Sitting of 10 November 1997

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

    Millennium Projects
    Mr. Pike: What the legacy of the millennium projects will be in London and the regions. [13426]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): During its lifetime, the Millennium Commission will spend more than £2 billion on projects throughout the United Kingdom, covering five key themes: investing in education; promoting science and technology; revitalising cities; supporting communities; and encouraging environmental sustainability. It will thus prove of lasting benefit to the whole nation.
    Mr. Pike: The forest of Burnley scheme has overwhelming support in my constituency, but it could not have gone ahead without millennium funding. Will not such schemes change the country positively for the forthcoming millennium?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right. The forest of Burnley scheme has received a £1.7 million grant from the Millennium Commission. It will create 500 hectares of new woodland and engage an arts and education programme linked to the woodland work.
    I should like to add that I am delighted that, later this afternoon, my hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio will be answering questions about the millennium dome. I remind the House how important it was that I suggested four months ago that he should take over direct responsibility for the millennium experience. It would have been improper for me, as chairman of the Millennium Commission, which provides a major proportion of the funding, to be in charge of the company that received the money.
    Mr. Fabricant: The Secretary of State will be aware that one project being undertaken throughout London, as well as at London in my constituency, is the restoration of church bells. Is he aware of the difficulty being experienced throughout the London area and in other parts of the United Kingdom? English Heritage is insisting that church bell frames should also be maintained, even though 200 or 300-year-old frames are often not suitable
    560
    for the restoration of existing bells. The Secretary of State should be aware of that problem, which is causing a logjam, as people cannot easily get up to belfries to see the frames—after all, the object of the exercise is the heritage of bell ringing and the bells themselves.
    Mr. Smith: I am aware of the issue. We need to ensure that the frames are robust enough and that heritage interests are taken fully into account. I shall discuss the matter with English Heritage.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I thank the Secretary of State for the money that has already been allocated to Northern Ireland projects. Will he reconsider the problem of shortfall in the satellite for the sports academy, which is so vital to our heritage? We have been boxing above our weight over the years, as a small community. It would be worse if we did not have that facility to match the others.
    Mr. Smith: I am well aware of the issue. My hon. Friend the Minister for Sport will have a word or two to say about the British academy of sport later. We hope to make some specific announcements in a few days.

    Tourism (Minimum Wage)
    Mr. Clappison: What representations he has received on the impact of the introduction of a minimum wage in the tourist industry. [13427]
    The Minister for Film and Tourism (Mr. Tom Clarke): I have received representations from a number of leading figures in the tourism and hospitality industry, and have taken careful note of the views expressed.
    Mr. Clappison: Has the Minister seen the evidence presented to the Low Pay Commission by the British Hospitality Association, which represents 25,000 establishments in the hotel and catering industry, some 78 per cent. of which think that the introduction of a national minimum wage without regional variations will have a particularly serious effect on jobs and businesses in rural and coastal areas? Does the Minister agree with the association's view that the least that should be done to help those businesses is for benefits in kind to be taken into account in assessing compliance with the minimum wage?
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman should give the Government credit for honouring their election pledges: first, to commit 'themselves to a minimum wage; secondly, to set up the Low Pay Commission; and, thirdly, to ensure that the commission recognised the issues faced by the tourism industry. The hon. Gentleman referred specifically to the British Hospitality Association. I remind him of the views of the president of that association, Garry Hawkes. Referring to a survey showing that 84 per cent. of hospitality staff and 65 per cent. of their employers supported a statutory minimum wage, he said:
    "this research shows there is a broad acceptance of the minimum wage issue now. This industry is not against it, but employers want it to be set at a realistic level".
    That is entirely the Government's intention.
    Mr. Bayley: Does the Minister recall the words of Sir Winston Churchill? He said that a minimum wage was needed because, otherwise, the good employer would be driven out of business by the bad, and the bad employer would be driven out of business by the worst. I have consulted tourism employers in my constituency who say that they have no problem with the principle of a minimum wage, although they believe that the level at which that wage is set is important. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that a wide range of voices in the tourism industry will be consulted before a final decision is made?
    Mr. Clarke: That process is already going on. I agree with my hon. Friend, who rightly referred to Winston Churchill. One of the problems about the Conservative party is that it not only does not know where it is going—it does not know where it is coming from. The minimum wage has been supported by Winston Churchill, by Harold Macmillan, by the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), and, much more important, by people such as John Scott, the managing director of the Frere Jacques restaurant in Kingston, Surrey, who said:
    "this is not about altruism. It makes sound business sense to pay high wages because I get good-quality, highly motivated people."
    That is the Government's intention as well.
    Mr. Spring: What does the right hon. Gentleman think will be the impact of the European Commission's social chapter proposal, which we cannot now veto, to impose works councils on small and medium-sized businesses? Does he not recognise that that, coupled with the introduction of the minimum wage, will destroy the viability of our tourism industry, destroy jobs now and destroy the ability of this important industry to create jobs in future?
    Mr. Clarke: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new post and look forward to further exchanges. I hope that, on future occasions, he will get his facts right. He does not speak for the industry when he deplores the social chapter, and he does not speak for the British people either. The Labour party's policies were endorsed by the British people and we intend to implement them. We do so in the knowledge that we are attempting to ensure proper job motivation, proper careers, especially for young people, and the removal of sweatshop conditions that the industry itself deplores. I recommend the hon. Gentleman to make some of the visits that I have made over the past six months in every part of the country. He will hear from people such as Jerry Walden, who wrote just a few weeks ago from the New Commercial inn in Axminster, Devon. He said—his views are important—
    "the long-term future of our industry is dependent on a better paid, better cared for, better trained and more professional workforce".
    That is what we intend to introduce.
    Mr. Grocott: Having heard numerous representations from the Opposition on the minimum wage, has my right hon. Friend formed the impression, as I have, that it is a matter of supreme indifference to them whether people are earning £1.50 an hour, £1 an hour or even less? Although we regret the fact that the Opposition are taking such a time to learn basic, decent standards of industrial
    562
    relations, does my right hon. Friend share my pleasure that, even six months after the election, they still have not begun to learn some of the reasons why they were beaten?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The tourism, hospitality and leisure industry employs 1.7 million people. It has a great future, but not one based on exploitation, poor wages or lack of training. That is one of the many reasons why the Conservatives are in opposition and we are in government.

    Museums (Minimum Wage)
    Mr. Forth: What representations he has received on the impact of a minimum wage on employment in the nation's museums. [13428]
    The Minister for Arts (Mr. Mark Fisher): No direct representations have been made to me, but I am aware that a number of organisations that represent museum interests have submitted written evidence to the Low Pay Commission in response to its invitation.
    Mr. Forth: Will the Minister be making any representations to the commission in order to safeguard the interests of the museums which, for the time being, are under his care? If so, what will he say? Is he concerned about the possibility that the museums might have to lose valuable staff if a minimum wage were wrong-headedly set at too high a level? Is that one of the things that he will say?
    Mr. Fisher: No. I have met the Museums and Galleries Commission and the Museums Association and seen their submissions to the Low Pay Commission. They have discussed the issues and are much more positive about the proposals than the right hon. Gentleman appears to be.
    Mr. Healey: Does my hon. Friend recognise that tourism has a track record of low pay, which results in high staff turnover and low investment in training? Does he further recall the report that was commissioned and published by the previous Administration showing that 45 per cent. of full-time tourism staff—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but his remarks relate to the earlier question. We have moved on and are now dealing with the nation's museums. The hon. Gentleman's question must relate to the substantive question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Healey: The museum industry is a crucial part of the tourism industry—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Had the hon. Gentleman mentioned museums in the earlier part of his question, it would have been acceptable. Presumably, he is talking about the staff in museums.
    Mr. Healey: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I omitted to mention that in the earlier part of my question.
    Does my hon. Friend recall the survey commissioned by the previous Administration covering tourism staff, including museum staff, which showed that 45 per cent. of full-time staff in the sector had received no training

    563
    since they left education, and that 74 per cent. of part-timers were in the same position? Does he agree, therefore, that the national minimum wage offers the museum sector of the tourism industry the chance finally to break the vicious cycle of recruitment problems, skill shortages, low pay and poor image?
    Mr. Fisher: I think my hon. Friend makes his point extremely well and I agree with him.
    Mr. Maude: I am sorry the Minister's answers are not to be followed by a countermanding from the Secretary of State, who seems to be in the habit of saying that the Minister has it wrong whenever the hon. Gentleman opens his mouth in public.
    I hope that the Minister will reconsider the effect of a national minimum wage on the enthusiasts who are the lifeblood of many small local museums, many of whom work for less than £2 an hour, which is really pocket money. Is he saying that in future, under a caring Labour Government, such people must work for nothing—if they work at all?
    Mr. Fisher: No. The right hon. Gentleman probably refers to the Association of Independent Museums. I have received representations from Mr. Jonathan Bryant and others in that association. It is quite right that they should make those representations—and they have done so—to the Low Pay Commission. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Low Pay Commission is required to take into account the social as well as the economic impact of the report.

    Television Licence
    Mr. Evans: What representations he has received concerning the television licence. [13430]
    Mr. Chris Smith: We have received nearly 500 letters from hon. Members and members of the public about the television licence. In addition, there have been 12 questions on the subject from hon. Members. The majority of those representations have been about television licence fees and licensing requirements for specific individuals or groups.
    Mr. Evans: I am grateful for that reply. Since pensioners are still reeling from the news that they will get no support with their energy bills as regards the wind chill factor, does the Secretary of State agree with the early-day motion tabled by some of his colleagues just three years ago—some of whom are now Ministers—urging the Government to take urgent action to facilitate free television licences for pensioners? Is it not the case that Labour Members support pensioners when in opposition but betray their trust when in government?
    Mr. Smith: It is a bit rich for Conservative Members to talk about doing down pensioners. I received a letter from the hon. Gentleman on 6 July about the BBC licence fee, in the course of which he mis-spelt the word "licence" not once but four times. That, I suppose, is the result of 18 years of Tory education policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that, if we made free licences available to all pensioner-only households, it would cost £465 million,
    564
    which would mean an increase in the licence fee for everyone else of £30 a year. We are not prepared to do that.
    Mr. Rowlands: Despite some useful changes in the regulations governing television licence fees for elderly people, I must tell my right hon. Friend that there are a huge number of anomalies in the scheme. If nothing else, will he look at those anomalies, which need to be addressed because they are causing great resentment and irritation?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes a much better point than the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). There are indeed serious anomalies in the system at the moment. We shall certainly wish to look at that, in conjunction with the general review of the licence fee in a few years' time, to which we are committed. We were committed to that review by the previous Government and we shall be following it through.
    Mr. Gale: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the information that was given to me by his Minister for Arts to the effect that his party has no plans whatever to consider concessionary television licences—having given the impression in opposition that they would—until at least 2002? Is he not letting pensioners down flat?
    Mr. Smith: No, because we made no commitment whatever on concessionary licences before the election.

    Athletics
    Mr. Ennis: What plans he has to help improve the quality of training for British athletes. [13431]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): We are committed to improving the quality of training both through the development of a British academy of sport, which will provide our athletes with the best training facilities possible, and the English Sports Council's world-class performance programme, which provides lottery support to our elite athletes.
    Mr. Ennis: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. There is a great deal of anticipation about the establishment of a British academy of sport. When can we expect an announcement from him about the location and establishment of that facility?
    Mr. Banks: There will be an announcement on Friday.
    Mr. Maude: Bearing in mind recent U-turns on the sporting front, will the Minister confirm the report in yesterday's papers that cricket, rugby and football will be included in the British academy of sport? In the light of recent events, can he tell the House whether the leading lights of those sporting organisations were financial contributors to the Labour party?
    Mr. Banks: Those sports were never going to be excluded. There has been considerable misunderstanding over the question. [Interruption.] I shall tell the House why. The concept was very good; unfortunately, the design brief did not get very many points. Ministers previously said: "Yes, we are going to have an academy

    565
    of sport. Now tell us what sort of an academy we are going to have." Since the election, we have been ensuring that we know exactly what sort of academy we will have. It will mainly be directed at the Olympic sports and at those for which there are national and world championships.
    There has never been any question of the team sports, such as football, rugby and cricket, being excluded, but their needs are so particular that they should have separate academies. We are working actively to achieve that. The academy for sport and its skills in sports medicine and science will be available to all sports, including the team sports. If the right hon. Gentleman can contain himself a little longer—I know the process has been drawn out, but the wait is worth it because the decision is undoubtedly the most important that we face in British sport—the announcement will be made on Friday.
    Mr. Bercow: Labour party funding?
    Mr. Banks: As far as I am aware, there is no question of Labour party funding—more' s the pity.

    Children's Radio
    Mr. Woolas: What representations he has received on proposals for a children's radio channel; and if he will make a statement. [13432]
    Mr. Fisher: We have received representations from nine organisations and individuals in support of the award of an independent national radio licence for the provision of a children's radio service.
    Mr. Woolas: I thank the Minister for that answer and for the reply that I received earlier by letter. Do the Government recognise the many benefits, both educational and in general, that children receive from radio broadcasting for them?
    Mr. Fisher: Having been brought up on "Children's Hour", Uncle Mac and "Dick Barton, Special Agent",
    I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend that high-quality broadcasting, both radio and television, is important for children. It plays a major part in education, widens a child's horizons and sparks a child's imagination. Above all, it is fun.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Is the Minister aware that the BBC's children's television programme budget has been cut by £5 million since last year? Does he worry about the increased number of cartoons shown on television? Has not the time come for him to examine that issue as well as the question of a children's radio station?
    Mr. Fisher: The BBC charter requires the BBC to produce a large amount of high-quality, original programming and last year it produced 1,500 hours of children's programming of very high quality. I presume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Broadcasting Standards Council's report. Both he and I need to study that report in some detail, because some of the original headlines were not borne out by the detail of the report. Indeed, in the Evening Standard today, the BBC puts
    566
    a robust case and points out that only one cartoon show is on at prime time each day this week, with none at all on Wednesday.

    Sport (Disabled People)
    Mr. Robathan: What assistance his Department is giving to sport for disabled people. [13433]
    Mr. Banks: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware that I take a close personal interest in that subject. We are determined to promote sport for people with disabilities. It is our aim to maximise opportunity for all people, no matter what their ability.
    For the year 1997-98, the English Sports Council is providing disabled sports organisations with just under £590,000. That includes £40,000 to the British Deaf Sports Council, £195,000 to Disability Sport England and £111,500 to the English Sports Association for People with Learning Disabilities. Some £1.3 million also goes to our elite athletes with disabilities.
    Mr. Robathan: I am sure that the whole House supports that work. However, should not the Minister listen to what disabled people say themselves? Perhaps he should read the letter from the chairman of the British Paraplegic Shooting Association, backed up by the chief executive of the British Olympic Association, which pleaded with the Home Secretary to allow disabled sportsmen and sportswomen in wheelchairs to continue with their sport of firing pistols. The Minister should listen to those people and not dictate what they should do.
    Mr. Banks: I do, indeed, listen, and since I became Minister for Sport, I have opened the special Olympic games at Portsmouth, the world blind sailing championships at Weymouth and the British disabled water-skiing facility at Heron lake. I have attended disabled rugby, volleyball, cricket, football, skiing and archery. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is making the point that I should listen to sportsmen and sportswomen with disabilities, and I have been listening to a particularly large number of them.
    The Government's policy on shooting is absolutely clear. When we come to the Olympic and Commonwealth games, some arrangements will have to be made for those sports to be included, but I am afraid that Government policy cannot be overwhelmed by the interests of sportsmen and women.

    Radio Licences
    Mr. Vaz: What proposals he has to increase the number of radio licences. [13434]
    Mr. Chris Smith: The Radio Authority has statutory responsibility for the advertising, award and regulation of all independent radio licences acting within the terms of the Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996. Since its creation, the authority has almost doubled the number of independent radio licences issued. The authority has a continuing forward programme for the advertisement and award of new licences.
    Mr. Vaz: Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the Radio Authority on the way in which

    567
    it has handled its difficult task of awarding licences? Does he agree that, once the frequencies become available, they must be publicised as widely as possible to allow as many community groups as possible the opportunity to bid, rather than just leaving it to the big guns who know when the information will be published?
    Mr. Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend on both counts. The authority takes steps to advertise in local newspapers, to contact local authorities and to write to all hon. Members in the area affected by a forthcoming franchise. I hope that the authority will see what more it can do, but it is mindful of its responsibilities.
    Mr. Yeo: In view of Labour's commitment to open government, does the Secretary of State agree that it would be helpful to all concerned if any future applicant for a radio licence were required to state in public at the time of the application whether he was a financial donor of the Labour party?
    Mr. Smith: I am not sure that I would make any such requirement specific to any political party.

    Tourism (Welfare-to-Work Programme)
    Mr. Hurst: If he will make a statement on the employment opportunities the tourist industry will be able to offer under the welfare-to-work programme. [13435]
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Tourism, with its enormous potential for employment generation, is well placed to play a key role in the new deal/welfare-to-work programme. Almost 50 leading employers and trade bodies in tourism, hospitality and leisure have already indicated strong interest in the programme.
    Mr. Hurst: What steps are the Government taking to encourage the active participation of the industry in the welfare-to-work programme?
    Mr. Clarke: The Government are preparing to take a number of steps, including a conference on 24 November, organised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and involving the Department for Education and Employment and the British Hospitality Association, to consider these matters. Almost 50 employers and trade bodies have expressed an interest in working with the Department to achieve that objective.

    National Lottery
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: What plans he has to reform the national lottery. [13436]
    Mr. Chris Smith: I published my proposals to reform the lottery in the White Paper "The People's Lottery" in July. They will make the lottery work better and increase the number of people who will benefit from the good causes that it supports. Some of the proposals require legislation and I expect to introduce the lottery reform Bill before Christmas.
    Mrs. Bottomley: Has the Secretary of State seen the comments from Lord Rothschild who. like others,
    568
    is complaining about the increase in ministerial interference and diktat and the reduction in sums available for heritage, sport, the arts and charities? Lord Rothschild estimated that £200 million less will be available for heritage as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals. Is he aware of the growing anger at his disregard for the principles of additionality and the arm's-length arrangements? Is he aware that, increasingly, his proposals are being described not as a people's lottery but as a Chancellor of the Exchequer's lottery through which Ministers' pet projects can be funded through the back pocket?
    Mr. Smith: I will make three brief points in response to the right hon. Lady's six. First, we stand firmly behind the principle of additionality. In September 1994, the previous Prime Minister said:
    "The money raised by the Lottery will not replace public expenditure."
    If the right hon. Lady does not think that that is good enough, I would remind her of her own definition. In July 1996, she said:
    "Lottery funds are not intended to substitute for funds which would have otherwise been provided by conventional public expenditure."
    We agree, and there is no intention in the people's lottery proposals to do anything other than stand by those definitions of additionality.
    Secondly, each of the existing distributary bodies will receive exactly the amount that they originally anticipated receiving when the lottery began: £1.8 billion during the seven-year lottery franchise. Thirdly, the right hon. Lady is ignoring the benefits that will come from the new proposals for £1 billion of additional spending on health and education-related projects, which the people of this country supported when they voted on 1 May.
    Madam Speaker: Mr. Skinner.
    Mr. Skinner rose—
    Mr. Maclennan rose—
    Madam Speaker: I called Mr. Skinner.
    Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman will have to go after me. After all, he is only a little Liberal.
    When the reform takes place, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the distribution of lottery money throughout the country is different from what it has been in the few years of its existence? It is well known that in the east midlands and certain counties, such as Derbyshire, the distribution has been woefully weak, and we want to ensure that in future those who participate in the lottery in our part of the world get a fair crack of the whip. If we can get rid of that dome and find some more money, so much the better.
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend will know that one of our proposals is that the distributary bodies should draw up a strategic plan for the deployment of their resources; as part of that, we shall look to them to ensure a fair distribution across the whole country.
    Mr. Maclennan: Bearing in mind the fact that the previous Government presided over a decline in the vote

    569
    money for the Secretary of State's Department and that he has not arrested that decline, how does he propose to deal with the revenue difficulties of many companies, such as the Gate theatre in London, and the Greenwich theatre, to which Ms Polly Toynbee drew attention today—never mind the Royal Opera house? Does he believe that his proposals for changing lottery rules will in any way deal with the decline of many companies throughout the country that have so far not been assisted by the lottery?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, because the proposals in the White Paper specifically suggest that we should move away from the exclusive concentration on capital spending, on bricks and mortar, and start to give more support from lottery funds to people and activities; that will be the start of resolving some of the problems that the right hon. Gentleman identified.
    Mr. Baldry: The Secretary of State will be aware that national lottery funding is to be used for the British academy of sport. Any hon. Member who listened to the Minister for Sport's reply could have drawn the reasonable inference that there was to be an announcement of the winner this Friday, but that will clearly not happen. It should be made clear that the announcement on Friday will be of the criteria by which national lottery bids could be judged.
    Given that the Government announced on 21 July that a winner would be announced by September, is it not time that a grip was got on the whole project and that we had a clear timetable for the announcement of a winner for the British academy of sport? Many people have invested a lot of time, effort and energy. In the Heyfords, for example, we believe that we are a winner, and we have the support of the British Olympic community, but it is very frustrating not knowing where we stand. Can we have clear criteria and a clear timetable against which everyone can bid?
    Mr. Smith: It is precisely because inadequate energy and effort were put in by the previous Government that we have had to spend all of the past six months trying to get a grip on this issue. On Friday, we will be announcing a clear set of details and a framework for the academy. There are three possible locations, which will be invited to submit final proposals within one or two weeks to accord with the framework that we will put in place on Friday, and a decision will then be made rapidly.

