of Rannoch, and my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I shall simply say that the Government's policy on EMU is clear. We will participate in the planning and preparation and will decide our final position solely on the basis of the economic needs of the nation. The final decision will be put to the country at a referendum and of course will be put to Parliament.
I was personally very pleased that my noble friend Lord Judd on an earlier day and today my noble friend Lord Rea raised issues of international development and overseas aid. Both noble Lords have impressive records in those fields. My noble friend Lord Judd noted that the old Labour Party traditions of internationalism were alive and flourishing in the new Government's proposals.
In conclusion, I echo my noble friend the Leader of the House in saying that we shall all do our best to serve the British people. I think that I can say with confidence to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, that we shall not be lacking in leadership. The opening words of the gracious Speech that the Government intend to govern for the benefit of the whole nation will be both our theme and our guide.
492
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

City of Westminster Bill [H.L.]
  Girobank plc (Transfer) Bill [H.L.]
  The Chairman of Committees acquainted the House that pursuant to the resolution of 19th May last the Bills had been deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments together with the declarations of the agents; the Bills were presented, read a first time, read a second time pro forma and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
  Hailsham Cattle Market Bill [H.L.]
  The Chairman of Committees acquainted the House that pursuant to the resolution of 19th May last the Bill had been deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments together with the declaration of the agent; the Bill was presented and read a first time pro forma.
  Lloyds TSB Bill [H.L.]
  The Chairman of Committees acquainted the House that pursuant to the resolution of 19th May last the Bill had been deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments together with the declaration of the agent; the Bill was presented, read a first time, read a second time pro forma and referred to the Examiners.

  London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.]
  The Chairman of Committees acquainted the House that pursuant to the resolution of 19th May last the Bill had been deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments together with the declaration of the agent; the Bill was presented, read a first time, read a second time pro forma and committed to a Select Committee.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes past ten o'clock.

  Lifetime Homes
  Lifetime Homes
  Bicycle Bells
  Bicycle Bells
  Monosodium Glutamate
  Monosodium Glutamate
  Health Care: Expenditure
  Health Care: Expenditure
  Homeless Persons: Registration with General Practitioners
  Homeless Persons: Registration with General Practitioners