    Sport (Television Coverage)
    Mr. Baker: What plans he has to protect live coverage of key sporting events on terrestrial television. [13437]
    Mr. Chris Smith: As we promised before the election, we are considering the nature and extent of the list of major domestic and international sporting events that must be available for live coverage on terrestrial television. I have recently consulted all interested parties on the principles that ought to apply to such a list. The results of that consultation have been received and I shall shortly be appointing an advisory group to advise me further.
    Mr. Baker: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Does he recognise that many people will feel that
    570
    it is wrong that major sporting events, which belong to the nation, such as one-day international cricket or Premier League football, are denied to ordinary people who do not have access to Mr. Murdoch's satellite television at the exorbitant charge of £22 a month? Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure that those events are given proper consideration in his review? Will he also recognise that the definition of terrestrial television should not include Channel 5 because many parts of the country, including my constituency, do not receive it?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point on Channel 5. He also has to recognise that, in determining this issue, we need to achieve a proper balance between the need for sporting organisations to get the best possible value from the matches and games that they are putting on and the right of ordinary people who cannot afford and do not want to afford subscription television to see major national events. It is getting that balance right that the review is all about.

  MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (MILLENNIUM EXPERIENCE)
  The Minister was asked—
  MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (MILLENNIUM EXPERIENCE)

    Transport Infrastructure
    27. Dr. Starkey: What plans he has to secure the provision of an adequate transport infrastructure for the millennium experience. [13454]
    The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Peter Mandelson): In addition to the road improvements under way, there will be an excellent public transport network offering visitors a variety of ways to travel to the millennium experience, including new river boat services and the new Jubilee line extension. These developments will be an important legacy for our investment and I am sure that they will be welcomed by the whole House.
    Dr. Starkey: I thank the Minister for his reply. He may be aware from reports in today's press that public interest in the millennium exhibition is extremely high and that there are concerns that there may be some problems with congestion. What steps is he taking to ensure that visitors to the exhibition spend the maximum amount of time enjoying themselves at the exhibits and the minimum amount in queues to get in?
    Mr. Mandelson: Our single most important objective is to ensure that when people come to Greenwich—we are expecting 12 million visitors in 2000—they have a once-in-a-lifetime experience, full of excitement and enjoyment, without delay or frustration in travelling to and moving around the millennium dome. That is why the New Millennium Experience Company has developed an operational plan that, through pre-booking of tickets, will guarantee access to attractions in the dome, ensure minimal queuing for the attractions and—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Stop it.
    Mr. Mandelson: It will leave ample capacity in terms of the transport infrastructure that I have described.
    Mr. Robathan: I am sure that the House will join me in welcoming the Minister to the Front Bench.

    571
    How delighted we are that he has come to answer questions, albeit for only five minutes. He may not be aware that I was given this question by his parliamentary private secretary; sadly, I got no supplementary.
    What definite proposals are there for improving river transport? That is a serious matter for the whole of London in the future, and not just the millennium. What definite proposals are there for money from the public side and also private money to be put into transport down to Greenwich?
    Mr. Mandelson: We expect 1 million people to travel by boat from central London using new pier and river services and park-and-sail sites to the east of the site. Decisions on temporary park-and-sail facilities are expected in December. Five applications with Greenwich, Barking and the London Docklands development corporation have already been lodged. I am very pleased to say that the New Millennium Experience Company and the Cross-River Partnership, working closely together, are making sure that we bring about this increased use of the Thames as part of the Deputy Prime Minister's Thames 2000 initiative.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: May I add to the pressure on the Minister to ensure that river transport not only is provided for the millennium but becomes part of the infrastructure of London transport for visitors, commuters and residents alike, integrated with the other public transport systems and at a price that ordinary people can afford?
    Mr. Mandelson: That is exactly what the Deputy Prime Minister has in mind. I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend is making considerable progress in developing river services and the new millennium pier at the Greenwich peninsula, as well as investing in other piers along the Thames back from the Greenwich peninsula. I stress that they will be a permanent, important legacy for the Thames for the entirety of London. That will not be the only important legacy, but it will be a very significant one flowing from our investment in the millennium experience.
    Mr. Maude: It is usual to welcome a Minister on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. It is unusual to have to wait six months to do it. At the rate of answering one question every six months, we can be sure that the Minister will not outstay his welcome.
    Given that the most popular visitor attraction in London attracts no more than 2.5 million visitors a year, does the Minister have any basis for believing that 12 million visitors will be drawn to the millennium dome, other than the assertion in a letter from Jennifer Page, which mysteriously makes an appearance in the Financial Times today?
    Mr. Mandelson: The right hon. Gentleman is not correct. The British museum attracts 6 million visitors every year. The estimate of 12 million visits to the millennium experience is based on industry projections and poll findings. An NOP poll a year ago, when the future of the project was highly uncertain, showed that a third of the population were interested in visiting. A Gallup poll for The Daily Telegraph in August predicted more than 10 million United Kingdom visitors. That is, of course, together with travel industry
    572
    projections that put the expected number of overseas visitors at almost 2.5 million. I do not believe that there will be any shortage of visitors to the millennium experience—something which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming strongly.

  LORD CHANCELLOR
  The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—
  LORD CHANCELLOR

    Morley Magistrates Court
    Mr. Gunnell: What representations he has received in respect of proposals to close the magistrates court in Morley. [13459]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): No representations have been received by the Lord Chancellor's Department in respect of proposals to close Morley magistrates court. Magistrates courts are provided by the local paying authority for the use of magistrates courts committees. Decisions concerning the future of any magistrates court are for the relevant MCC to determine, in consultation with the local paying authority.
    Mr. Gunnell: I thank the Minister for his reply. Nevertheless, I am sure that he will understand the concern of those Morley magistrates who have met me when he has read the report of Her Majesty's inspectors recommending that Leeds MCC consider the use of the outer courthouses and the response to it. Will he ensure that, in considering such issues, committees take account of the latest position, the investment that has gone into courts and the social consequences of any suggestion that such courts should be closed? Closure would have serious consequences, both for those who serve in the courts in Morley and for those who have to answer charges there.
    Mr. Hoon: I am sure that the magistrates courts committee will take that into account. I understand that, in the light of the Court Service inspectorate report of March 1997, the Leeds magistrates court committee decided at its meeting of 17 October 1997 to conduct a review of its outer courthouse premises at Morley, Pudsey and Wetherby. I assure my hon. Friend that no decisions have been taken at this stage of the review and no plans have been formulated on the outer courthouses.
    I understand that the committee has recently written to the local paying authority, Leeds city council, and the local benches about additional accommodation and facilities which might be made available to the MMC at Morley and Pudsey.

    Immigration Adjudicators
    Mr. Malins: What plans he has to increase the training given to immigration adjudicators. [13460]
    Mr. Hoon: Although training is primarily a matter for the chief adjudicator, we have substantially increased the money available for judicial training from —47,000 spent last year to —220,000 planned to be spent this year.

    573
    All new adjudicators receive two days' induction training, followed by a period of sitting in and mentoring by established adjudicators. Every adjudicator receives at least a day's training each year and attends a two-day conference at least every other year. They all have back-up from a research and information team.
    Mr. Matins: Given that the immigration appellate system is judicial, not administrative, and that many immigration adjudicators are becoming extremely frustrated at what they see as an over-use, possibly an abuse, of judicial review—25 per cent. of all judicial reviews are now immigration related—is it not time that the Minister considered whether he should curb, restrict or in some way remove the rights of parties to seek judicial review of such decisions?
    Mr. Hoon: As I have said before to the hon. Gentleman, a review of those matters is being undertaken by Ministers across Departments and, as a result, I hope that we will be able to bring forward proposals that meet his concerns.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I hope that my hon. Friend will bear it in mind that such issues must be looked at in a broad and tolerant way because we are dealing with people's lives. Two doctors in my constituency have been refused permission to bring in their mother on the basis that ladies aged 67 are not capable of work. I feel therefore that perhaps a little enlightenment in some of those Departments would not go amiss.
    Mr. Hoon: The Lord Chancellor's Department's responsibilities relate to appeals. The enlightenment necessary in that context should be such as to ensure that such appeals are dealt with speedily, fairly and in a satisfactory manner.

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Yeo: What recent representations he has received regarding the availability of legal aid. [13461]
    Mr. Hoon: I regularly receive representations from right hon. and hon. Members and the public about the availability of legal aid. Since my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor's announcement on 18 October about the changes we propose to the rules on availability of legal aid for money claims, my officials have met the chairman of the Bar, the president of the Law Society, insurers and other professional and consumer interest groups.
    Mr. Yeo: As the Government's proposals are likely to result in a substantial increase in business for the insurance industry, will the Minister tell the House with which insurance companies he has had discussions about those proposals and how many of them were financial contributors to the Labour party?
    Mr. Hoon: A number of discussions have taken place with a variety of insurance companies. We are interested in ensuring the widest possible availability of insurance at the best possible price for the users.
    Mr. Kidney: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the legal profession has made recent representations in favour
    574
    of a conditional legal aid fund rather than the Lord Chancellor's preferred option of conditional fees arrangements? Will he confirm that the crucial difference is that a legal aid fund would pay for disbursements in a case along the way, such as court fees and expert fees, much more than the insurance premium mentioned under the conditional fees arrangement? Does my hon. Friend agree that many poor litigants would be unable to find those sums of money to fund their cases in the future?
    Mr. Hoon: These are matters on which we are consulting. We are receiving representations from the Bar and the Law Society, as well as the views of insurance companies, on the affordability of the proposals. We will take all those matters into account to ensure that no one is unfairly excluded from the courts.
    Mr. Burnett: When the Minister was in private practice and he first scrutinised the papers of a case and considered its merits, did he ever advise a client—other than those involved in personal injuries case—that he had a better than 75 per cent. chance of success?
    Mr. Hoon: Of course, in those days I was not required to make such an assessment of a case; therefore, I never did. However, if the hon. Gentleman is referring to the proposal made by my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor that a case should attract a 75 per cent. chance of success before it should be granted legal aid, I can say only that it has been necessary to reach that test because of the failure of lawyers, over a long period, to satisfy adequately the existing test, which is essentially a 50 per cent. chance of success. We firmly believe that there is absolutely no reason why the taxpayer should have to support litigation that someone would not take forward privately.
    Ms Abbott: Is my hon. Friend aware of the widespread concern about Government proposals on changes to legal aid, especially about whether poorer litigants will be able to afford the up-front costs of insurance and various medical fees for reports in medical negligence cases? Recent remarks by my hon. Friend seem to suggest that he thinks that solicitors will simply absorb those costs, but is that likely, given that many practices are not in a position to cross-subsidise legal aid or contingency work with lucrative private work?
    Mr. Hoon: I have said that one of the solutions to the problem which my hon. Friend set out is that lawyers themselves could absorb those up-front costs. Most lawyers are in private practice and most businesses are required to expend a certain amount of capital-in this context, we are talking about time and some disbursements-before being able to achieve a return on their investment. I have suggested that that is one of the options, although, as I have already said, there are clearly others available.
    Mr. Garnier: The Labour party policy document "Access to Justice", which was published just before the election, stated that conditional fees were not expected to make a significant improvement to access to justice and that they were little more than a gimmick designed to mask the state of the legal aid scheme. Was the Labour party wrong then, or is the Minister wrong now?
    Mr. Hoon: We have had the benefit of academic research into the use of conditional fees. That research demonstrates that, in the approximately 28,000 cases so far agreed under conditional fees, there has been a remarkable success rate. We are happy to base our policy on the results of that academic research.

    Magistrates Courts
    Mr. Barry Jones: If he will make a statement on progress in respect of the rationalisation of the magistrates courts. [13462]
    Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend will be aware that, on 29 October, I made a statement to the House setting out in some detail the Government's plans for the future structure of the magistrates courts service.
    Mr. Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that closures can be very controversial and sometimes very injurious to local communities? Does he understand that long distances can be involved, that taxis are expensive and that bus services are sometimes hopelessly unreliable? Would he be prepared to meet a group of magistrates to discuss such matters?
    Mr. Hoon: I would certainly be willing to discuss such questions with any group of magistrates whom my hon. Friend cared to bring to the Department.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I wholly endorse what the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) just said. Is the Minister aware that the Gloucestershire magistrates courts committee is consulting on the closure of Stow-on-the-Wold magistrates court? That so-called consultation is not an open exercise; it consists of consultation among the staff of the various magistrates courts, the Crown Prosecution Service and other officials, but it does not involve members of the public. Will the Minister urgently investigate that situation? Surely it is the public who use the justice system of this country and who will be inconvenienced by the closure of the court who ought to be consulted first, and not afterwards.
    Mr. Hoon: I should be delighted to ensure that those local questions are thoroughly investigated, but I emphasise that they are local matters for decision by local magistrates courts committees. The matter only reaches the desk of my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor in the event of the local paying authority appealing against the decision made locally by the magistrates courts committee.
    Mr. Ainger: Is my hon. Friend aware that that was the policy followed under the previous Administration? In my present constituency and my previous constituency, under the previous Administration more than 75 per cent. of our magistrates courts closed, but, at the same time, we saw no improvement whatsoever in the quality of those magistrates courts that remained. Will my hon. Friend give me and the House an assurance that, under his policy, while there will be rationalisation of magistrates courts, there will also be an improvement in existing magistrates courts to serve the best interests not only of the accused, but of victims and witnesses?
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's question. I mentioned in the statement to which I recently referred
    576
    that it was important that we streamlined and integrated the functions of the various agencies responsible for our criminal justice system. I anticipate, in the light of the statement that I made to the House, that that will be achieved.

    Accommodation (Palace of Westminster)
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: If he will report on progress in the refurbishment of the Lord Chancellor's accommodation within the Palace of Westminster, indicating the latest estimated cost. [13463]
    Mr. Hoon: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his concern about the need to refurbish my 9 by 4 office in the House of Commons—hitherto, he has not been noted for his concern for the welfare of Labour Members of Parliament. I am, however, delighted to discover that he is now participating in the art of constructive, helpful opposition.
    For the sake of completeness, I should mention also that it has been suggested to me that this question is the product not of kindness but of incompetence, and that the hon. Gentleman is actually referring to the official residence provided by the House authorities to the Lord Chancellor. If that is so, I can assure him that the refurbishment has commenced and is expected to be substantially completed by January next year. The estimated cost remains at £650,000.
    Mr. Howarth: That is a most offensive answer. We know that old Labour still survives on the Government Benches; that cavalier attitude to £650,000 of public expenditure on the Lord Chancellor's accommodation betrays that fact.
    My question on the Order Paper relates not to the Minister's accommodation but to the Lord Chancellor's—
    Mr. Hoon rose—
    Mr. Howarth: I have not finished yet. Given that the Minister's right hon. and noble Friend wishes to dispense with the traditional attire of his office and to hand over power to the judges, perhaps the only sense in which the Lord Chancellor remains traditional is that, like all socialists, he is anxious to spend as much of other people's money as he possibly can.
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman got his question wrong the first time. He will know that the Lord Chancellor is the Speaker of the House of Lords, and the official residence is provided for his use in precisely the same way as Speaker's House is provided for the Speaker of this House. It is entirely appropriate, therefore, that both Departments should be properly conserved as part of the historic building programme undertaken over a 10-year period by the House authorities. Speaker's House has been maintained to a high standard, in keeping with the conservation policy, and the Lord Chancellor's official residence should match that standard.

Iraq
3.32 pm
Mr. David Winnick(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the crisis with Iraq.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): Saddam Hussein is once more defying the clearly expressed will of the United Nations and of the international community by refusing to allow the United Nations special commission, UNSCOM, to carry out weapons inspections. It is essential for the region and the rest of the world that UNSCOM be allowed to carry out its work. We know that Saddam Hussein still has the capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction. UNSCOM is crucial to ensuring that they are all destroyed.
It is clear that Saddam Hussein has misjudged the will of the United Nations. Security Council unanimity was demonstrated in the presidential statement issued the day the threat was made. The Government are determined to stand against Saddam Hussein. He is a dictator who has demonstrated a total lack of interest in the welfare of the Iraqi people. He has shown by his past actions that he is a threat to regional peace and regional security.
The Government are closely consulting other members of the Security Council to explore to the full diplomatic means of resolving the situation. We remain hopeful that Saddam Hussein will realise that co-operation with UNSCOM is the only way for Iraq to progress towards a lifting of sanctions.
Mr. Winnick: I thank the Minister for his statement. Is he aware that everyone in the House hopes that there will be a satisfactory diplomatic solution and that we are all hoping and praying that that will be the case? Is he further aware, however, that the full responsibility for the crisis certainly lies with the Iraqi dictator, and only with the Iraqi dictator?
Was not the Iraqi dictator responsible for the war against Iran started in 1980, which went on for so long? Was he not responsible for the invasion of Kuwait, and for acts of outright butchery inside Iraq, including the gassing of Kurds in 1988? We are indeed dealing with a notorious criminal, a murderous tyrant.
If the international community were to climb down now, what would be the next act by the Iraqi dictator? Is not the lesson to be learnt time and again that if democracies are dealing with such a criminal and murderous dictator, the only way for those democracies to act effectively is to stand firm, not to give in—no appeasement? I hope that that policy will be pursued.
Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend sets out clearly the indictment sheet against Saddam Hussein. There is a long history of terrible crimes against his own people and other people in the region. My hon. Friend is also right in saying that the United Nations and the British Government are determined to support UNSCOM and to ensure that UNSCOM is able to carry out its work. Without that support, there is a threat to others in the region; we are talking about weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical weapons, and it is crucial that we understand the scale of the threat from Saddam Hussein.
578
The position taken by the United Nations is not negotiable. We want Saddam Hussein to withdraw the threat to UNSCOM. That is the only position that is acceptable to us.
Mr. Michael Howard: May I assure the Minister that he has the full support of Her Majesty's Opposition in the response that he has just given? Does he agree that the actions of Saddam Hussein amount to a naked challenge to the authority of the United Nations and therefore to the world community? Does he agree with Sandy Berger, the national security adviser to President Clinton, that Richard Butler, the Australian head of the inspection team, is a total professional, running the inspection operation in an entirely apolitical way?
Will the Minister confirm that the quarrel of the United Nations is with Saddam Hussein, not with the people of Iraq, who suffer most grievously of all from his tyranny? Will he also confirm that if diplomatic means are not successful in resolving this very difficult situation, other methods, including the use of force, have not been ruled out?
Finally, will the Minister give the House an undertaking that he will not allow his handling of the matter to be in any way influenced by his past? Does he now accept that if his support for the peace tax campaign to entitle people to withhold that part of their income tax devoted to defence had succeeded, Britain would not have been able to play any part in upholding international law and order?
Mr. Fatchett: I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman's support for the United Kingdom Government and the position taken by the United Nations. I also share his assessment of the work of Butler and his colleagues, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right in saying that that work is apolitical and on behalf of the United Nations. It is important that the principle of United Nations bodies being open to people of all nationalities is preserved, which is why the United Nations has taken the position that it has adopted.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is also right in saying that this is a naked challenge to the authority of the United Nations by Saddam Hussein. It is Saddam Hussein who has put at risk the living standards and the lives of the people of Iraq. We have condemned, and will continue to condemn, all those actions. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that the United Nations resolutions allow Saddam Hussein to use oil revenues for humanitarian purposes, and we have had the greatest difficulty in persuading Saddam Hussein to do so.
Mr. Winnick: Why does he not do so?
Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also asked whether we would rule out any options in our response. From the very first moment when Saddam Hussein uttered his threat, we have made it clear that no option is ruled out. That is still the United Kingdom Government's position.
I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for all the earlier comments that he made. I suspect that, when he looks at his response to my important statement to the House, he will regret his cheap final comments.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I plead with my hon. Friends to be extremely cautious before endorsing

579
American unilateral actions? I visited Baghdad three years after the war and, like every other visitor, I was taken on the first morning to Amariya, to the bomb shelter hit by a cruise missile, where charred bodies were sketched into the walls. Far from weakening the Tikriti group and Saddam Hussein, such an attack strengthens Saddam Hussein's position.
Earlier this month, I spent a 17-day holiday—paid for by me, incidentally—in Iran. Those who lost a million people in that nine-year war do not think that it is right for the Americans to start launching cruise missiles on their neighbour. Would it not be much better at least to hear what Tariq Aziz has to say and to realise that we are dealing with desperate people who feel that they have nothing to lose in order to end the sanctions that are creating such misery? Those who have been round a children's hospital in Baghdad, as I have, and seen infants expiring in their presence—this is no exaggeration—take a different view of the effect of sanctions.
Mr. Fatchett: I never doubt my hon. Friend's sincerity, but he needs to look at the tactical and strategic options before the world community. If we allow Saddam Hussein to defy the United Nations and the world community, we offer him a green light to terrorism against his own people and others in the region. We must stand firm, because that is the principle which the history of the 20th century has taught us.
Mr. David Heath: Is the Minister aware that both sides of the House recognise that, in seeking a successful outcome without hostilities through every available diplomatic means, it is essential that the international community speaks as one and betrays neither disunity nor lack of resolve? However, military action by Iraq against a plane or personnel engaged in performing a UN mandate would be intolerable and, in extremis, that must be met by firm but proportionate force. Will the Minister assure the House that if British military assets are committed in that way, the matter will be reported to the House at the earliest opportunity?
Mr. Fatchett: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments on behalf of the Liberal Democrat party. We share his concerns about the nature of the regime in Iraq and the need to take concerted action. He will recall that the presidential statement made 10 days ago was a unanimous presidential statement from the Security Council. We are working with our colleagues to ensure that we maintain diplomatic unanimity in our response to Saddam Hussein. I repeat that the crucial point for us all is that Saddam Hussein must understand the message that we are not in a negotiating position; there are no compromises; he must accept that UNSCOM can do its work. That is in the interests of the Iraqi people and the people of the region. We cannot allow that dictator to continue to develop weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. Tony Benn: In considering the options that lie before the Government, will the Minister take into account the fact that independent sources suggest that more than half a million children under five have died in Iraq as a direct result of the sanctions? Those people have no power whatever to topple President Saddam
580
Hussein, who, in the course of his life, has received enormous support from successive British and American Governments, notably during the Iran-Iraq war.
Will my hon. Friend also give consideration to the fact that the French, the Chinese and the Russians, who are all permanent members of the Security Council, have indicated that they could not authorise the use of force without an explicit Security Council resolution, and that the secretary-general of the Arab League, representing important interests in the area, has come out strongly against the use of force? Other means must be found to deal with the situation.
Mr. Fatchett: Let me correct my right hon. Friend's assertion in two respects. First, in relation to the statement issued by the Security Council on UNSCOM, there was no division among the permanent members of the Security Council: there was unanimity across the Security Council for the presidential statement. If we try to create false divisions, the only person who will gain any advantage from that is Saddam Hussein.
Secondly, the United Nations resolutions have throughout provided the opportunity for Saddam Hussein to sell oil in order to improve the well-being of the people of Iraq. The simple fact is that he has not taken those opportunities. Do not blame the United Nations; do not blame the British Government; blame Saddam Hussein. He would prefer to spend money on weapons of mass destruction rather than on the people of Iraq. We understand the scale of his values and the nature of his priorities. That is why world opinion must be solidly against him.
Mr. John Wilkinson: I support the Minister's statement. Can he assure us that his Department, which recognises the value of diplomacy in a crisis such as the present one, also recognises the importance of other means, to which he alluded, to underpin that diplomacy? May we, therefore, take it for granted that his Department will be making representations during the current defence review, to ensure that the Ministry of Defence in the United Kingdom has adequate military means to underpin our diplomacy wherever that may be necessary, to contain threats to peace and to contain dictators such as Saddam Hussein, who are engaged on programmes for the development and construction of weapons of mass destruction?
Mr. Fatchett: On the hon. Gentleman's second question relating to our military capacity, the answer is yes. Those views will be expressed clearly during the review of Britain's military capacity. On his first question, we have said on many occasions since the presidential statement was issued from the United Nations that we do not rule out any option, and we are very clear in our language.
Ann Clwyd: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his strong words on the issue. Will he remind the shadow Foreign Secretary that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a member of the previous Government, who helped to arm Saddam Hussein, and that many of the components for the weapons of mass destruction were supplied to him during that time?

581
We have all been to Iraq and seen the situation there. The sanctions apply to the north and the south. There are people who are short of food and medicines in both the north and the south. Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend knows, throughout the period of the UN sanctions, those sanctions have been busted, with the complicity of the people on the borders, who should have been checking that the sanctions were adhered to.
I hope that my hon. Friend will continue in his decisive and robust assessment of the situation, and that if military action becomes necessary, we shall be party to it.
Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend has a long history of interest in Iraq and the problems facing the people of Iraq. She makes a powerful case for looking at the history of northern and southern Iraq, and at what has happened to the Kurds in the north and to the marsh Arabs in the south, both of which communities have been victims of Saddam Hussein. It is worth putting it on the record that both communities are victims of the dictatorship of their own leadership.
With regard to my hon. Friend's point about the previous Administration and their responsibility for arming Saddam Hussein, I concur with her. It would be wrong to get into cheap party political point scoring. We have already had one example of that, which failed miserably, and I do not want to follow the example of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and lower the tone further.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Minister said correctly that diplomatic channels are the best means of resolving the critical problem facing us. Will he confirm whether additional intermediaries are being used in the negotiation process with Saddam Hussein? Will the Minister advise the House of the attitude of the NATO alliance in the context of his assertion that no option will be ruled out? Will he also reassure hon. Members like me who represent constituencies where Tornados are based? The 12th squadron from Lossiemouth is currently engaged in surveillance and peacekeeping operations and is expected to return home by the end of the month. What reassurance can I provide to my constituents that they need not fear for the fate of their husbands and for all those working on Tornados?
Mr. Fatchett: It might be useful if I take this opportunity to reassure the hon. Lady and other hon. Members that we are not in a negotiating position. The Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, will report to the United Nations this afternoon about the mission that he sent to Baghdad. It was not a negotiating mission, but was intended simply to remind Saddam Hussein of the United Nations resolutions and the presidential statement, and to make it clear that there is only one option available: Saddam Hussein must comply with the United Nations resolutions. If he does not do that, I repeat that all options will be available to us and that we shall consider each and every one of those options in order to identify the best means of achieving the United Nations objectives.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, under international law, there is
582
a right of unconditional access to the sites for purposes of weapons inspection? It would establish a disastrous precedent if Saddam Hussein or anyone else were able to pick and choose from which nations the members of the inspection team came or with which clauses of the relevant United Nations resolutions he wished to comply. Surely the credibility of the United Nations as a world organisation is at stake in this crisis.
Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend is right both on the legal points and in terms of the implications for the United Nations. However, I must add a further point. The UNSCOM task is to deal with weapons of mass destruction. We are talking about not only nice legal or procedural points regarding the United Nations but the well-being of people in that region. Would any hon. Member trust Saddam Hussein with chemical and biological weapons? I suspect that the answer is self-evident.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I welcome the Government's and the Minister's firm resolve to resist the activities of Saddam Hussein. I draw the Minister's attention to some remarks made in this building only last Friday night by the former Commander-in-Chief of United Kingdom forces during the Gulf war, Air Chief Marshal Sir Patrick Hine. He made the point that, during the Gulf war, it was difficult trying to fight while seeing on television endless speculation about military options. Will the Minister join me in asking the media to resist the temptation of setting out all the military options—there are only a relatively small number—so that our forces are not put at risk and the Government's policy is not undermined?
Mr. Fatchett: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We must assess all the options. As to the military options—if we ever reach that situation—the assessments must be made in private and not in newspapers or in television studios. That is clearly in the best interests of any personnel who are engaged in military activities.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Is it not true that, if we had heeded the voice of those who opposed the war in 1991 and who tried to insist that we go down the sanctions route, Saddam Hussein would be today strutting round the streets of Kuwait? Is not the only way out of this dilemma to deal with him in the way that we have done in the past? It is the only language that that man understands. If we do not take action, Saddam Hussein will issue a threat against the developed world and it will be too late for us to meet it.
Mr. Fatchett: I agree with my hon. Friend's statements and the way in which he made them. Not only would Saddam Hussein be strutting round the streets of Kuwait, but I suspect that the dangers that he poses to other countries in the region would have materialised. We must get across the message that weapons of mass destruction know no boundaries or international obstacles. They could be used against any country in any circumstances.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I support the Minister's measured tones. I regret that some hon. Members may, on humanitarian grounds, give succour to one of the most despotic creatures that the world has

583
known. He has massacred many of his family and his citizens. We should not relieve him of the responsibility for the death of children in his nation. May I plead that any statements of support should express support for the United Nations decision? At no time should we appear to be joining in just because of leadership from the United States. It is important that those who make decisions in the United Nations should stand together and not leave it to one or two countries to do the policeman's work for the world.
Mr. Fatchett: I am pleased to re-emphasise the need for United Nations unanimity and for us to work with our partners on such issues. We are working on behalf of the United Nations and the international community. I welcome the first part of the hon. Gentleman's comments. The humanitarian balance is often difficult to strike, but we know from the lessons of the 20th century that appeasement leads to more loss of life than does taking a firm stand on principle.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Minister recognise that any analysis of the Gulf war or the Iran-Iraq war shows that one of the causes was the voracious appetite of arms salesmen around the world? Is he not concerned that the huge level of arms sales to Turkey over the past few years, the massive recent invasion of northern Iraq by Turkish armed forces and Turkish intentions in the region also pose a threat to peace? What is the Government's attitude towards the Turkish incursion in a neighbouring country?
Mr. Fatchett: The first part of my hon. Friend's question was about arms sales. One reason for publishing our criteria for arms sales in July was so that our decisions should be open, clear and accountable. I have no doubt that he welcomed those criteria.
We have said since May, when the first Turkish incursion in northern Iraq took place, that we are seriously concerned about the territorial integrity of Iraq. We have strongly advised Turkey that any action taken should be commensurate with any threat perceived by Turkey. Our position is clear.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Are not the people of Iraq faced with terrible conditions? On the one hand, they have Saddam Hussein's totalitarian dictatorship, which terrorises and exploits them. On the other hand, they have United Nations sanctions that bring about starvation, deprivation, lack of medical supplies in hospitals and the death of women and young children in droves. Have the United Nations or the Government applied themselves to resolving the terrible conundrum for the people of Iraq?
Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend's analysis is factually flawed. The United Nations resolutions provide Saddam Hussein with the opportunity to use oil revenues to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people. My hon. Friend should address his question to the Iraqi dictator, who feels that it is in the interests of Iraq to spend money on weapons and military hardware rather than on the people of Iraq.

Points of Order
3.59 pm
Mr. Christopher Fraser: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I tabled Question 28 to the Minister without Portfolio. Is it not unreasonable that we had only five minutes of his presence in the Chamber when it has taken us six months to get him here? During that five minutes, he managed to answer only one question. Would not democracy be better served by the Minister without Portfolio coming to this Chamber regularly, so that we could hold him accountable for his actions?
Madam Speaker: The time allocated to various Departments is not a matter for the Speaker; it is a matter which is arranged through the usual channels. I share, however, the hon. Gentleman's disappointment at not having his question called, although it was only the second question to the Minister without Portfolio. He will recall that on Question 27, to get a minority voice heard—I am sure that it is right that minority voices should be heard in the House—and to allow a Conservative Front Bencher to speak, I had to call four supplementaries. Often, that is where the time goes.
It is for the usual channels to determine the length of time for which Departments answer questions. I hope, however, that we can make better progress, because we are not making the progress that I would like to see at Question Times for all Departments.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is there not a point of principle for the House of Commons? Is not the implication of the reply to the private notice question by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office that force could be used? Even if a British force is not committed, we as a country are endorsing the use of force. Is it not, therefore, right for the House of Commons at least to have the opportunity to express a view on the background to a complex situation, which was set out in the questions and by my hon. Friend the Minister? Would you, Madam Speaker, therefore hear an application for a debate on the dangerous situation in Iraq under Standing Order No. 24?
Madam Speaker: I judged an application for a debate under Standing Order No. 24 earlier today and thought it right that, rather than have such a debate, which was also applied for last week, the Minister should be brought to the Dispatch Box today. He has given the House a very full explanation of the situation.
Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that last week, I raised with you the refusal by the President of the Board of Trade to answer a written question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). On that occasion, I undertook to give you further details of the situation about which I was complaining and which I was inviting you to rule out of order. I wrote to you and you kindly replied to me indicating that you did not think that it was a matter in which you would become involved.
You, Madam Speaker, will not, however, be surprised to know that I have undertaken further research into this important matter and into what I consider to be a neglect

585
of the rights of right hon. and hon. Members. I put to you, in the hope of securing a different ruling, the fact of which right hon. and hon. Members will be conscious. On 19 March this year, the House agreed a resolution on ministerial accountability, the third paragraph of which specifically stated:
"Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest".
Those terms were reproduced in subsection 4 of the first paragraph of the ministerial code, which was republished—[Interruption.] It was republished, not least for hon. Members' benefit, in July 1997 with the enthusiastic endorsement of the Prime Minister. In those circumstances, the refusal by the President of the Board of Trade to tell us when she was working during the summer recess might be judged to be out of order. Can you guide me, Madam Speaker, on how I can obtain an answer from the right hon. Lady?
Mr. Dennis Skinner rose—
Madam Speaker: I do not need to take further points of order on the matter. Ministers are not accountable to the House for the hours they spend in their Departments. They are accountable at the Dispatch Box for policy decisions. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) seems to have got the bit between his teeth and to be very interested in procedure, as I am. He might like to apply for an Adjournment debate on a Wednesday or one evening, in which he may get the full answer he seeks.

Orders of the Day

  Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: I must inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague).
  Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you give a ruling on a matter concerning the Bill that we are about to discuss? A similar matter also appeared in the Scottish and Welsh referendum Bills. Clause 1 relates to a question on Government proposals to be put in a referendum. As yet, we have no such proposals, as they are to be included in the White Paper. Is it appropriate that we should debate legislation on proposals before we know what those proposals are?
  Madam Speaker: Presumably, the hon. Gentleman is attempting to defend his party's amendment.
  Mr. Hughes: That will come later.
  Madam Speaker: I think that I know precisely what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. I remind him that the debate is perfectly in order; otherwise, we would not be continuing with it.
  4.5 pm
  The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Since the abolition of the Greater London council 11 years ago, London has been the only western capital without any form of democratically elected citywide government.
  For 11 years, the people of London have had to put up with an eccentric administrative patchwork made up of secretive Cabinet committees, ad hoc arrangements and a plague of quangos. No one was responsible, so no one was to blame. No one was ever to blame.
  "Who governs London?", the people asked, "Who is in charge?"—and answer came there none. No one represented London. The Minister in the previous Government supposedly representing London actually represented a rural Suffolk constituency. The whole set-up was amateurish—and it showed.
  London, with its customary inventiveness, did its best to compensate. Public, private and voluntary sectors came together in a variety of partnerships. They published strategies and launched initiatives, but there is a limit to what can be done by busy people with other responsibilities.
  Mr. Eric Forth: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I wanted to pick up his rather sneering reference to amateurishness and his implication that there is something wrong with local government in London. How does he square that with a recently published survey in which international business

  587
  men who were asked which was the best city to visit, and do business in, voted for London way above all other cities? How does the Minister explain that, if London lacks the government for which he is about to argue?
  Mr. Raynsford: Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman was not listening. He was keen to intervene, but not so keen to listen. My point is that the people of London—the private sector and the business community—all try to do their best despite the amateurish government framework. We know that the business community is committed to London and to our proposals. If the right hon. Gentleman reflected on the matter, he would realise that the Government speak for business in Britain, and his party is increasingly seen as an anti-business party.
  Londoners were not convinced. They saw the result of years of strategic neglect: no one to speak up for London nationally and internationally, decaying infrastructure, traffic chaos, worsening air quality, unacceptable levels of crime and a growing division between the rich and poor. They saw what was wrong and demanded the opportunity to put things right. That is why they gave such massive support to the Labour party in the general election, delivering in London the highest swing to Labour in the entire country. That is why we have also received overwhelming public support for the proposals published in our Green Paper
  Mr. Peter Brooke: I am sure that the Minister will agree that a whole series of factors could be attributed to the differential swing, including the fact that, in London, there was a large differential swing against the Labour party in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
  Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for one of his customary interventions in debates on London. I look forward to many more. I remind him, as one of the few survivors representing his party in London, that the swing was an overwhelming and decisive one, which took Labour into a large part of the capital city that had not previously been represented by Labour Members. Areas such as Wimbledon, Romford and Finchley now all benefit from Labour representation—and that is very good indeed for London.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Raynsford: No, I have given way twice. I ask the hon. Gentleman to linger a little. I will give way to him in due course.
  Londoners saw what was wrong and demanded the opportunity to put things right. That is why we received overwhelming public support for the proposals published in our Green Paper, and that is why I believe that Londoners will endorse our proposals in a referendum on 7 May.
  It is not only the residents of London who are calling out for a mayor and an assembly for the capital. The business community has put its considerable weight behind our proposals. It is not surprising because we share the same goals: a desire for soundly based and steady economic growth, involving and benefiting the whole community; improved living standards; and a better
  588
  quality of life for all. That cannot be done in a political vacuum. There is a need for real leadership and proper accountability.
  The business community recognises that if London is to continue to be a leading world city, it needs a champion—someone with the authority to speak up on its behalf at home and abroad. There is much that such a champion needs to do. London needs to compete with other world cities—such as New York, Tokyo and Paris—for its economic survival. It needs to compete for investment, for visitors, for prestige. If anyone thinks that a London Olympic bid would stand a chance of success without strong civic leadership driving it forward, they have only to look at the history of the past 11 years.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: The hon. Gentleman rightly spoke about the importance of greater accountability to the people of London. How will that be achieved, as accountability to most people means accountability for money spent? There is no clear proposal for the assembly's tax, revenue or impost-raising powers—or, rather, for the budget to be raised by the mayor and approved by the assembly. Without that vital clarification, how on earth can accountability be achieved?
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman questions accountability. I have always believed that it resulted from the democratic process, in which people stand for election because they believe that they have a contribution to make in terms of political and financial objectives. The people will ultimately judge their performance. That is the model which we are proposing. The Greater London authority will have powers concerning substantial sums of revenue that are currently discharged by other bodies—either central Government or other groupings. There will be a responsibility for finance, and democratic accountability will ensure that that finance is well used and prudently spent.
  Only an elected city leader will have the necessary mandate to take on the kind of role required to ensure that London can advocate its case internationally and against increasing competition from other world cities. Only an elected city leader will have the necessary mandate to bring all of London together in support.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister knows that this is one of the most controversial areas of the Government's proposals and that the leader in very nearly every European capital city is chosen from its assembly, not elected separately. Does he accept that there are very strong arguments—even if he might have been persuaded not to agree with them—that a directly elected mayor is a more dangerous political animal and less democratic than one chosen by a democratic assembly, as in this Parliament?
  Mr. Raynsford: No, I do not. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman suggests that an indirect election is more democratic than a direct election. I have been studying very carefully patterns in other countries, including other European countries. One of the visits that I made was to talk to the mayor of Cologne, with whom I discussed why his city has decided to change its procedure from one of indirect election to direct election. If the hon. Gentleman studies trends throughout the world, he will see that that

  589
  trend is growing because of concern about the line of direct accountability. London is one of the cities that will demonstrate the advantages of direct election.
  Mr. Simon Hughes indicated dissent.
  Mr. Raynsford: I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question; he does not like the answer.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: As there is a huge debate about the question of an elected mayor, is not there a case for a separate question in the referendum, so that people can vote on an elected authority for London, which will be strongly supported by all, and on a directly elected mayor who is less accountable if he or she is not answerable to an assembly?
  Mr. Raynsford: As my hon. Friend has probably anticipated, I intend to cover that subject later in my speech. I hope that he will bear with me, because I will deal thoroughly with it later.
  It is not just in the international arena that there is a role for the new authority. We need to improve the competitiveness of local businesses—whether small, medium or large—on which the London economy depends, and we need to tackle poverty and deprivation. Alongside the success stories, London has some of the highest unemployment and most deprived communities in Britain, cheek by jowl with some of the richest areas in Europe.
  We need a new authority able to reach out to all London's communities and all London's diverse cultural and ethnic groups to help all participate in London's increasingly competitive economy. That is the basis for our proposal for a new Greater London authority and that is why the new authority will have a key role to play in ensuring that transport is improved and congestion tackled; in helping to regenerate the rundown parts of our city; in fighting crime; in promoting partnership of relevant interests to tackle these problems; and in making London a better place for Londoners.
  We said in our manifesto:
  "Londonwide responsibility for its own government is urgently required. We will make it happen."
  Within just three months of taking office, we published a Green Paper setting out for consultation our proposals for a new Greater London authority. That consultation has generated more than 1,200 responses from all parts of the capital. All the responses are being read, and the views of Londoners and London organisations are being taken into account in working out our detailed proposals. We are studying the detail, but already it is clear that the consultation responses strongly support our proposals.
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I thank the Minister for giving way; he has been generous with his time. He confidently asserted that the people and businesses of London want both an elected mayor and an elected assembly. If he is so confident of that, why will he not ask them separate questions?
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman obviously was not listening when I replied to my hon. Friend the
  590
  Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) a moment ago. I said that I would cover the issue later in my speech and the hon. Gentleman might have had the courtesy to wait until I did so. I will cover it in detail and will give the hon. Gentleman an answer—not the one that he is looking for, but the one that he needs to hear.
  The Bill is the next stage in keeping our promise to the people of London by giving them the chance to restore democratic citywide government to the capital and to have their say in a referendum on 7 May. I hope and believe that there will be an overwhelming endorsement of the Government's proposal.
  The Bill is about providing for a referendum on proposals for a Greater London authority. It is not about the substance of the plans—they will be set out in a White Paper which we will publish in the spring. If the people vote yes to our proposals, legislation will be introduced next Session.
  Mr. David Wilshire: I understand that consultation on the referendum is primarily a matter for Londoners. I do not represent a London seat, but I represent an area policed by the Metropolitan police. The Minister is consulting Londoners, but I hope that he will also listen to those of us from outside London on policing. May we have an assurance that he will not try to bring my constituency and others into London at some stage in the future, because we would oppose that?
  Mr. Raynsford: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have no proposals to amend the boundaries of London and that, if he has responded to the consultation, his views will be taken into account in our consideration of all the responses.
  Before I deal with the referendum, I wish to restate briefly the key features of the authority. We promised in our manifesto that we would create a new Greater London authority, comprising a directly elected mayor and a separately elected assembly, who together will be responsible for key strategic issues that can best be tackled on a Londonwide basis. We will keep that promise. We believe that that structure will ensure strong and accountable leadership for London.
  The mayor will provide firm leadership and set the strategic direction for London—the mayor will be able to get things done. At home and abroad, the mayor will represent London's interests and aspirations. However, checks and balances are important. The assembly is essential to provide a proper framework of accountability and to scrutinise the mayor's plans and strategies and their delivery. This is not a package from which we can pick and choose. A mayor alone, without an assembly, would wield too much power. An assembly alone, without a mayor, would not give London the focus and leadership that it so desperately needs.
  Mr. Eric Pickles: The Minister may be right about the incompatibility of a mayor without an assembly, but it is equally possible that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) or my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) may be right. This is a matter of political debate which will be decided either by

  591
  elections or by a referendum, but the people will not get an opportunity to decide unless there are two separate questions.
  Mr. Raynsford: I made a mistake in giving way to the hon. Gentleman, who clearly failed to listen to my responses to his hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North. If he bears with me, I will reach that subject.
  Ms Margaret Hodge: Does the Minister agree that the Government's action in holding a referendum distinguishes us clearly from the action of the previous Government, who abolished the Greater London council without asking the people of London for their views?
  Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a valid point.
  Together, the mayor and assembly are the best deal for London. Unlike the half-considered—indeed half-baked—alternatives offered up by some, it will work. To those who argue for two, three or more questions—some would like to set Londoners a regular exam paper full of questions—I say this: as a responsible Government, we can put to the people of London only a proposition that will work.
  Some of the ideas that the Opposition are putting forward simply would not work. We are not impressed by gimmickry or by political posturing. Designing a new form of government is a serious business—it is not a lucky dip or a pick-and-mix. A mayor without an assembly would be a concept seen nowhere in the world, and for good reason. Where would the checks and balances lie? Who would consider and review the mayor's plans? Who would monitor progress and scrutinise the activities of the mayor?
  According to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), it should be a committee drawn from the leaders of the 32 London boroughs. Let me just remind him what London's newspaper, the Evening Standard, had to say about that proposition:
  "It is implausible that"
  the 32 borough leaders
  "could … provide an effective balance to the mayoralty."
  Of course, anyone with any practical experience of the processes of government would know exactly why. Every borough council leader would quite understandably use his or her influence to seek advantage for his or her borough. That is their rightful, current role.
  Only an Opposition as hopelessly confused and out of touch with reality as the present one could suggest such a formula for calling the mayor to account, confusing as it does the local interest of each borough with the wider interest of London as a whole. This is, of course, the same party which used to claim that there was no need for citywide government and that the 32 London boroughs could provide an appropriate framework for the government of London. That was the Conservatives' argument until 1 May. They were wrong then and they are wrong now. We will have no truck with such ill-thought-out proposals.
  Sir Paul Beresford: The Minister is talking about having a strong mayor, fighting for London,
  592
  yet he wants immediately to cripple him with an assembly that will not let him move. It is a recipe for conflict: between the boroughs and the assembly; the boroughs and the mayor; the assembly and the mayor; and all three and the Government. Nothing will happen.
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman spoke for the previous Government before the general election, and he was wrong: he advocated the solution that I have just described, in which there would be no citywide authority, and opposed our proposals for such an authority. He should reflect on the fact that the people of London overwhelmingly rejected his party's view.
  If the hon. Gentleman believes that the presence of an assembly will inhibit a strong mayor, let him visit cities throughout the world that enjoy the benefit of a framework of government with a mayor and an assembly. Let him go to New York, to see how that city has tackled the crime problem; to Barcelona, to see how that city has regenerated its fortunes; to any of the cities where effective mayors are working in an accountable framework with assemblies. He will see that his argument is complete nonsense.
  Mr. Paul Burstow: Given that the proposed question is very much a like-it-or-lump-it question, does the Minister agree that there is a danger that it will fail to enthuse and engage the electorate in London in a genuine debate, and that, as a consequence, the turnout will be too low?
  Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman believes that, he is even more out of touch than the official Opposition party. Is he unaware of the extraordinary public interest in our proposals since they were published and of the amount of attention that is being given to who will be the first mayor of London? Can he, or any other Opposition Member, recall an occasion when a local government election, probably two years away, aroused so much interest that people were already queuing up to stand?
  Sir Paul Beresford rose—
  Mr. Pickles rose—
  Mr. Raynsford: I have already given way to the hon. Gentlemen and their questions were inappropriate and ill thought out. I intend to make a bit more progress.
  We intend to put a clear and simple proposition to the people of London, based on proposals that we can recommend to them with confidence, and to give them the chance to endorse or reject it—yes or no—in a referendum.
  Let me remind all those Conservative Members who are trying to generate a synthetic protest under the banner of democracy that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) said, when the Tory Government took away from the people of London in 1986 the right to elect their own citywide government, there was no referendum: no question at all. The people of London were given no choice.
  It is sheer cant for Conservative Members to complain at the nature of the choice being offered to the people of London. Had their party won the 1997 general election, there would not have been two questions, three questions

  593
  or four questions: there would not have been a single question. They would have denied the people of London any question at all, and it is the grossest hypocrisy on their part to complain when the new Labour Government honour their manifesto pledge to give the people of London a clear choice on proposals for a new Greater London authority, comprising a directly elected mayor and a separately elected assembly.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: The Minister keeps talking about a directly elected mayor and a directly elected assembly. Why does not the question to be posed in the referendum, as set out in the schedule to the Bill, say that specifically? Why does it leave out the word "directly"?
  Mr. Raynsford: The question is one on which we have taken considerable advice, and we have tried to ensure that it is framed so as to be as comprehensible as possible to the widest range of Londoners. As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, there can be confusion with the framing of questions, and if the electorate are not clear there will not be a satisfactory outcome.
  Let me remind the hon. Gentleman of the question that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) suggested was appropriate. He suggested that there should be two questions, although his party now seems, judging by its amendment, to want three or more. A couple of weeks ago, he said on the radio:
  "There should be a simple first question: do you want a London-wide government elected by Londoners, yes or no? And there should be a simple second question: do you want that in a parliamentary style where they elect their leader or do you want directly to elect separately a mayor and an assembly?"
  If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that will produce a clear result, he is living in a different city, on a different planet.
  We have sought to frame the question simply and clearly to ensure that there is no ambiguity and confusion. That is what we are proposing and if the hon. Gentleman reflects on the question in the schedule, he will realise that that is what we have achieved.
  As with the referendums in Scotland and Wales, this Bill is relatively simple in legislative terms and I shall take a few moments to explain its provisions in more detail.
  Clause 1 provides for a referendum to be held on 7 May 1998, or at a later date if so appointed by Order in Council, and for the question that is to be voted on—the form of which is set out in the schedule.
  The provision for changing the date of the vote is there only for use in the event of unavoidable outside circumstances forcing a postponement. We recognise the advantage of the two happening on the same day. Through combining the referendum with local elections, we will deliver savings of between £2 million and £3 million to the public purse.
  Clause 2 defines who will be entitled to vote in the referendum. It will be those eligible to vote in local government elections in any London borough and those entitled to vote in ward elections in the City of London by virtue of residency. It is reasonable that the people who live in London should be those who will determine the future government of their city.
  594
  Clause 3 provides for the appointment and functions of a chief counting officer for Greater London and of counting officers for each borough and the City of London.
  Clause 4 sets out regulations governing the conduct of the poll. It provides for the poll to be combined with the local elections and for provision to be made by Order in Council, following affirmative resolution of both Houses, as to the conduct of the referendum and the combination of the polls.
  Clause 5 enables the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, to pay grants to London boroughs and the City of London in respect of expenditure incurred in connection with the referendum.
  Clause 6 excludes legal proceedings to question the results of the referendum as certified by the chief counting officer or a counting officer. Similar provision was made in previous referendum legislation. It is designed to prevent frivolous challenges and legal obstructionism.
  Parts II and III of the Bill deal with expenditure and paving provisions. It is intended that there should be fast progress towards the creation of the new authority. The Bill therefore provides for initial work to be done on the electoral areas of the authority and for expenditure primarily on obtaining and preparing accommodation for the new authority. Those provisions will not be used until an affirmative vote has been achieved in the referendum, and significant expenditure will be incurred only after the Second Reading of the substantive Bill establishing the authority.
  Clause 7 confers new functions on the Local Government Commission requiring it, at the direction of the Secretary of State, to prepare a report recommending electoral divisions into which Greater London should be divided for elections to the new authority.
  Clauses 8 to 10 set out the framework within which the commission must operate. It enables the Secretary of State to give the commission directions on how it should carry out its functions under this part of the Bill. Clause 11 provides for payment to be made to the commission in respect of its functions under this part.
  Clause 12 provides for expenditure to be made in connection with the referendum and preparation for the authority. Finally, the schedule to the Bill sets out the form of the question on which London will vote. As I have stressed, in drafting the question we have taken expert advice, including focus group research. We believe that the question is as clear and fair as possible.
  Mr. Richard Ottaway: I am obliged to the Minister for giving way. He referred to part II of the Bill and the electoral commission. What the Bill does not mention is the method of election. How will the commission know on which basis it is drawing its conclusions?
  Mr. Raynsford: As the hon. Gentleman will see from the relevant clause, the Secretary of State has powers to give direction to the boundary commission on the way in which it should approach its task. Those powers would not be used—I stress that—until there had been an affirmative vote in the referendum, by which stage the Government will have published their White Paper setting out their direct proposals. We will make clear our proposals for the election method and the constituencies.

  595
  As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, we consulted very openly on that. The Green Paper set out a range of options and possibilities. We have had a lot of responses—varied responses, as I am sure he will understand—and we are analysing them. Until we have completed the analysis and reached firm conclusions, it would be inappropriate to respond further to his question.
  Mr. Ottaway: Can the Minister therefore confirm that first past the post remains an option?
  Mr. Raynsford: Yes. No decision has been reached on the form of election to be adopted. As I said, we have consulted and we are considering the responses. A decision will be reached and our conclusions set out in a White Paper to be published in March in good time, before the referendum in which the people of London will be asked to express their view on our proposals.
  The Prime Minister pledged to reform our constitution and to clean up and modernise British politics, and we are moving fast. Since the general election, we have delivered referendums on devolution to Scotland and Wales. We have announced our attention to incorporate the European convention on human rights, and we will create regional development agencies to bring new economic life to our regions. The referendum with which the Bill is concerned will be an historic opportunity for Londoners to take control of their destiny, to right the wrongs of 1986 and to erase the insult done to the people of London by a Government who cared little for the capital, disregarded the wishes of its people and left it for 11 long years without leadership and without a voice. I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.35 pm
  Sir Norman Fowler: 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 Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill because it fails to provide for Londoners to be consulted on proposals for an Assembly and for a directly elected Mayor separately."
  It is a great pleasure to follow the Minister, who was very briefly my Member of Parliament in Fulham until the electors intervened. He has moved to Greenwich, where in his election address he made the same promises of devotion to its electors as he did in Fulham. He takes great pleasure in campaigning for the millennium dome for Greenwich, so perhaps the electors of Fulham should be thankful for his move.
  The great irony of the Government's approach to the legislation is that there is much in the principle of what is proposed that Conservative Members can support. We can support the principle of a directly elected mayor. We can support the principle of such a mayor not only acting as a voice for London but having a role in, for example, transport policy. We can support the principle of a referendum, because it is essential to know what the people of London want. Any system of local government must have the support of the public.
  The fatal flaw concerns the fact that we are debating not the Second Reading of the Greater London authority Bill, although many of the Minister's introductory remarks were concerned with that, but the referendum Bill. The Government say that they want to know the
  596
  views of London and that that is the purpose of this legislation, yet, when it comes to it, they are not prepared to allow the public to express a view on any question where the public may disagree with their position. They can express an opinion about the need for a mayor, but cannot express a separate opinion about the need for an assembly. I will come to that argument in a moment, but it is precisely the same as that advanced by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)
  Mr. John McDonnell: In view of his remarks, may I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman apologises on behalf of his party to the people of London for denying them democratic government of their city for the past decade?
  Sir Norman Fowler: I do not apologise for that. There was overwhelming public support for the abolition of the Greater London council. Labour Members need to decide whether they support the Greater London authority, as set out in the Green Paper, or restoration of the GLC. I am not sure whether the Minister for Sport has been fired but he is currently residing on the Back Benches.
  The Minister for Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): I have come to listen to the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I should be certified.
  Sir Norman Fowler: I think that I heard the hon. Gentleman say that he was being certified.
  Londoners are being asked to express a view before the Bill setting up the Greater London authority has been published, debated or scrutinised, let alone passed by Parliament. The Labour party once contended that such pre-legislative referendums were the wrong way of doing things.
  The Secretary of State for Wales once said that the trouble with pre-legislation referendums is that there are so many questions that one cannot answer. He was right. Without the completed legislation, we do not know exactly what is proposed. The public do not know what they are supposed to be judging. The devil is in the detail and, without that detail, the public are unsighted and can be deceived.
  London will be left in an entirely unsatisfactory position. The public will be asked what they think of the idea of a mayor and a directly elected assembly, but they will not know what powers either will have as laid down by Parliament, which is the only body that can decide them. At this stage, we do not even have a White Paper, merely a Green Paper which contains a series of principles and asks a lengthy set of questions.
  Ms Hodge rose—
  Sir Norman Fowler: I am happy to give way to the Labour party's candidate for the mayor of London.
  Ms Hodge: I am certainly not a candidate. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he will join the Government in recommending to the people of London that they should support the referendum? Yes or no?
  Sir Norman Fowler: We have set out our position exactly in our amendment, and I am sorry that the

  597
  hon. Lady has not read it—if she did, she would understand our position. It is very sad news to hear that the hon. Lady does not intend to stand as the Labour candidate for mayor because we would be greatly in favour of her candidature.
  Ms Hodge rose—
  Sir Norman Fowler: No. I will not give way again.
  Let us consider the principles as set down by the Government. Doubtless Londoners will be reassured to know that the proposed Greater London authority will be strategic, democratic, inclusive, effective, small, audible, consensual, efficient and influential. That wish list leaves out only motherhood and apple pie. Doubtless, those were exactly the kind of good intentions that paved the way for the old Greater London council.
  The House will want to know the answers to questions that go to the heart of the new authority, but it is being asked to approve a referendum based on the principles. Even someone who has been following the plans as closely as the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) cannot tell us what the legislation will specify about a range of issues. She cannot tell us because the Government cannot tell us.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) has already made clear, the Government cannot tell us what method will be used for the election of the mayor. [Interruption.] If I put the question, perhaps the Minister will be more ready with the answer. Will that election be made according to who is first past the post? Will it be judged on the second ballot system or the alternative vote system? We do not know, but all those methods are trailed in the Green Paper.
  Mr. Raynsford: Given that the right hon. Gentleman appears to be unhappy about the proposition that there should be a vote on the principle before the full detail is covered in legislation, can he tell the House whether he voted with his Government in favour of the paving Bill to abolish the GLC before the detailed, substantive legislation was published?
  Sir Norman Fowler: I probably did and I have absolutely no regrets.
  The Government must answer the questions about the legislation that they are introducing. They claim that they want as much agreement and support as possible, but once anyone takes any steps towards their position, they retreat to the old familiar party politics of the Labour party which we know so well.
  The Government cannot tell us what method will be used to elect the assembly. They cannot even tell us whether it will consist of single-seat constituencies, multi-seat constituencies or even a single, London/wide constituency. They do not know. Once again, we must ask whether those elections will be decided according to the first-past-the-post system or the list system. The Green Paper states:
  "electors vote not for an individual candidate but for a party which provides a list of candidates which are ranked in the order the party wishes".
  We do not know the answer.
  598
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) raised an important point about the cost of the new Greater London authority, but, once again, the Government could not say how it will be paid for. Speculation has centred on paragraph 4.21 and the idea that new taxes will be imposed. Again, the Government cannot tell us what those new taxes will be.
  By any standards, we are faced with a long list of unanswered questions about the legislation—the Government have admitted as such by publishing a Green Paper with 61 unanswered questions about it.
  The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): It is called consultation.
  Sir Norman Fowler: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman obviously has great difficulty in understanding that the Government should have consulted on their propositions before holding the referendum. The specific Act of Parliament is the only conclusive means of providing the necessary answers, but we will not have it, let alone the White Paper, before the referendum in May. The Minister said as much. There is no way that that Act will be ready then.
  Mr. Raynsford: What about the White Paper?
  Sir Norman Fowler: I should remind the Minister that the White Paper refers to the Government's proposals. I also remind him that we still work within a system according to which Parliament decides, not the Government—he might explain that to the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning.
  The answer to the referendum could be affected directly by the answers that are eventually decided by Parliament, and it is clear that one question could lead to another. One such example is the proposal relating to the policing of London. The Government intend to set up a new police authority for the Metropolitan police. Everyone agrees that that is a profound change. The Home Secretary has been police authority since 1829 and, by definition, the system has lasted through a number of Labour Governments.
  In the new proposed police authority, elected members will be in the majority, but they will not be the elected members of London's borough councils; they will be elected and selected from the new Greater London assembly. I suspect that before the public are expected to express a view on that, many people will want to know how local those elected representatives will be. If they were elected to the police authority according to a list system, they would simply be the choice of their respective parties. Many people might feel that no local link was provided under that new system. Many people may believe that members of an assembly elected according to a direct list or something like it would not have direct local links with the public. Presumably that link should be required. Given the importance that people attach to the Metropolitan police, and with the full facts before them, many people may vote against an assembly.
  Mr. Wilshire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that matters are even worse than he has described since according to the Green Paper, elected members of the

  599
  Greater London authority will serve on that proposed police authority, and my constituents, who would not be within the Greater London authority, would not have an input? Does he agree that that is worrying?
  Sir Norman Fowler: Yes. It is all very well for the Minister to laugh, but it is a matter of great importance to anyone who lives in London and is policed by the Metropolitan police.
  The police authority for the Metropolitan police has lasted since 1829 and has been approved by every Labour Government of the century, bar this one, so there must be something to be said for it. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct that the new elected members who will be in the majority on that new police authority will be drawn from the new Greater London authority.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Sir Norman Fowler: No. I will not give way.
  My first objection to the Bill is that referendums should he held when the electorate are in the best possible position to judge.
  Ms Joan Ryan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Norman Fowler: I have just said that I will not give way again.
  Referendums should be held when people can view all the pros and cons, when the arguments in favour and against have been rigorously tested and when Parliament has had the opportunity to scrutinise the legislation. We know at least some of the intentions, but we do not know what the legislation will say when it is on the statute book: under any sensible referendum system, it is only at that stage that the public should be asked for their views.
  The second objection is that, even by the Government's own standards, the Bill does not deserve support because it puts together two questions. On the ballot paper, there will be one and only one question about whether the public support an authority
  "made up of an elected mayor and a separately elected assembly".
  That goes not only to the heart of the Bill, but to the heart of the Government's approach.
  The Government say that they want to know Londoners' views on how they should be governed, but, when it comes to it, the Government are not prepared to put those views to the test. The Minister, in his best handbag-swinging style, said that there is no alternative—that it would be inappropriate to put questions of that sort—but no one outside the Labour party believes that those questions cannot be asked. The Minister seems to be arguing that the mayor and the assembly are an inseparable package, like the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister without Portfolio. The trouble is that almost nobody outside the Government agrees with that proposition.
  The Minister quoted the only newspaper that has come out on his side on this issue—the Evening Standard. He did not quote the shoal of newspapers that have come out against him. He did not quote The Times, which, under the headline "Double Talk", said:
  "Two distinct issues require two different questions".
  600
  He did not quote The Guardian, which can hardly be accused of being a Conservative-leaning paper—although I suppose anyone who is against the Government is accused of being Conservative-leaning. The Guardian asked why, if the Government are so sure of their case, they cannot put it to the people. Why can they not argue the case for a directly elected assembly if it is as self-evident as they appear to believe?
  Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman mentions The Guardian; can he confirm that the following words appear in the same editorial?
  "Mr Raynsford dismisses the Conservative suggestion that the mayor could answer to the current 33 London boroughs as a 'recipe for disaster'. Any mayor could simply buy off the boroughs by chucking goodies their way, bringing US-style pork-barrel politics to the capital. The minister is right".
  Sir Norman Fowler: That is the most extraordinary quotation, even by the Minister's standards, because whose words are followed by a dash and the words:
  "but he should make that argument in a campaign."
  The Minister has just shot himself in the foot. The Guardian makes the point that he is confident of his case, but is unable and unwilling to put it to the public. The newspaper, which is on his side, is saying as a friend—if the Minister is capable of accepting that anyone outside the Labour party can be a friend—that he should put his case to the public and let the public decide. To make an intervention like that, while relying on my not having the full quotation with me, brings the Minister pretty near the slippery methods of the used-car salesman.
  Everyone knows that there are other options. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) supports at least one other option—actually, I think that he supports a series of options. Conservative Members favour a directly elected major, but we would have an assembly made up of London borough leaders—any mayor will have to work with the boroughs, so that must make sense. We reject the argument that such an arrangement will lead to conflict—indeed, we believe that the Government's plans have conflict built in at every stage, as well as layer after layer of local government.
  Let us recall what the Government propose. They propose a directly elected mayor, a directly elected assembly, a regional development agency for London, a Government office for London and eventually 32 borough councils. That is not the end of it: under a Bill prepared by the Government that is to be introduced in another place as a private Member's Bill, there are to be permissive powers for directly elected executive borough mayors, so Hammersmith and Fulham—an area the Minister and I both know well—could have a directly elected mayor of its own.
  One does not have to be a paid-up member of the Conservative party, or even the Liberal Democrats, to believe that such a structure is incredibly overlayered. If there is inbuilt conflict, it lies in such a system. There are indications that the Government are sensitive about the idea of a directly elected assembly, because they have changed the order in which mayor and assembly appear on the ballot paper by moving the elected assembly from first to second mention. I noted the Minister's remarks about the close attention paid to that matter.

  601
  Above all, under the Government plans there is a certainty of conflict between the directly elected assembly and the already elected borough councils. It will not take long for the assembly to tire of having a purely advisory and questioning role and it takes no great skill at forecasting to know what the next step will be: the members of the assembly will want greater powers and their justification will be that they are elected. I doubt very much, however, whether those powers will come from the Government—I remember from my days in government that Whitehall is notoriously jealous of its empire. It is far more likely that those powers will come from the boroughs, so, step by step, we will get nearer to the concept of the old Greater London council.
  London faces the fundamental question of whether it wants to put its future increasingly in the hands of an intermediate regional assembly, or to strengthen the borough council system that is unquestionably and undoubtedly closest to the public. We should be aiming, not for a new elected assembly, but for a mayor working with the boroughs, which have local experience and a direct connection with their electors.
  What is so striking about the debate is the Government's lack of confidence in their own arguments. They talk about reaching agreement and consensus—at least outside the House—but they are not interested in agreement and consensus. This is a take-it-or-leave-it referendum. The Government do not want debate; they simply want their own plans to be rubber-stamped.
  We believe that the people of London should first have the information to make a decision in the referendum and then be given the opportunity to judge for themselves whether London needs both a mayor and a directly elected assembly. As it stands, the Bill does not give them that choice, and that is why we will oppose it.
  4.58 pm
  Mr. Martin Linton: I support the Bill, which represents the second stage in the renewal of our constitution that the Government are putting into effect. Stage one was the referendums for Scotland and Wales; stage two opens the door to a Greater London authority, which will right the wrong done by the Conservative party in 1986. That party now supports the idea of a mayor, but seeks to deny the need for an assembly. That is no more than a fig leaf to hide the party's conversion and its admission that it was wrong before.
  Most of the focus so far has been on the precise wording of the referendum question. I want to focus on part II, which deals with the electoral areas into which London should be divided for the election of assembly members.
  London is already divided into 74 constituencies, 32 boroughs, 10 European constituencies and eight postal areas. It is envisaged that the assembly should have between 24 and 32 members. Some will argue that as there are 32 boroughs and up to 32 assembly members the obvious answer is to elect one per borough. Indeed, the Conservative party seems to be moving towards that notion.
  It would, however, be a recipe for conflict. As the consultation paper says, it could lead to a focus on local rather than strategic issues. In other words, it could lead
  602
  to the pork barrel politics mentioned by The Guardian, in which the mayor buys the support of assembly members by handing out favours to their boroughs. It could also lead to a conflict of legitimacy between borough leaders and assembly members if they are of different parties—or to duplication if they are of the same party.
  The next possibility is to divide London into its 10 Euro-constituencies and to elect three, or thereabouts, from each. It is fair to say, however, that few Londoners have any idea in which European constituency they live. Even political parties that need to work on the Euro-constituency basis face an uphill task in creating any kind of esprit de corps among constituencies thrown together in these rather amorphous conglomerates. Londoners feel that they do not correspond to any natural boundaries.
  One of the great mercies of the decision to fight the next European elections on a proportional representation system lies in the fact that the boundary commissioners will no longer have to adjudicate in interminable boundary review inquiries.
  The next possibility—in descending order—is the postal area system. Postal areas have the merit of corresponding much more closely to the way Londoners describe where they live. If London were divided into five sectors or zones—north-east, north-west, south-east, south-west and central—that elected five members each, that would yield a fairly compact assembly of 25 members, and it would have the enormous advantage that they represent areas with which Londoners already identify.
  The objection might be that such sectors are too large to generate any accountability between the representative and the represented, but in truth any sense of representation has only ever existed at two levels: people go to see their local councillor or their local Member of Parliament. They have never queued up in huge numbers to see their county councillor or their GLC councillor; any more than they queue up—except perhaps in farming constituencies—to see their European Member of Parliament.
  These zones would be entirely compatible with electing an assembly on a list system, with each party proposing five candidates and getting one elected for every 20 per cent. of the vote. This is essentially the system that will be used for the European elections in 1999, but it will not have the drawbacks associated with some types of proportional representation—lots of small parties and no party with a majority—because small parties will not be elected under the system. Someone would need a fifth of the votes—or at least more than a sixth—to be sure of winning a seat. There would effectively be a threshold of 17 per cent.
  It would however still be quite possible for one party to win a majority in London—
  Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Gentleman is talking as if he still wrote for The Guardian, giving us a clear exposition of the whys and wherefores, the pros and cons. Surely they all need to be given to Londoners to vote on. Otherwise the hon. Gentleman's remarks merely serve to confirm the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). Londoners

  603
  must be given the chance to see what they are voting for; the details must not be simply tacked on to the popular idea of electing a mayor.
  Mr. Linton: The hon. Gentleman, in turn, talks as though he were still leader of Wandsworth council. But he is missing the point. There is no point in giving the people of London an unrealistic alternative that will not work.
  This will be the first time in our history when people have been asked to vote for an executive post. What is different about a vote for a mayor—or a president—is that it is a decisive vote. We can have a hung Parliament or a hung council; we cannot have a hung president or a hung mayor—at least not in the electoral sense. The point is that one individual has to win, so one party has to form an administration.
  In any case, the role of the assembly is not to deliver a majority for the mayor, as the Green Paper puts it. The mayor already has the powers needed to run an administration. The main roles of the assembly will be to provide checks and balances, expertise and scrutiny, and to throw out a corrupt mayor if there ever is one. That is why we need both a mayor and an assembly. An assembly without a mayor, as the Liberal Democrats advocate, is a recipe for inertia. A mayor without an assembly, for which the Conservatives argue, is a recipe for sleaze. We need the combination that the Bill offers.
  Mr. Ottaway: The mistaken belief is beginning to emerge that the Conservative party does not believe in an assembly. We favour an assembly of borough leaders, not a directly elected assembly. That is quite different from the claim that we do not want an assembly at all.
  Mr. Linton: A meeting of borough leaders does not amount to an elected assembly.
  Finally, we need to ensure that the referendum campaign is fought fairly. The borough of Wandsworth, of which the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) was once leader, is already spending a large amount of council tax payers' money to produce glossy brochures promoting the Opposition's policy. I accept that Wandsworth is entitled to its view, but neither that borough nor anyone else must be allowed to spend a large amount of money promoting their views in the campaign at the expense of council tax payers.
  5.6 pm
  Mr. Peter Brooke: I begin with an apology. Admirers of the Government are continually impressed by the Government's finesse, and the subject of tonight's debate has been tabled on the same night as the Lord Mayor's banquet. Some people have suggested to me that that was prompted by a conspiracy. Generous soul that I am, I assumed that it was more likely to be due to that alternative theory which I cannot utter, since we are still a long way from the watershed and this is a family programme. I do not blame the Government, but they have set me something of a dilemma in that I owe an obligation to my constituents in both regards. I therefore ask for the House's forgiveness if I disappear some time after my speech and read later about how the debate ended.
  A great deal of newsprint has been expended on the attitude of the City corporation to the proposals before us. I can say with confidence that the City corporation will work with any new Greater London authority, just as it worked with the GLC in the past.
  604
  Some have said—my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) has just done so—that tonight's debate is simply about one question or two. I think that there are some other questions as well, although clearly this is the central one. The Greater London authority of the Bill's title comprises both the elected assembly and the separately elected mayor—although I note that in clause 1(1) they are recounted in that order, not in the order bestowed on them in the schedule specifying the form of the ballot paper. Incidentally, that is an interesting disarrangement.
  Remarkably little exegesis was afforded in the Green Paper to the provenance of the mayor, who in an executive capacity is an innovation in our local government constitutional arrangements, so perhaps his or her shallow roots, even in Labour party internal discussion about that before the election, are to be bolstered up by being regarded, not as a free-standing innovation per se, but as a partial element of a Greater London authority, which, at least, the Labour party has asked for throughout the past decade.
  That umbrella phrase, however, is also the Government's rationale for the single question, on the ground that one cannot vote for the parts separately if they severally combine to compose the Greater London authority that the referendum asks us to approve. Because of the second rationale, the Government might reasonably have done a better job of explaining in the Green Paper why mayor and assembly must go hand in hand, like Jack and Jill, Crosse and Blackwell or Marks and Spencer—the latter are especially politically apposite, for in death they were not divided and Karl Marx and Herbert Spencer lie side by side in Highgate cemetery.
  In a perfect world—although I realise that, especially at this moment, we do not live in one—the White Paper would have been available to inform tonight's debate, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said in his point of order before the debate.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield said, the problem with the Green Paper is that many of its 61 questions were contingent on one another. Asking what the relationship should be on specific issues between mayor and assembly or between the authority and the regional development agency is often an empty question unless one constructs the entire scenario to reflect who will be responsible for what. Incidentally, the regional development agency looks like robbing the authority, in the main, of one of the three pillars that were originally postulated to support the logic of an authority.
  My unease about these often relatively random questions was exacerbated by the Parkinsonian enthusiasm in the Green Paper for adding further random agenda to the assembly's tasks. I refer to Professor C. Northcote, not to Michael Parkinson—as I read the examples of extra possible topics for the assembly's inquiries, I had a far-off sense of Professor Parkinson's law that
  "Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion",
  and sensed that the assembly must be found things to do. Initially, therefore, I am left with no clearer idea why the Siamese twins of the present somewhat imprecise conception must necessarily remain bound together.

  605
  In our original Queen's Speech debate on the constitution on 16 May 1997, I said that the Labour party had done very little detailed preparation, but I surmised that, as Sir Alec Douglas-Home once said in response to a question about VAT, a lot of clever chaps in the civil service were now thinking about it. The Minister—I hope that I do not offend against a confidential exchange between us—assured me in a note afterwards that they were.
  My regret is that the product of that thinking has not been more precise on the assembly and whether it will follow present constituency and borough boundaries or take another form—the point which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield addressed. To proceed to the text of the ballot paper without clarifying that would mystify, not demystify. It is possible to conduct a perfectly sensible debate between Government and Opposition on the nature of the countervailing body to the mayor, but it is difficult to know whether the Government are justified in their authority make-up if we do not know what detailed form their assembly will take.
  I illustrate my concern with two local examples. The present study mounted by Westminster city council, "World Squares for All", which was showing in Whitehall last week, envisages that implementation will involve transferring traffic from the very heart of London to elsewhere in central London, including necessarily large parts of my constituency. The Government might sensibly argue that "World Squares for All" is a strategic issue, properly to be determined by the Greater London authority, but my constituents would be deeply troubled if they were to have no direct representation in the assembly to reflect their reaction to the consequences.
  Similarly, there is current misgiving—not purely in my constituency but throughout London—about local decisions taken centrally, such as those taken by the London fire and civil defence authority. There would be very similar anxieties if my constituents felt that they would no longer have direct representation in debate about those decisions and at a level no broader than their local authority.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield said, imprecision also surrounds how all this will be paid for. I acknowledge the sense of not specifying how it will be paid for until we know how the responsibilities will be carved up—in the Green Paper there is a reference to function—but that emphasises that the referendum cart is being put in front of the Greater London authority horse. In Ernie Bevin's great phrase,
  "If you open that Pandora's Box you never know what Trojan `orses will jump out",
  but I doubt that even he would have linked a referendum to it.
  The Minister spoke of 1,200 responses to the Green Paper and may feel that that justifies the reference to a great debate which the Green Paper's final paragraph hoped would take place up to 24 October, but my experience of a residents' annual general meeting in Bayswater last Thursday and my expectation of another in Belgravia this Wednesday has been that, at the level of voters—individual Londoners—the atmosphere of the moment is the same as the Pont cartoon in "Punch" early
  606
  in the last war, in which three intensely placid drinkers in an English pub are listening to a Lord Haw Haw debate being broadcast, and to the words:
  "In England the entire population has been thrown into panic."
  I said that the Bill prompted other questions. When I woke to hear the result of the Welsh referendum, I wondered whether the Bill that we had passed in the House had allowed for a recount. The 7,000 majority divided by 40 parliamentary seats would have produced an average of 175 per constituency, and I suspect that a returning officer would have granted a recount in such a parliamentary seat. I have, of course, read clause 6 of this Bill, but it seems not to cover the issue of a recount.
  Lest the Minister believes that question to be academic, I remind him of the election in which Bill Buckley stood against Mayor Lindsay in New York City—a city which the Minister earlier cited in support of his argument. On national television on the eve of the poll, Bill Buckley was asked what his reaction would be in the unlikely event of his being elected the following day, and he said that he would ask for a recount. There is a touch of the same potential nightmare in the imprecision surrounding the Government's proposals for London.
  5.17 pm
  Mr. Stephen Pound: Mr. Deputy Speaker, thank you very much for calling me and allowing me the opportunity finally to make my maiden speech.
  I should like, as is the tradition of the House, to pay tribute to my predecessors, for, like many newly arrived Members of the House, I have not one but two predecessors, one of whom, Mr. Greenway, represented most of what is now Ealing, North. Mr. Greenway was an extremely capable and active constituency Member, who made a considerable impression on us in Ealing, North. He was extremely fond of this building and is a frequent—almost daily—visitor to it still, and I believe that the fact that he is always greeted with a smile by old and new friends shows the extent of the amity that he engendered during his time in the House.
  In Ealing, North we were also represented by the present right hon. Member for North—West Hampshire (Sir G. Young)—an extremely hard act to follow. The right hon. Gentleman is still revered—that would not be too strong a word—in parts of my constituency. I am somewhat tired of constantly being told how I compare to the right hon. Gentleman. I am told that he never missed a constituency engagement, and although I swear to constituents that I will haunt the classrooms, church halls and clubs of Ealing, North, that does not satisfy them.
  I am constantly told that the right hon. Gentleman presented cups and shields to every sporting group in Pitshanger, and I promise silverware by the truckload. But still they are not happy, no matter how hard I try. Last week, somebody said, "You may do your best, Mr. Pound, but the hon. Member for North-West Hampshire is extremely tall, and one can always see him at functions." I will take second place to no person in my respect for the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire. I admit that he is extremely tall while I am not. Indeed, he towers above me both physically and, it must be said, in the affections of the people of Pitshanger.

  607
  Before the two gentlemen that I mentioned, we were fortunate to have Bill Molloy as our Member of Parliament in Ealing, North. Bill—or, as he now insists on being addressed, the right hon. Lord Molloy of Ealing and Greater London, to those of us who are his friends—now sits in the other place but is still a resident of Greenford. He never misses an opportunity to contact his local Member of Parliament—on an hourly basis—and I am grateful for his constant advice and encouragement. I did not respond favourably, however, to the advice for me to resign and have a by-election to allow him to return. Bill Molloy was once described by no less a person than Anthony Crosland as the best speaker in the House and anyone who has spoken after Bill Molloy will know how true that is. Yesterday, at the Greenford Royal British Legion I had the unfortunate task of following Bill Molloy; I would not wish that on anyone.
  I realise that it is a convention of the House to introduce one's constituency to hon. Members. I am at a disadvantage because I must admit that there is no such place as Ealing, North. I do not mean that it is some sort of north-west suburban Brigadoon that appears only every 200 or 300 years when the traffic jams at the Target roundabout and the Hanger lane gyratory system are in cosmic alignment, and when the fumes on the A40 part to reveal a Shangri-la on the Himalayan slopes that we Ealingonians call Horsenden hill.
  Ealing, North is a mixture of hamlets, towns, villages and communities, bound together by many things—but most of all by the boundary commissioner. It is a proud and glorious mosaic and a wonderful place to live because of the strength of those communities, which cement the mosaic in place. We are a multicultural constituency, and we glory in it. We have a large Irish population; a large and growing Asian population; and the third largest Polish community in the world after Warsaw and Chicago, if only in the number of Poles living in urban conurbations. The Polish people gave us heroic support between 1939 and 1945 and many of those Polish heroes were based at RAF Northolt in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). Ealing, North is as proud today of their contribution as the country was then.
  It must be said that, although Ealing, North has a number of buildings, few of them are really great. We have the world headquarters of Glaxo Wellcome, which is a beacon, as the expression goes. We also have the Wharncliffe viaduct, which was built in 1844 with considerable prescience by Sir Isambard Kingdom Brunel for the express purpose of linking Labour constituencies in west London, Reading, Swindon and Bristol. Unfortunately, however, the Wharncliffe viaduct is a few metres south of the constituency. Ealing abbey is a glorious building, but, sadly, it too is on the wrong side of the road.
  In the absence of great buildings and great places, I searched for great individuals as some great people must at some stage have lived somewhere in Ealing, North. I have searched; my staff have searched; my children have searched. I conclude that, whereas we may not have great individuals in Ealing, North, we have great people. A few names emerged: Gainsborough's daughters—both of them—were buried, after death, in Hanwell. Sadly, they were carried there from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley). Charlie Chaplin
  608
  and his brother Sidney lived briefly in Hanwell. They did not care much for it and at the earliest opportunity returned to Bermondsey.
  "There must have been someone," I thought, then I found that Vincent Van Gogh taught in a girls' school in Isleworth in the 1880s, while conducting an alliance with a young lady in Rayners lane. As Vincent made his way from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Keen) to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), he would almost certainly have felt the need to pause for refreshment on his return journey from such an assignation, and where better to pause for a revivifying drink than Greenford? My able researcher examined police records at Greenford police station throughout most of the end of the 19th century. Sadly, according to our records, any number of drunken, bearded impressionists were causing mayhem in Greenford pubs in the 1880s and many of them had parts of their bodily extremities missing.
  The search was now getting desperate. Research showed that there may be one way in which Ealing, North stands unique among the 33 boroughs: in June 1889, a giant circus elephant collapsed on Castlebar hill—and died. The great pachyderm, with its last few breaths, bravely staggered forward and is, to this day, to be found beneath the road—unfortunately, just over the constituency border in Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush. I suspect that his last thought was to leave Ealing, North.
  In fiction, we are similarly ill-served. One of the finest books written this century, "Brown on Resolution", by C. S. Forester, which sent generations of us into the Royal Navy—we regretted it immediately afterwards—features a young able seaman, Brown, who was the product of a brief liaison between a naval officer and a between-stairs maid who met on the Great Western railway train at Wharncliffe viaduct. One thing led to another and they paused in Ealing. Before the copulatory instinct grew too strong upon them, they sped towards a hotel in central Ealing. Sadly, they ended up in a hotel in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush.
  The Nolan sisters attended Cardinal Wiseman high school, which, sadly, is about 3 m outside the constituency boundary. William Perkins, who discovered aniline dyes, may have lived in Greenford. He spent many a night conducting strange chemical experiments. I must say that that habit persists in parts of the constituency to this day, without Perkins' success.
  Other hon. Members have been pleased, proud and fortunate in being able to introduce the House to league football clubs in their constituencies. We have none in Ealing, North. We have two senior clubs—Viking FC and Hanwell Town FC, who play in black and white, the same colours as—oddly enough—Fulham FC. Immediately to the south of the constituency, we have Brentford—just outside the constituency but ably managed since last week by Micky Adams, who was formerly the manager at Fulham FC. Just to the east, we have Queens Park Rangers, the club where Ray Wilkins learned the craft that is now coming to flower in his present job at Fulham FC. Slightly to the east we have Chelsea, where young Paul Brooker was on the staff. He, of course, has achieved his full skills and abilities at Fulham FC, where he currently plays.

  609
  It would be wrong, inappropriate and inexcusable for me as the Member for Ealing, North, to refer constantly to a football club that is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman). I will not do that. In no circumstances will I bring references to Fulham into everything that I say in the House from now on. It may be said, however, that those of us born within sight of Craven Cottage may be described as having black and white blood.
  We in Ealing, North may not have been blessed with great individuals and great buildings, but the poet laureate, John Betjeman, did once pause awhile in Ealing and dash off the odd verse. In 1961, describing parts of Ealing, he wrote:

  "Where smoothly glides the bicycle

  And softly flows the Brent,

  And a gentle gale from Perivale

  Sends up the hayfield scent."

  May I warn hon. Members that if they visit Perivale now in anticipation of the hayfield scent, they may not have that olfactory experience—rather, the heady tang of diesel spillage on the A40 is more likely to assail the senses, but we thank John Betjeman for his thoughts of Ealing.
  I come, by a most circuitous route, to the subject that we are debating. As a London councillor, as a Member for a London constituency and as a Londoner born and bred, I have felt an extraordinary sense of anger and frustration at the way in which London in the past 11 years has failed to achieve its potential.
  We have seen a dazzling kaleidoscope of quangos run our capital city—a kaleidoscope of quangos that does not delight the eye, but benumbs the brain through their complexity and inefficiency. Any London councillor who has had to deal with a minor traffic issue and found himself or herself negotiating with the Traffic Director for London or with the traffic control signals unit will realise that the case can be made for a Greater London authority on many grounds. The obvious ones are the grounds of democracy and accountability, but most of all on grounds of efficiency, the present system is no way to run a capital city. Any of us who has any part in the governance of this city will know that.
  As a result of this evening's decision, I look forward to London entering a new era in local governance. I look forward to our city regaining its rightful place on the world stage. I am so tired, as so many of us are, of the constant reference to what is achieved in Paris, New York and Barcelona, when I know that my city, our city, the city where we are tonight, can achieve all that and more, if it only has that overarching strategic authority that can speak for London and with Londoners and is accountable to Londoners. Then, at last, we will be able to re-enter the world stage at the level that we deserve.
  We are a mature enough city and a mature enough electorate to be allowed that democratic right. I am endeavouring to be as uncontroversial as possible in this maiden speech, but I take no lessons from the Opposition when they speak of democracy in our capital city, after they denied us that for 11 years. Many of the comments that I have heard tonight have been cavilling, carping comments aimed more at the minutiae of the Bill than at the principle.
  610
  I am addressing the principle that London as a great city, as a capital city, must have a collective purpose and an identifiable leadership. We must have that, and no number of opinion surveys can say different.
  I am delighted that tonight we will take the first step back on the road to the city governance that we need. We are not going back to the Greater London council, which was abolished without—unless I have forgotten—any form of referendum, consultation, democratic accountability, discussion or consultation policy, but by a paving Bill, as I recall. We are not going back to the GLC, even though we were told at the time of abolition that all Londoners would save vast sums of money by the abolition of the GLC, and that we would have a lean representative agency representing us.
  I do not see many of us swaggering round Greenford lighting cigars with £10 notes with all the money that we have saved from the abolition of the GLC. Far from it: I see constant duplication, confusion and the inability of London councillors and Members of Parliament to manoeuvre between the rocks of the quangos in our city's interests. I do not think that the abolition of the GLC was in London's interests. I did not think so then, and I know that it was not so now.
  By agreeing the Bill tonight, we give Londoners the opportunity to vote on their strategic authority. We do not say, "You will do this; you will do that," but we give them the opportunity. We show them the respect that Londoners deserve. We offer them the chance once again to have pride in our capital city, our great city, our London. I commend the Bill to the House.
  5.35 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall start conventionally by congratulating the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) on his turn. He waited patiently for it, but when it came, it was Ealing studios—I do not know which constituency they are in—brought to the House of Commons.
  Mr. Pound: Ealing studios are in Ealing, Southall.
  Mr. Hughes: I was sure that the studios would not be in the area that the hon. Gentleman represents. I do not know what his pedigree is, and in the light of what he said, it is probably inappropriate to ask, but there may be a bit of the Ezra Pound in him, too. If there are others who, like me—I say this with no disrespect—had never heard of the hon. Gentleman before today, we have now all heard of him and from him, and if he goes on like that. we shall certainly look forward to hearing from him again.
  The hon. Member for Ealing, North may not be as tall as the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), the former Secretary of State for Transport, but he is funnier. In politics, there may be many tall people, but sadly, there are far too few funny ones—at least not funny-comic. There are many who are funny in other ways, but that is not a subject for today.
  The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) said that there could be a hung Parliament, a hung council or a hung assembly, but not a hung mayor. To him I say that there could be a balanced Parliament, council or assembly, but there could also be an unbalanced mayor. That is one of the reasons why we should be wary.
  I now must register a protest, but I make it clear that I intend no disrespect either to the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) or to the

  611
  hon. Member for Ealing, North. The House will not do its job properly if the third party here, with 15 per cent. of the vote, is not called third. That is your choice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and your colleagues' choice, but it is inappropriate for debate that the three different positions are not presented at the beginning of the debate. That is done in another place, and we should do it, too. If we are modernising our procedures, we had better do that soon.
  Many people may be asking at the beginning of the debate, "Where is Ken Livingstone?" He is not present, and as he knows as much about this subject as anyone else, we shall want the mystery to be resolved before long. I regret his absence, because the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) has a view shared on both sides of the House that the Government are not right—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that we do not refer to hon. Members in that way.
  Mr. Hughes: That is why, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I immediately referred to the hon. Member for Brent, East in his constituency context. The earlier question was in inverted commas. The hon. Gentleman, like many hon. Members on both sides, is concerned not about the general thrust of the Government's policy, but about some of the detail. I hope that, as the Bill proceeds through its stages, we shall hear all voices. I hope that Labour Members who do not share Front Benchers' views will be allowed to vote accordingly. If that occurs, there is at least a chance of the result beginning to reflect the real views of all hon. Members in the House.
  Ms Hodge: The hon. Gentleman suggested that there are divisions on Labour Benches on this issue. It is well known that divisions exist within his party as to whether there should be a directly elected mayor for London. If his amendment fails, what will he recommend to his hon. Friends regarding the referendum? Will he recommend that they support the Government on the referendum issue?
  Mr. Hughes: That is a perfectly proper question.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is very wrong for an hon. Member to enter the Chamber and pass in front of an hon. Member who is on his feet. I do not expect a response from the hon. Gentleman concerned, but I ask him to remember that ruling in future.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) asks a perfectly proper question, and I shall deal with both parts of it. First, as there is no correct answer to the question of how London should be governed, Labour Members—like other hon. Members—should be free to exercise their differing views. I hope that the hon. Lady supports that principle. I hope that she therefore will not condone any strong-arm tendency aimed at ensuring that all Labour Members vote the same way, regardless of their views, or do not vote if they dissent from the official line.
  As to the hon. Lady's second point, I confirm unequivocally that we shall recommend a yes vote. Some regional government is better than none, and some regional government elected by the people is better than none. We have no problem with that. Therefore, I hope
  612
  that the hon. Lady will participate in the debate with an open mind—as do all Liberal Democrats—and will encourage Ministers to listen to responses to the consultation process and adapt their views accordingly. We remain to be convinced on that score.
  The Liberal Democrats are strong advocates of constitutional reform. We support devolution in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and we believe strongly in regional government for England. As part of that policy, we were committed in our manifesto to an elected strategic authority for London. We opposed the destruction of such an authority before, and we support its re-creation now. We believe that it should be as effective and powerful as possible. Power comes from the people, not from Governments; and the civil servants and the appointees who currently wield that power should hand it back to the people at a regional level.
  We accept that regional government in England will benefit from a referendum. We believe that it was the settled will of the people of Scotland that they should have devolution, but that is not the case in the regions of England. It would be odd to argue against a referendum in London and then in favour of referendums in Yorkshire or the north-east. We believe that there should be regional government in all the regions of England, but we accept that that is best triggered by referendums. We hope that the Government will not now grow cold on regional government for the other regions just because the Welsh referendum was a close-run thing.
  Our reasoned amendment—I share the view of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who speaks for the Conservative Opposition on this subject—makes it clear that we think that the Government are approaching the issue in the wrong way. The Minister is aware of my views. We should not ask people to give the Government an unsigned cheque and agree to a referendum on an incomplete proposal. We have seen Labour's manifesto commitment and the first set of draft proposals. However, the Government's own description of their proposals is, a "consultation document". The Government have admitted that. I must put it on the record that even if we had not received the White Paper until the spring, we would have ensured the Bill's speedy progress through the House. We would then at least have known what the referendum was about before we voted on the referendum Bill. That is a regrettable constitutional insult, and I hope that it does not happen again.
  As to the legislative detail, our reasoned amendment contains some points—the Conservatives made another one—that also raise other questions about the Bill. In large measure, we have no dispute with the Government about the date of the referendum—that is in the Bill. We have no great dispute with the Government about who should be asked the question—that is also in the Bill. However, we have a significant dispute with the Government about the questions that the people of London should be asked; and, to be honest, that is the kernel of the legislation before us.
  The Government are right to propose regional government for London, but I regret that they are too timid in two respects. First, the Government are timid in not asking Londoners what sort of government they want; and, secondly, they are timid as to the powers that they are willing to give Londoners.
  Mr. Wilkinson: The hon. Gentleman has alluded to regional government in the context of a Greater London

  613
  authority. This legislative proposal is, in effect, a prototype for what, according to the Liberal scheme of things, might pertain to the rest of the country. Would the Liberal Democrats like to see additional income tax imposed on Londoners? That is what the model suggested by his party for regional government elsewhere in the United Kingdom advocates.
  Mr. Hughes: That is a perfectly good question, to which I shall return later. For now, the short answer—I do not wish the hon. Gentleman to think that I am avoiding the issue—is that Liberal Democrats do indeed believe that regional government should have tax-varying powers. However, because regional government would receive the proportion of national income that is currently handed from Whitehall to the regions, it would not add to total income tax, but would simply be a proportion of the total tax that would then be collected regionally. It would be part of the whole, the remainder of which would be collected nationally. There need be no net increase in taxation—in fact, there could be less taxation. However, we believe that there should be tax-varying powers, just as there should be in Wales and Scotland. As a postscript, I note that the Government argue that there should be tax-varying powers in Scotland and also state that income tax is the fairest form of taxation. I shall give the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) a free copy of our full proposals, and invite him to read them.
  The Liberal Democrats believe that the referendum should comprise at least two questions and that it should confer further powers, particularly regarding post-16 education and national health service regional strategy. It is nonsense to leave NHS planning in London to civil servants once strategic government has been established to run most of the other public services in our capital city.
  As to the Minister's response to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), we believe that Londoners can cope with something other than a "lump it or leave it" option. We think that Londoners can manage two questions. The Minister quoted me as using certain phraseology in a broadcast. I assure him that we can reduce our ideas to simple language, and we shall do so in Committee. If the Scots could manage two questions—which they did perfectly well—Londoners can do so also. It is an insult to imply that they cannot and not to allow them to do so as a result.
  The Minister claimed that we have already engendered a great debate on this subject—with respect, I suggest that 1,200 responses is no great debate. During the election campaign, I received thousands of responses to surveys from my constituents alone. If there has been no great debate on the issue, one of the reasons is that people have had no big political options to debate. If there were a choice as to whether the mayor should be elected directly or indirectly, there would be a real debate and public interest would rise. The Minister described the exercise as a new form of local government election. I ask him: please never say that again. It is not local government, but regional government. We should never forget that.
  I come now to the Bill's principles and the four key points. The Liberal Democrats offer a simple statement on the principles for regional government. Regional government should produce the appropriate financial and
  614
  political powers and freedoms at regional level to allow those elected to run this great city of London, and effective accountability to ensure that those powers and freedoms are exercised with responsibility and according to the wishes of Londoners. There is no one theologically correct way of interpreting those principles. It is, therefore, how one applies the principles that counts.
  Our first point is: let the people choose both whether to have a mayor and whether to have an assembly. They may prefer the Conservative proposal, put forward by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, they may prefer the Government's proposal, or they may prefer ours, but let the people choose. A regional government structure chosen by the people is much more secure than a structure chosen by one party—a party that will certainly be out of office at some stage in the future, however long it may remain in power for the moment. There is nothing to be afraid of. The people will be able to cope with the questions. If the people make the choice, they take the responsibility, and the Government cannot be blamed for getting it wrong.
  Secondly, I ask Ministers even at this stage not to be timid about the powers to be given to the authority. They should allow post-16 education and power over the health service to be handed to regional government. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield admitted what all those in government know—civil servants like hanging on to power. Those in the NHS and the regional outposts of the Department of Health love hanging on to the power to dish out goodies for the local health service. No one in any party is happy that decisions about the strategy of the NHS below Government level are taken by faceless civil servants who cannot be removed. If the people who take such decisions are elected, we can lobby them and argue with them and if we do not like them, we can sack them.
  Thirdly, we must have a proportional or fair voting system in London. I was not born believing that there was a particular magic about a particular voting system. London is a cosmopolitan, mixed-race, mixed-language, mixed-community city. As the hon. Member for Ealing, North pointed out, we are a cluster of villages, towns and hamlets—the Kingstons, the Richmonds, the Suttons, the Cheams and the Twickenhams in the south and west and the Barnets, the Hendons and the Clerkenwells in the east and north. There are many, very different places in London. That diversity cannot be properly represented without a fair electoral system. It must be proportional and must allow all shades of opinion to be represented. Proportional representation has been agreed for Scotland, for Wales, for Northern Ireland and for Europe. If we do not have a fair voting system for London, we shall fail the political process. For those who are still sceptical, I am willing to debate separately the merits of different electoral systems for this place and that for local government. Those are different issues. London government is regional government and we must have an appropriate electoral system for this city and this region of ours.
  I seriously hope that the White Paper, if it appears before the referendum, will propose that we seek agreement across the Floor of the House on the best electoral system. If the Bill becomes an Act, before the next Bill comes forward, we could achieve a similar agreement in London to that which was achieved in Scotland. We therefore propose today that there should be a constitutional or electoral commission for London with

  615
  representatives from all democratically elected parties in London and others who have an interest—unions, management, business, ethnic minorities and other community groups. We must try to agree on a system. If we agree on a system, it will be secure. If we impose one, it could well be thrown out when the Administration is changed.
  As a postscript and an example, we are all aware that there will soon be a by-election in Beckenham. The people of Beckenham feel themselves to be partly in Kent, not in London. Liberal Democrats have put forward a proposal that reflects the old counties of London—there is a Kent bit of London, a Surrey bit of London, a Middlesex bit of London, an Essex bit of London and the old central London. That might not be the perfect model, but it might be a good one and we should like to talk to people about it. If our proposal made the people of Beckenham—or anyone else—feel that the authority was more representative of their part of Greater London, it would be worth considering.
  Fourthly, I ask the Government not to be timid about tax-varying powers. Of course there can be a levy for this, a bit of a charge here and a bit of a charge for that, but the Government should trust people to do what politicians have always done—going to the people and asking to be elected on the basis of specific, costed proposals. As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood, the proposals must start from the basis that there will be no extra tax. The cake should be divided nationally and regionally, giving the region the responsibility for raising the money that it spends. I remind hon. Members for London seats that London is a net exporter to the rest of the country of locally collected wealth, not a net importer. There is a fair argument, not just in London but in all parts of the country, that a proportion of what we raise we spend for ourselves. Tax-varying powers may well allow people to be more confident in the merits of this particular political process.
  Later, we shall go into other details of the Bill. We look forward to the Committee stage soon. We should have liked to vote on our reasoned amendment, but if we cannot, we shall support the reasoned amendment tabled by the Conservatives. If we lose, we shall seek to amend the Bill in Committee. If we lose in Committee, we shall, none the less, commend a yes vote in the referendum. However, even if this House rejects proposals for more than one question, I do not believe that those in the other place will be as easily dragooned. They may insist on more than one question on the ballot paper. I encourage them to do so. Paradoxically, they are there to protect the constitutional rights of our citizens. I am not a defender of the current structure, but they often need to do that.
  Mr. Raynsford: In view of what the hon. Gentleman has said, will he make it clear whether he is advocating two questions in the referendum or more? The way in which he has presented the case for the Liberal Democrats' reasoned amendment implies questions on four issues: mayor; assembly; mayor and assembly; and tax-raising powers. Is he advocating all four?
  Mr. Hughes: I do not want to delay the House with a long answer. We want two questions, each allowing the answers yes or no. The first is whether there should be directly elected regional government for London. The second is whether, in addition to an assembly, there
  616
  should be a directly elected mayor. Other matters can be debated in the Bill next year. I hope that the Committee will agree to two questions. If we do not, I sincerely hope that the other place does. If it does, I hope that the Government then at last accept that it is better to trust the people than to trust the Government.
  5.56 pm
  Mr. Tony McNulty: If other parties amend the Government's legislation in the other place, we should turn that amendment over in this place and go to the people with the mandate that we secured on 1 May. I find it absurd to rely on unelected people in the other place to pursue supposedly democratic means. That is the background to much of the debate.
  The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) mentioned the police, but did not refer to the response to the consultation from the Metropolitan police, which says:
  "The Metropolitan Police Service welcomes the prospect of a Mayor, an elected assembly for London and the consequent formation of a properly constituted police authority."
  Like most, if not all, agencies, as well as the business community, the police welcome our proposals. I do not understand what the fuss is about.
  The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) broke down the Welsh vote, saying that it accorded roughly to a majority of 175 in every Welsh constituency. Any number of his former colleagues, who are no longer here, would kill for a majority of 175. He should not be so sniffy.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) waited and waited to make his maiden speech. Despite the cajoling, it was well worth waiting for. I am sure that we shall hear considerably more from him.
  I do not like the sanctimonious approach and pomposity of minority parties which, having been trounced in the general election, not least in London, try to preach to us about democracy. We said clearly in the manifesto that we would proceed to a referendum on the elected mayor and the assembly—
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Not in the manifesto.
  Hon. Members: Yes we did.
  Mr. McNulty: Indeed, we did. We put our proposals to the people of London on 1 May and secured record support in London for our troubles. Now we are told by the Conservatives, "We want a mayor, but no assembly. We got only 1 million votes compared to Labour's almost 2 million, but that does not matter six months on. That is democratic." We are told by the Liberal Democrats, "We want an assembly, but not a mayor. We got only 600,000 votes compared to Labour's almost 2 million in London, but that does not matter six months on."
  It is cant and hypocrisy for the Opposition to talk about democracy. We have had silly little asides from the south-west London colony of Opposition Members about arrogance. The arrogance is for Opposition Members to try to turn over the mandate we secured barely six months ago, which is of substance and matters.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I want to put one matter on the record. I have a copy of the Labour manifesto in front of

  617
  me. It did, indeed, commit Labour to a referendum and it proposed a directly elected mayor and an assembly, but it said nothing about how many questions would be asked—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It said nothing about how many questions would be asked, so that point was never addressed.
  Mr. McNulty: In all the subsequent discussions throughout the campaign, especially in London, we said clearly that the mayor and the assembly were a single package. The proposals were not a pick-and-mix, a portfolio or ones that people could take some of and not the rest. Far from the proposals being timid, they are radical and previously unheard of in this country, as my hon. Friends have said. Putting the package—not the detail—to the people on I May and saying that we would hold a referendum on it, far from being insulting or timid, gives the people of London a voice, far more than would be the case under the Opposition's proposals.
  The Leader of the Opposition is acting like a lemming on Europe. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield proved that he was willing to sacrifice his lemmings—what remains of the London Conservative Members—by objecting to our proposals. The proposals were in the manifesto and were clearly attached to a referendum. Everyone knows the extent of the London vote. The two issues are not distinct and were always put together as a package.
  The White Paper will be published and there will be greater discussion and debate on the detail between now and the referendum in May. I hope that, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, the Conservatives will engage fully in the debate on the detail and the relationship between the assorted bodies in London when the Bill has been passed. The legislation must be seen in the context of the mandate that we secured on 1 May.
  The proposals are supported—there are, of course, minority positions—by the Association of London Government. I accept that the association does not unanimously support the Government's proposals on the specific questions, but it supports the broad sweep. The proposals are also welcomed by the police and the business community in London.
  Mr. Pickles: The hon. Gentleman cannot say that there is broad agreement except on the number of questions. Half the borough leaders want two questions and the majority of the people of London want two questions. What is the hon. Gentleman frightened of? Is he frightened of giving the people of London a choice? The people of London will have no choice and he is treating them as if he is a dictator in a banana republic.
  Mr. McNulty: I hope that the hon. Gentleman enjoyed that intervention. I will not give way to him again if that is the best he can do.
  I was referring to the Association of London Government response, which says:
  "The minority parties … favour different models for … governance … and would wish the ballot paper to contain separate questions on the Mayor and the Assembly."
  618
  It is right that the ALG should reflect those views. Happily, the majority on the ALG did not accept those views and, later tonight, the majority in this House will not accept those views.
  Ms Hodge: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition's obsession about whether there should be one or two questions simply reflects their unease with the fact that the vast majority of Londoners support our proposals? They do not want to admit that.
  Mr. McNulty: My hon. Friend is entirely right. It also seems that, in some quarters, there is a little difficulty with coming to terms with the results in London last May.
  Aside from the point raised about the number of questions, many of the points made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey were appropriate. They were, however, appropriate not to a debate on this Bill, but to discussions once the White Paper is out. I have some concerns, not least about the architecture of London governance after the Greater London assembly and the mayor are in place, about including people and about a strategic scrutiny role for the assembly.
  Once we move away from questions about how many questions to the future of London's governance, we can discuss, together with appropriate bodies in London, the interlocking relationship between the boroughs, the Greater London assembly, the mayor and central Government. We must try to get real transparency and clarity in those relationships.
  I do not see the creation of an elected mayor and a Greater London assembly as a recipe for conflict, and most of the points made on that have been clichés. People may believe that if they say them often enough, they will gain some substance and meaning. Similarly, we are told that a mayor will open things up to corruption. Why should that be the case any more than it is the case with the leader of a council in whom so much is vested? It does not follow. We are told—these views are offered as truths—that a mayor and an authority together are a recipe for conflict and corruption. That does not figure.
  Sooner rather than later, however, there must be a real understanding of the relationship between central Government and local government in London, and of how the GLA and the mayor will fit in between. Some of those who have expressed concern about the matter may have a point. If there is conflict, it will not be enough for the mayor to say, "I am directly elected, I have 5 million votes behind me and I outweigh the Greater London assembly and the London boroughs." That would not be appropriate, any more than it is appropriate for incompetent chief executives to hide behind elected councillors or for local councillors to use their democratic mandate as an excuse for failures, shortcomings and irresponsibility.
  Although the democratic mandate affords Members of Parliament, councillors and, eventually, the London mayor rights and responsibilities, it does not make them fireproof and it does not make them anything other than democratically elected people who will be held to account by the people. Too many people hide behind the notion of a democratic mandate to hide their shortcomings and wrong-doings. If we do not get the architecture right, we may be in difficulties, but I believe that it will emerge as the process evolves.

  619
  It is the responsibility of all London Members, together with the London boroughs, central Government, the mayor and the new assembly to work out the relationships. No matter whether one has separate questions on the mayor and the assembly or a combined question, those relationships cannot be dealt with when discussing referendum legislation. By definition, they will have to evolve and it is important that discussions begin sooner rather than later.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North said, London Members celebrate the city's rich diversity. When the referendum has been won and we are discussing the detailed mechanisms in respect of the GLA and the mayor, it will be the responsibility of all political parties to make regional London government as inclusive and representative of that diversity as possible. Gender split, ethnic representation and the like are matters for responsible political parties, but we will do ourselves no favours if a 23-member, 30-member or 60-member assembly is dominated by white, middle-class people such as myself—grey men in grey suits. It must reflect the wide diversity in London.
  I have other concerns that I will share quite openly. The mayor of London should not be simply a tourist attraction—a mayor for the west end and never mind the rest of London. Nor should the assembly be purely and simply a talking shop for the west end or for what was once inner London. I have been on far too many London Labour party committees—and in the past two or three years the London Planning Advisory Committee—shouting and screaming that the area I represent may be ex-Middlesex, but it is now part of Greater London. Outer London and suburban London should have as much of a voice as inner London in the assembly and in electing the mayor.
  Mr. Ottaway: Is not the hon. Gentleman making a very good argument for a constituency-based assembly?
  Mr. McNulty: No. The hon. Gentleman has either misheard or misconstrued my remarks. One of the forms of proportional representation may address my concern. I am not saying that Harrow desperately needs its own separate member of the assembly or that the mayor must come from Harrow, in order for Harrow, outer London and suburban London to have a voice.
  After three years on the London Planning Advisory Committee, I have come to the view—which, to some extent, is shared by Conservative and Liberal colleagues on that body—that London means London. It does not stop at Hammersmith, Westminster or Newham, and areas such as my constituency are not that nasty little bit before the green belt and the M25. Harrow and the other outer London boroughs deserve a voice within the assembly, and it is for the House—working with the London boroughs, the mayor and the assembly—to ensure that they have more say than has been the case in the quagmire of quangoland that we have inhabited since 1986.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey for mentioning that the Further Education Funding Council is now regionally organised and that planning and strategic considerations are addressed on a regional basis. If, for whatever reason, it is not possible for the mayor and the GLA to take over that function—and the same applies to London's health
  620
  service—at the very least Londoners should be afforded an exciting and innovative scrutiny role in respect of health and further education. However, the assembly should not be toothless; it should have some clout, and we can talk about that after March and before May.
  The role of the FEFC clearly matters to Londoners, not least in terms of the regeneration work of the regional development agency, which will be transferred to the GLA, and economic regeneration more generally. It is daft that there is no Londonwide control of those issues. There is an equal case for strategic scrutiny in terms of London's health service, which also requires consideration.
  None of those concerns, however, detracts from the Bill, which is long overdue and seeks to get in motion the whole process of working towards a referendum for the mayor and the assembly. The Conservatives missed the boat in Wales and Scotland, but—to mix metaphors—they can be in the front carriage once the referendum is out the way. By all means, as you will anyway, campaign in the referendum against the one question, but once it is out of the way—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Perhaps I can assist the hon. Gentleman. He has used the term, "you" several times, but I shall not be contesting or opposing anything.
  Mr. McNulty: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful for your clarification.
  Once the referendum has determined the will of the people of Greater London, I hope that all parties will work together—within the context of our clear mandate on 1 May to provide a democratically elected, directly elected mayor and a Greater London assembly—to reach consensus on the most appropriate strategic governance for London. In the long term, the people of London will be grateful for that and will damn those who put party purposes before the preferences and future of the people of London.
  6.15 pm
  Sir Sydney Chapman: As the first Conservative to speak following the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), may I associate myself and my colleagues with the tributes to that speech? The hon. Gentleman made an entertaining, witty speech, full of humility for his constituency. I have two comments. First, Ealing, North and its new Member have gained in stature as a result of his speech. Secondly, referring to his quotation from John Betjeman, I find Ealing, North today a more attractive place than it was yesteryear, if only because I suffer from hay fever very badly and am therefore reassured that I will no longer smell the scent of the hay if I visit that constituency.
  The House will appreciate the hon. Gentleman's tribute to his three predecessors, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and to the former Members for Ealing, North, Mr. Harry Greenway and Lord Molloy. The fact that I was in the House when Lord Molloy represented Ealing, North is a sign of my advancing years.
  Obviously, I should like to mention what I consider to be valid views for consideration in the debate about the Bill. First, I subscribe to the view that there should be

  621
  two separate questions in the referendum. It may be that, implicitly, the Labour manifesto put the two issues together, but it certainly did not do so explicitly.
  Secondly, I should have thought that the Government were great enough to be prepared to listen to people. As I understand it, it was not the Government's original intention to put two separate questions on the Scottish issue, but they decided to do so between the election and the referendum. Therefore, I hope that they will listen to the people of London and reconsider the matter. After all, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) said, widespread support for the two questions ranges from Conservative London boroughs to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). One could not find a wider political spectrum.
  Incidentally, my local borough, which is run by a coalition of Labour and the Liberal Democrats, believes that there should be two questions. I also understand that the London trade union representatives agree, as does The Times, which I remember as The London Times. So, from the carthorse to the thunderer, a great political spectrum supports a two-question referendum. I shall return to that point in respect of another matter at the conclusion of my speech.
  A directly elected Greater London authority and a directly elected mayor is a recipe for division and dissension. It need not be, but it almost certainly will be. The reason is very simple. If anybody were directly elected as mayor, they would feel that they had a status which gave them importance and influence. Although they would seek to work with a Greater London authority, the London boroughs or, indeed, with a Government office for London, the fact remains that they would feel that they had a special relationship with the people of London, and would use it to put forward the manifesto on which they were elected. In addition, since an elected mayor of London would be unique in our country, it would further the importance of the office.
  I accept that such a problem could be overcome by Greater London authority members—or whatever they will be called—electing the mayor. That would be the better way to go about it. After all, that is exactly what every local authority does at the moment. Successfully elected councillors proceed each year to elect a mayor. Such a process would be much more in tune with the precept and practice of local government.
  What I shall say next will certainly not be popular on the Government Benches, but I feel duty bound to say it. London, as we all agree, is a huge and unique city. Thirty-two London boroughs each represent–1 think—a minimum of 150,000 people and, at the most, more than 300,000. My borough of Barnet serves a population of more than 300,000. We must therefore consider whether there should be special arrangements for our metropolitan and capital city.
  When we considered such arrangements 11 years ago, it was found that there was no need for a Greater London council. Indeed, experience and the activities of the Greater London council led the then Government to believe that a directly elected Greater London authority was not necessary. The main reason was that London boroughs embraced most—but not all—of the powers and responsibilities of local government.
  622
  Incidentally, from Labour Members' remarks, the attitude that comes over to Conservative Members is, "We are the masters now; we have won the election and so we can do what we want." [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am afraid that it does come over like that. If I remember rightly, the proposal to abolish the GLC was in the Conservative party manifesto for the 1983 election. If I also remember rightly, the Conservatives won a huge majority in the subsequent election. There were certainly many more Conservative Members than Labour Members representing London.
  Mr. McDonnell: Following the election in 1983, was there a referendum so that Londoners could have a say about the abolition of the GLC? I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman could recall a referendum taking place.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there was not a referendum. I am not arguing that there should necessarily be a referendum before setting up the Greater London authority. There was not a referendum before setting up the GLC and, as he said, there was not one before abolishing it. It is his Government who decided, for understandable reasons—I do not quarrel with them—that there should be a referendum. I accept that they are carrying out their party manifesto pledge, but I am arguing that there was no need to pledge a referendum ahead of introducing a Bill.
  The most important point is that we should know exactly what is to be set up, how it is to be set up and what it will cost before we ask Londoners to vote in a referendum. I ask the Minister for London and Construction to consider that. He may well respond that there will be a White Paper in March, a few weeks ahead of the referendum on 7 May. I say to that, "Well, there is many a spill betwixt White Paper and Bill." It would be far better if Parliament had the chance to look into the devil of the detail first. Then, when we know exactly what we are to have, we could put the question to Londoners in a referendum. Not to go about the matter in that way is offering Londoners a menu without the prices.
  I believe that there is no need for a Greater London authority or a GLC mark II, simply because the boroughs have the resources and capacity in most functions to decide policy—and, as a result. they are able to bring government nearer to the people of London. Where a strategic authority is necessary to deal with certain planning matters, such strategic decisions ought to be taken by the Government, because so many such decisions affect not only Londoners but many people outside London and, indeed, in the south-east as a whole.
  As has been pointed out, the Metropolitan police area goes outside the Greater London boundaries. The London Underground system on certain lines goes well beyond the Greater London boundaries. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of commuters come from outside the Greater London boundaries—from Northampton in the north, well beyond Southend in the east, as far south as Brighton and certainly as far west as Reading, if not beyond. So many matters that affect Londoners and London demand consideration far beyond the Greater London area.
  The former Greater London council was a recipe for dispute and dissension. I give one example of that: the docklands. Nothing was done in the docklands, despite five London boroughs being involved in its replanning. It

  623
  was difficult enough to get all five boroughs to agree. They very rarely did, but even if they did, they did not agree with what the GLC wanted to do. A special agency was formed finally, which has been much more successful in developing that part of our great city.
  However carefully the powers of a GLA or an elected mayor are defined, empire building will follow as sure as night follows day. That happened with the GLC and it will most certainly happen with any Greater London authority. There will be plenty of scope for arguing not only with the boroughs but with the Government.
  Let us consider what will happen if the Greater London authority is set up. I use as a basis the Minister's speech in July and the Green Paper. For a start, the members themselves and their expenses will give rise to costs. That is certain and nobody will quibble about it. However, in addition, huge costs will arise in employing the staff needed to carry out the scrutiny of the budget, the strategy, and the appointments made by the mayor—as was mentioned by the Minister for London and Construction and in the Green Paper. Costs will also arise from the committees that will be set up, which will resemble giant Select Committees with powers to call for people and papers and to examine London issues. Those committees will produce reports and strategic reviews and will have the power to summon the relevant London organisations before them. The costs that arise will be proper, but significant.
  London Members of Parliament should be careful about the exact nature of the proposals if we are to recommend them to our constituents. The Greater London authority could clash with Ministers and their responsibilities and also with the powers of House of Commons Select Committees. That issue should be carefully considered in Committee.
  We have been reminded that it is 11 years since the abolition of the GLC and seven years since the abolition of the Inner London Education Authority. I cannot speak on the latter, as I represent an outer London constituency, but my perception of the opinion of the majority of my constituents is that they have felt no significant disadvantage from the lack of the GLC. Feeling may be different in the old London county council area, but my constituents were in favour of the abolition of the GLC and do not hanker for a replacement authority.
  Mr. Keith Hill: How does the hon. Gentleman known?
  Sir Sydney Chapman: I said that that was my perception. We have heard many perceptions and judgments from Labour Members and surely I should be allowed to describe mine. My constituents may vote yes in a referendum, depending on what is asked and how many questions are put, but they will be more likely to vote yes if they do not know the full implications of what they are voting for. I therefore come back to my central point which is that it is in the interests of democracy that the people of London know exactly what they can expect and what they will have to pay before they vote in the referendum.
  I believe that there will be dissension and disappointment if a Greater London authority is set up. For example, let us take the issue of town and country planning. When we had the GLC, planning applications
  624
  were made to the local planning authority—the London borough. That authority said yes or no to the application. The more significant planning applications were sent to the GLC if the local authority said yes. After some months' delay, the GLC said yes or no. The process was pointless if it said yes, because the borough had already said yes. If the GLC said no, the applicant could appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment. It was pointless for the GLC to consider planning matters.
  I can understand, but would not agree with, the argument that the Greater London authority should be the recipient of all planning applications for London. That would be more logical because if the authority turned down a planning application, the applicant could appeal to the Secretary of State. However, the arrangement under the GLC regime wasted time and caused more bureaucracy and confusion. It also illustrates the problem that a Greater London authority would have with the Government under a similar system.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Why should London be different from elsewhere in the country, where the county is the planning authority for the structure plan and the district councils are responsible for the local plans?
  Sir Sydney Chapman: London should be different because London is different. In London, the local planning authority is the London borough. I am not an expert on all local authorities outside London, but most local authorities in the counties are smaller, with smaller populations, and do not have the facilities that the big counties have. In London, the 32 London boroughs already have important responsibilities—for example, for education—that local district councils do not have.
  The role of the mayor will also give rise to problems. I understand that it is proposed that he or she will set the Greater London authority budget. What size will that budget be? It has also been proposed that he or she should devise strategies and action plans, but he or she would do better to co-ordinate the London boroughs instead. I also do not understand how the mayor and the Greater London authority will fit in with the proposed London development agency, because it is proposed that the agency should be separate from the authority.
  I wish to raise four more detailed points covering various aspects of the Bill. They can be more properly discussed in Committee, but I wish to give the Minister the opportunity to consider them now, because they are of more than pedantic importance. The first concerns clause 2. Resident European Union nationals will, I understand, for the first time, be able to vote in the local elections next May. Will they therefore be able to vote in the referendum?
  Secondly, on clause 3, will the result of the referendum be announced on a ward-by-ward basis or a borough-by-borough basis, or will it be announced only as a result without any breakdowns?
  Thirdly, on clause 4, will there be two ballot boxes in each polling station—one for the London borough elections and the other for the referendum—or will all the ballot papers be put in one box? [Interruption.] That may seem like a pedantic point, but it is important for the time of the announcement of the result. Fourthly, if all the papers are to be put into one box, how will they be counted and checked? Those are important questions to people interested in the issue and to those who will be responsible for administering the referendum.

  625
  Fourthly, and finally, the Minister was good enough to allow me to intervene in his speech, on the question of the referendum. I advocate two separate questions, but—whether we have two or one—the word "directly" should be inserted before "elected mayor" and between "separately" and "elected assembly" in the question proposed in the schedule to the Bill. Under the form of words for the ballot paper proposed by the Bill—if there is to be one question—it will be possible to vote yes if one wants a directly elected London authority but not a directly elected mayor. The ballot, according to the schedule, says that the authority will be
  "made up of an elected mayor and a separately elected assembly".
  Following from the election for an assembly, the ballot question could be such as to allow the assembly—not the electorate—to choose the mayor. That would change the Government's present intention dramatically.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I apologise for raising intricate questions at this stage, but I believe that they are of such importance that Ministers need to be aware of them before the Committee stage.
  6.39 pm
  Mr. Roger Casale: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech. It is a great honour to be elected to represent and serve the people of Wimbledon. Wimbledon, like London—of which it forms an integral part—has an international reputation and a strong sense of identity and civic pride. It is also my home town. I was born in Wimbledon, I live in Wimbledon and I went to school in Wimbledon, and it is a great privilege to be elected to serve the community of which I am a part.
  It is with particular pride that I address the House as the Labour Member for Wimbledon. Indeed, I am only the second Labour Member of Parliament in the history of my home town. My predecessor, Mr. Arthur Palmer, was first elected to this House in the Labour landslide victory of 1945. When Arthur Palmer made his maiden speech, the Government faced a great challenge in rebuilding our nation in the aftermath of war. Once again, my party has the task of rebuilding this nation, and restoring belief in public services and in government for the many, and not the few.
  I am pleased that the Government have also moved with such urgency to rebuild this city and, as a first step, to restore a Greater London authority. The achievements of the Labour Government to which my predecessor Arthur Palmer was elected—providing security for all in the post-war era—will be a continuing inspiration for the new and reforming Government. In Wimbledon—just as Arthur Palmer did—I aim to represent and serve all my constituents, as the Government will govern in the interests of the nation as a whole. Arthur Palmer said that a Member of Parliament is not a spokesperson for one party or faction within a community, but a servant of all his constituents.
  In keeping with the traditions of the House, I pay tribute to my predecessor, Charles Goodson-Wickes. He made his maiden speech on the valuable contribution of voluntary organisations to community life in Wimbledon,
  626
  and I whole-heartedly share that view. I also wish to pay tribute to the work of Cyril Black, a long-standing Member of Parliament and friend and representative of Wimbledon. Cyril Black realised, as I do, that a Member of Parliament has an important civic role in the community. He spoke always in the interests of the people of Wimbledon, nurturing in the process our sense of community, identity and civic pride which is still a prominent feature of the town today.
  I wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman), whose work as leader of Merton council in many ways paved the ground for my success by demonstrating that the values of modern Labour could resonate with people in formerly Conservative areas such as Wimbledon to the point where they can give us their trust.
  Wimbledon is justly proud of its sense of history and tradition. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) mentioned Highgate cemetery, where Karl Marx and Herbert Spencer are buried. I am glad to say that, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), we have some fine alumni from Wimbledon, including the author Robert Graves, who was born in Wimbledon, and William Wilberforce, who lived there and fought for the abolition of the slave trade. It was also home to William Morris, and the Merton Abbey mills are still a feature of Wimbledon today.
  Today, Wimbledon is home to the internationally famous All England club, but I wish to remind the House that we also have a successful Premiership football team. If we were able to return the team to a ground within the constituency, we might even lay claim, with our tennis and football, to being the sports capital of London. Wimbledon also sports a great deal of religious and cultural diversity, and this reflects the diversity of our life as part of the city of London. Wimbledon is home to the papal envoy and has a strong Roman Catholic contingent. There are more than 30 churches of all denominations, and we are blessed with a synagogue and two mosques. This religious diversity reflects the ethnic and cultural diversity of Wimbledon and I am proud to represent that diversity in the House. I speak for everyone in the constituency, regardless of religion, creed or race.
  In the arts, Wimbledon's reputation has been further enhanced by the well-known Wimbledon theatre, but also—and importantly—by the unique achievements of the Polka international children's theatre.
  Finally, many community and voluntary organisations help to develop and sustain valuable community partnerships in the town, and Merton council has taken a leading role in setting up such partnerships. The Abbey partnership policing initiative has made the streets safer and reduced the fear of crime. Working in partnership with magistrates, the probation service, the local police and the council, the initiative has become a flagship project which has been visited by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary as well as his predecessor.
  Those local partnerships allow me to work towards delivering my promise to the people of Wimbledon—and help the new Government deliver their promises. However, we cannot achieve this alone; we can achieve it only by working, for example, in partnership with local schools and the council. I repeat my promise to the people of Wimbledon; the new deal for Britain will mean a fair deal for Wimbledon. In all the ways I have outlined,

  627
  Wimbledon contributes to the diversity, energy and huge resourcefulness of London. I am proud to have the opportunity to give voice to all that Wimbledon has to offer our city and our nation in these respects. A Greater London assembly and mayor will strengthen the strong bond that Wimbledon already has with London and will give its people the chance to meet many challenges that we cannot tackle by local partnerships alone.
  The assembly promises an integrated transport strategy that will ease the lives of the 17,000 commuters who travel to London from Wimbledon every day. It will provide a framework for planning the traffic flows and urban developments that so deeply affect the lives of people in our town. It will create a pathway to sustainable economic and environmental development that will impact directly on my constituents' quality of life.
  For all those reasons, I welcome the Government's initiative to establish a strategic authority for London, with the consent of the people of London. On 1 May, people in my constituency delivered one of the largest swings in the country, to give Wimbledon a voice. I am confident that in May next year Wimbledon will vote as resoundingly for an assembly and mayor, so that London, of which we in Wimbledon feel so much a part, from which we have so much to learn, to which we have so much to contribute, and from membership of which we have so much to gain, may once more have a voice.
  I welcome the Government's proposals to give the people of Wimbledon the opportunity to vote for the assembly and the mayor.
  6.50 pm
  Mr. John Randall: I am most grateful to have this opportunity to address the House for the first time. I want first to congratulate the hon. Members for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale) and for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) on their maiden speeches. We look forward to many similar performances and may have to indulge the occasional rally from the hon. Member for Wimbledon.
  Having heard two maiden speeches from Members elected on 1 May, hon. Members might consider that I am acting with unseemly haste in making mine. In my defence, the long gap between my election and the return of the House after the long summer recess has given me a somewhat uncharacteristic impatience. Having been variously described in the by-election campaign as a Dickensian mill owner, a scaled-up version of a garden gnome, a bearded non-entity, Forrest Gump and the missing link, I feel that I am under no illusions as to what Westminster politics is all about.
  I am immensely proud to represent the people of Uxbridge, but my feelings are mixed with sadness. I am sure that hon. Members of all parties will want to join me in paying tribute to my predecessor, the late Sir Michael Shersby. He was a most respected Member of Parliament. He surprised the pundits 25 years ago by winning a by-election against the prevailing political tide. From that moment on, until his untimely death in May, he served all his constituents in a faultless manner.
  Sir Michael was immensely respected in Uxbridge and known for his sense of devotion and fairness. He was well thought of by hon. Members of all parties. On the day of his death there was a tangible sense of loss throughout the Uxbridge constituency. I had the privilege of serving him as constituency chairman and election agent on 1 May,
  628
  and as I embark on my career here I miss his kind guiding hand and words of wisdom. The House, Uxbridge, and the country that he loved so much, are the poorer today.
  I share the great pride in my constituency that Sir Michael always had. For me, as for him, it is and always has been home. Yesterday, as I stood at the war memorial in Uxbridge listening to the last post being sounded by a lone Royal Air Force bugler, I was once more reminded of the close links between our town and the RAF. Next year is the 80th anniversary of the establishment of RAF Uxbridge. Much of the Battle of Britain was conducted from the bunker at RAF Uxbridge, and there Sir Winston Churchill first spoke of "the few".
  RAF Uxbridge is home to the Central Band and the Queen's Colour Squadron of the RAF Regiment, both units being renowned around the world. The service men and women are an integral part of the local economy. This year is the bicentenary of the formation of the Uxbridge Yeomanry. I am pleased that it is once more back in town as the Middlesex Yeomanry.
  The Uxbridge Yeomanry was often called on for escort duty on royal journeys. In 1834, it escorted the sovereign on part of his journey between Windsor and Moor Park. Having successfully completed the first half of the duty, the Yeomen were liberally entertained while awaiting the return leg. In high spirits, they set off, got lost, and took the king into a ploughed field. I can assure the House that today the Yeomanry is a professional body of men and women.
  The constituency is of course made up of more than Uxbridge town. It is a collection of communities: Ickenham, Cowley, Hillingdon, Colham, Yiewsley and West Drayton. Once villages, they retain today a great deal of their individual characters; but as London's boundaries have advanced, the distinctions have become slightly less well marked. Although essentially in suburbia, or metroland, many of us still consider that we live in Middlesex, rather than west London, but we are of course in Greater London, and Uxbridge football club currently holds the London Football Association challenge cup. Labour Members will no doubt be pleased to know that I am a Reds supporter.
  We are a forward-looking area. We have the immensely successful and world-renowned Brunel university and science park in the constituency, as well as many fine schools. All but one of the secondary schools are grant maintained, and I believe that they are living proof of the success of the GM system.
  The environment is precious to us and over the years many people have chosen to live in the constituency because of its open spaces and the sense of being in neither country nor city. We have several nature reserves. Muntjac deer graze within half a mile of Uxbridge town centre, and we have important colonies of both great crested newts and glow-worms, and much interesting bird life. Hon. Members will no doubt discover with time that wildlife and conservation hold a special interest for me, and I hope that they will also find in me as stout a defender of the green belt as my predecessor was.
  I apologise to the House for indulging myself in extolling the constituency's merits, especially as I appreciate the fact that many hon. Members had the pleasure of visiting the constituency back in those balmy days in July. I thank them all for their great interest.

  629
  I want to thank the Prime Minister, in particular, for sparing some of his valuable time to visit both Uxbridge and Yiewsley. For many of us, his personal appearance was a great morale boost. Speaking personally, I can honestly say that his visit was the icing on the cake and made the summer all the sweeter. I am a little worried, however, that other constituencies might feel somewhat jealous if we in Uxbridge alone have this great honour, so I strongly urge the Prime Minister to visit Beckenham and Winchester, so as not to be seen to have treated Uxbridge with undue favouritism.
  London's importance and significance are beyond question. That is why Conservative Members recognise the need for London to have its own voice. We think that that should be through a directly elected mayor, who would be responsible for cross-London issues, such as transport, traffic and environmental matters. The mayor could work with all the London borough council leaders, using their collective experience in formulating Londonwide policy; they would have the experience and knowledge of what would work on the ground and could act as an advisory board to the mayor.
  The problem with the Bill is that it lumps together the election of a mayor with that of an assembly, denying Londoners the chance to vote in favour of one without the other. The issues should be properly debated. It is legitimate to support various different permutations regarding the future of London government.
  If democratic legitimacy is to be conferred on the future government structure, a two-question referendum is the proper way forward.
  The Government recognised that need for two separate questions in the devolution referendum in Scotland. If they saw the need for two questions in Scotland, why not give the people of London that choice? Creating an assembly and a mayor offers the prospect of institutionalised conflict between the two, as well as clashes with the boroughs. The one question proposed in the Bill will prevent that view from being advanced without rejecting the entire package that is on offer. The Bill does not allow a choice to be made between either a mayor or an assembly, or having both.
  The Green Paper proposes an entirely new structure for the government of London. The Bill as it stands offers Londoners an all-or-nothing choice. It is only right, therefore, that two questions should be put on the ballot paper. That would give Londoners a real choice over their future. Surely it is not too much to ask.
  6.59 pm
  Mr. Stephen Twigg: It is a great pleasure to speak after the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). As he said, many of us—I imagine almost all the Labour Members here—had the pleasure of visiting what is now his constituency during the by-election campaign in July. I have a particular pleasure in congratulating him on his maiden speech because I also represent a constituency where many people feel that they are a part of Middlesex, and also which is at the end of the Piccadilly line although I am at the other end. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his speech. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), who gave
  630
  a characteristically witty maiden speech, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale) on a thoughtful and intelligent maiden speech.
  The manifesto on which the Labour party won the election on 1 May included an ambitious programme of democratic and constitutional reform. As my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) said, this is the next stage of a long and comprehensive programme of change—a programme that is designed to modernise our democracy and to rebuild a sense of faith and trust in the political process, to challenge the secrecy and lack of accountability that have for too long characterised British democracy. That is why we are committed to devolution, to incorporating the European convention on human rights into British law, to freedom of information, to study electoral reform and to reform the Houses of Parliament. Where we are proposing measures of great constitutional significance, we are proposing to put those measures to the people in a referendum. As has been said, we have had the referendums in Scotland and Wales. We shall have a referendum on proposals for voting reform for the election of the House and today we are discussing the proposed referendum for the Greater London assembly and mayor.
  Like most hon. Members who have spoken, I have particular pleasure in supporting the Bill because I am a Londoner. I was born and bred in outer London, in the constituency that I have the privilege to represent; I have also lived and served as an elected Labour councillor in inner London. From both perspectives, I see the strong case for the change that the Government propose to introduce.
  One of my earliest political memories is of the campaign against the abolition of the Greater London council. It has been instructive in preparing for this speech to look at the Second Reading debate 13 years ago and contrast the actions of the then Conservative Government—like our Government, they had a large majority—with those of the present Government.
  Today, we have had more than 1,000 responses to a Government Green Paper—responses which are overwhelmingly positive about what is being proposed. In 1984, there were 800 responses, of which 95 per cent. were hostile to what was being proposed by the then Conservative Government. In 1984, we had a Government with a three-figure majority relying solely on the fact that they had a manifesto commitment to put through the changes that they wanted to make in Greater London. Today, we have a Government with a three-figure majority who are proposing to put their manifesto pledge to the people in a referendum next May. If we are to believe the opinion polls, we have a Government whose proposals for Greater London are supported by 80 per cent. of Londoners. The 1984 proposals were rejected by 74 per cent. in the opinion polls at the time.
  The shadow Defence Secretary, who has been mentioned in the debate—the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young)—was then a Minister at the Department of the Environment. On 4 December 1984, he said:
  "the rash commitments that Labour Members have made about exhuming the dinosaurs and putting them on a life support machine will be a source of grave embarrassment to them and to their party because people will have seen that those bodies were irrelevant, unnecessary and extravagant and a party that pledges to bring them back will have disastrous election results."—[Official Report, 4 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 291.]

  631
  We scarcely had a disastrous election result on 1 May.
  I welcome the presence in the Chamber of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who spoke on the same subject and sounded a note of caution when he said:
  "I suspect that the Government"—
  the then Conservative Government—
  "with their very big majority, may succeed in laying the body politic of the Greater London Council to rest, but I fear that its spectre will rise to haunt us."—[Official Report, 10 December 1984; Vol. 69. c. 857.]
  The spectre that is rising today, so ably predicted by the hon. Gentleman 13 years ago, is the spectre of the desire of the overwhelming majority of the people of London to have a democratic voice for our capital city.
  I welcome the fact that the Conservative party is slowly coming round to our point of view on this issue. The party is now in favour of the mayor, but not of the assembly. It is halfway there. I welcome the conversion on the proposal for a mayor. Unlike the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I think that a directly elected mayor is an exciting democratic innovation. We can have someone who will be an ambassador and a champion for the people of Greater London, providing real leadership for our capital city and making a difference to people's lives in London.
  I want a mayor who can get things done and who will have real power, but that mayor has to be accountable—accountable to a strategic assembly. That is why the Government's proposals have to be treated as a package and why the Opposition are wrong to propose a mayor alone and to propose that we have two separate referendum questions. Conservative policy is shifting even on the matter of referendums, however, in the direction of the Government Benches. In June, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who was then speaking from the Conservative Front Bench, advocated a total of four referendum questions. Today, we hear that the Conservative party is in favour of two questions. Perhaps by Christmas they will have accepted the Government's approach—that a single question should be put to the people of London.
  I recognise from the contribution of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that there are those who are genuinely concerned and who are putting a genuine case for two questions. In response I must ask, "Why those two questions?" We have already seen confusion on the Liberal Democrat Benches today. The original amendment, which has not been selected, advocated three referendum questions. The Liberal Democrats now advocate two. A number of important issues need to be addressed. The Government have issued a Green Paper that has 61 different questions for consultation. We can separate out many issues, such as the question of revenue-raising powers, which the hon. Gentleman, among others, mentioned, the question about policing raised by other Opposition Members and questions about the electoral system—both for the mayor and the assembly. Many different questions could be addressed in a referendum.
  The very nature of the manifesto commitment that we put to the people, including the people of Greater London, was of a package with a mayor and an assembly working together. If there is not a mayor, the assembly will be very different. By definition, the sort of package outlined in
  632
  the Green Paper rests on the idea that there is a separation of powers between a mayor and an assembly. The nature of the mayor and of the assembly on which we have consulted the people and organisations of Greater London is one in which the two exist side by side.
  In a previous debate in June, Labour Members were accused of manifesto-itis. I do not think that it is manifesto-itis for us to contend that the best way of implementing the commitment that we gave the people of London on 1 May is to have a single question. We will have a referendum on the principle of what the Government propose, and Parliament will have the opportunity after that to deliberate on the detail. That is the best way forward.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman puts a perfectly reasonable case, and I accept his good faith. I hope that he accepts that the argument—put differently by different parties—for having two questions on the central issue of structure is that the proposal in the Labour manifesto concerned the structure. The structure includes the novelty of a directly elected mayor. Matters such as tax-varying powers can be dealt with when we examine the Bill next year. Those views are put in equally good faith and I am sure that he accepts that there is an equally valid argument for them and for having two questions rather than one.
  Mr. Twigg: I respect that, but the Liberal Democrat reasoned amendment suggested that three areas could be the subject for questions. The hon. Gentleman has, in good faith, argued that revenue-raising powers for the assembly are a major question that could be put to the people in a referendum. We must strike a balance. In Britain, the referendum is a constitutional novelty: it is not a device used often and we are still feeling our way. It is better to have had a proper debate in the run-up to the general election, which is what started the Green Paper process, continuing through to the publication of the White Paper in the spring. We shall then have a vote on the principle of what the Government seek, and assuming a yes vote, we can then have a full and proper deliberative discussion in this House and in the other place on the legislation.
  I warmly welcome the new approach outlined in the Green Paper to the governance of our capital city. It is based on the principles of partnership, participation and building consensus. If the Greater London authority is to succeed, it must seek to involve and consult all the interests that make up our great capital city. In the consultation process, the importance of the voice of business and industry in London being heard loud and clear was frequently raised, building on the excellent work of organisations such as London First and the London Pride partnership.
  Finally, but most important, it is vital that the assembly and the mayor enjoy democratic legitimacy. They must be a genuine democratic voice for the people of London. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London could tell us in her reply, in so far as she can, about the broad responses of individuals and organisations to questions about electoral issues and, in particular, how the mayor and assembly will be elected. There is widespread concern in all parties on that. On this, I agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. It is crucial that both

  633
  the mayor and the assembly enjoy democratic credibility. That means that the mayor must have the clear support of a majority of those voting. The best way to achieve that is the alternative vote system. That must mean an assembly based on fair voting principles. We cannot have an assembly dominated by any one party, even my own. I hope and trust that the Government will listen to the concerns of people of all parties and none, and will adopt a system that will deliver the democratic and reasonable outcomes that I mentioned.
  Democratic reform lies at the heart of the new politics that the new Government are seeking to promote. The manifesto promise of the Labour party to the people of London was clear and unequivocal. I welcome the Bill because it takes a major stride towards fulfilling that manifesto pledge and restoring a democratic voice to the people of London. For that reason, I commend it to the House.
  7.13 pm
  Mr. John Wilkinson: It is difficult to do justice to the important theme that is fundamental to this debate after a maiden speech of such eloquence as that of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) and after the memorable maiden speeches of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale) and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). I hope that the hon. Member for Wimbledon will not regard it as invidious if I do not follow his remarks but concentrate on those of my two geographic parliamentary neighbours.
  I was delighted that the hon. Member for Ealing, North mentioned the gallant Poles, many of whom reside in his constituency, who fought at RAF Northolt and helped to win the battle of Britain. It is appropriate that he should have commemorated them on Remembrance day eve, as it was appropriate for my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge to remind us that the headquarters of 11 Group RAF Uxbridge, which was commanded by Air Vice-Marshal Park, was at the heart of the Battle of Britain. The continuing service that the Royal Air Force provides our country, and the contribution that it makes to the borough of Hillingdon—where we both have the honour of serving as Members of Parliament—is treasured by all the people of Hillingdon.
  Hon. Members will have been struck by the sturdy and admirable qualities of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge, which made him such a worthy winner of the by-election: his commitment to local people, the love of his country and his warm appreciation, which we all shared, of his fine predecessor, Sir Michael Shersby, who so sadly died almost immediately after the general election in which my hon. Friend played such a crucial part as his constituency chairman and agent.
  I found it surprising that the Minister did not mention two issues that, for my outer London constituents at least, are at the forefront of their local concerns: public transport and the environment, about which my constituents and those of my hon. Friend for Uxbridge care most profoundly. Perhaps it was understandable that the Minister did not mention public transport. On the doorstep, Labour canvassers said that come 2 May, were we to have a Labour Government, the London
  634
  Underground system would be put right, there would soon be a directly elected London assembly and mayor responsible for it and the delays, constant fare rises above the level of inflation and inadequacies of the system would be addressed. We wait and see. All that I and my constituents know is that fares are to rise by well above the rate of inflation in the new year, the Government have announced no concrete plans to improve the London Underground transport system, and there are no concrete proposals about exactly how the mayor and the directly elected assembly are going to work hand in glove with the new investors in the system, if there are any, or with the Department of Transport, if it is to have a residual oversight role.
  On the environment, there is a constant battle throughout London to preserve the few open spaces and patches of green belt that remain. In my constituency, as in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge, there has been a malign campaign by the socialist local authority—I say socialist advisedly, because that is how it behaves—to build social housing in areas that are utterly inappropriate for residential development and against the wishes of, I would say, 99.9 per cent. of local residents.
  The Greater London assembly, if it is elected, is to have responsibility for structure plans that will set the overall pattern within which the development of Greater London is to take place, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) made clear so admirably, it is uncertain how planning issues will be resolved.
  We know from the consultation document that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will have ultimate appellate powers, but will the Greater London assembly arrogate to itself functions beyond structure plans? Will it, too, want to supervise and second-guess the judgments of the boroughs? Will the playing fields, public open spaces and the few patches of green belt that remain be better preserved under the Greater London assembly than they are today or not? That is what my constituents want to know, and they have their doubts because they remember what life was like under the GLC.
  Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman looks at Hansard tomorrow, he will see that I referred to transport and the environment. I would not want him to think that I did not refer to those issues. I assure him that the Government are utterly committed to protecting green spaces, particularly in the urban area where they are so precious. We are also committed to improving the public transport system to ensure that there is a better service for the people of London.
  Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful to the Minister. Perhaps those references were so cursory that they passed me by, or perhaps I was inattentive. I will take heart particularly if his Department will, as a consequence of his expression of good will, postpone the planning inquiry into the proposed Field End road recreation ground development from 6 to 9 January to a date more convenient to my constituents in March. I should be grateful if the Minister could consider that.
  The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) referred to a speech of mine on the Local Government Bill, which abolished the GLC. I hate to quote my own

  635
  speeches, but it is important to do so because, then, I urged my party to be utterly democratic in its approach. I urge it to be just the same today. If the referendum so decides that there should be a directly elected assembly, I would wish our party whole-heartedly to embrace it.
  On Third Reading of the Local Government Bill, I voted against my Government because I thought that there was a need for some streamlined overall, elected, strategic authority for London. I asked:
  "why should this party"—
  the Conservative party—
  "be afraid of democracy and of the ballot box?"—[Official Report, 28 March 1985; Vol. 76, c. 751.]
  There should be a directly elected, strategic assembly for London. I do not believe that delegated representatives of the London boroughs are the right people to fulfil that overall strategic function in support of the mayor. Why do I think that? For party political reasons, I believe that the Conservative party should be embracing whole-heartedly every opportunity to field candidates against the Government. It is by winning elections at every level—and by demonstrating, after we have won a few, that Conservative candidates are the ones to be trusted to look after their constituents' interests, not to waste people's money, and to work harmoniously at every level—that the Conservative party will win back support. It is by a proven track record of democratic success that we will steadily gain to the point whereby the party restores itself and regains power at national level.
  One must recognise that borough leaders or senior members of borough councils are extremely busy individuals. Their time is fully occupied meeting their responsibilities on behalf of their borough electorates. I do not believe that they would have the time to go to Westminster guildhall or wherever the new assembly may be located. They should be doing their own job for their constituents in their own boroughs. One should also remember that they are part-time councillors with professions of their own; they have other things to do rather than spend their whole time in traffic jams or on the tube travelling to London assembly meetings.
  I speak personally when I say that we should support a directly elected assembly. How should that assembly be constituted? I suggest that it should be based on 32 or 33 seats, including the City of London—32 is one of the numbers postulated in the consultation paper, and there are 32 London boroughs. I would have one representative per borough because a territorial connection is at the heart of our democracy in this country. On a strategic authority we need to have representatives who will fight for the interests of their local electorates. That is what truly counts.
  The Minister spoke about accountability. Elected representatives are brought to account if constituents know who their representatives are and recognise that those representatives are fighting for the things that they, the voters, care about. The trouble is that what the Government propose is all part of their greater scheme for constitutional change. The mayoralty is not the normal British kind of mayor; the example cited by the Minister was that of New York.
  The consultation document poses the question,
  "What would the Mayor and Assembly do?"
  According to that document, the mayor must be modern. I am not quite sure what it means—perhaps that the person should be without flummery and trappings.
  636
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and I know, however, that the mayor of the City of London does a first-rate job as a traditional mayor. He travels the world on behalf of the City and corporation of London and he is invaluable in reinforcing its role as the financial centre of the world.
  My fear for the mayoralty of Greater London is that it will be a platform for a big ego rather than the kind of office to which a public servant who is more dedicated to the traditions of municipal service might aspire. There must be a careful balance between the need to create an image for London as a whole—which will promote it as a centre of investment and enterprise—and excessive posturing, publicity seeking and personal photo opportunities, and so on.
  According to the slimmed-down consultation document, the mayor should "make things happen". The GLC made things happen and it spent an awful lot of money on all sorts of weird activities that were way outside its remit as a London assembly. It encouraged many kinds of third-world activities. Unless the powers of the mayoralty are closely drawn, that kind of extravagance could happen again.
  That is why I believe that it is important that the mayor should be kept under control by a directly elected assembly, elected by a system which our people comprehend and with which they are familiar. Instead, in all likelihood, the Government are proposing, if the Local Government Commission does the work of which the Liberals would approve, a system much more akin to the model for the European Parliament. It is all part of the exercise to change the fundamental governance of our country in line with European practices. That would thereby diminish the traditional authority of Parliament and the elected Government of the United Kingdom. As the Liberal spokesman, the hon Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has said, the idea of an assembly and a mayor is a prototype, part of the greater design for regional government for England. We Londoners would be used as guinea pigs in an expensive experiment in constitutional change of a dangerous sort.
  I turn to the question of timing—in politics, timing is all, and it is significant to analyse why the Labour Government want to hold the referendum on the same day as the local government elections. I suspect that the first reason is that they wish to maximise turnout. In a referendum of such significance as this one, there ought to be a qualifying majority, just as there is in normal referendums involving constitutional change. It was, of course, on the matter of a qualifying majority that the referendums for devolution in Scotland and in Wales failed in the late 1970s, at the end of the Callaghan Government: the turnout did not meet the qualifying figure. After what happened in Wales, where only 25 per cent. of the electorate voted for a devolved Assembly, it is little wonder that the Labour Government do not want a qualifying majority for the London referendum.
  We are to have a referendum campaign that is coterminous with the local election campaign in London. Local elections are of the greatest importance to Londoners, in that they happen only once every four years. In other parts of the country subject to district councils, a third of the council is turned over every year and there are various other systems; but in London those elections happen every four years.

  637
  Londoners—certainly my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge—want good, responsible governance at local level. That is what really interests them, which is why on not a single doorstep during the election campaign did any elector complain to me that there was no Greater London authority in existence, or that Greater London lacked a mayor. What they did complain about was the scandalous waste and extravagance of the socialist borough council and the way it was running roughshod over local people's opinions and building over green belt land.
  In short, what the Government are proposing in this shoddy Bill is the biggest municipal blank cheque in history. It should not be approved.
  7.32 pm
  Ms Karen Buck: I congratulate the hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches in this debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) for having given me the opportunity to acquaint myself with large areas of his constituency during the wettest July since 1853. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale) on making a speech that demonstrated his commitment to his constituency—the scale of our victory there showed the strength of support for our policies in London, as in Britain as a whole.
  I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), who played an absolute blinder of a maiden speech. It showed the warped humour and affection for his constituency that we associate with him. My name is a gift to punsters—I wish I had a pound for every time there was a newspaper headline saying "The Buck Stops Here" or "The Buck Starts Here"—but my hon. Friend is in a class of his own. It is alleged that pinned to a noticeboard in his office there is a news cutting carrying the words "Blair Rattled by Pound's Strength". That might not have been true yesterday, but I am sure it is today.
  I have great pleasure in supporting the Bill, which represents a massive extension of democracy in London. I am staggered by the hypocrisy of some Conservative Members who have argued against the referendum, saying that the nature of the question means that it is a challenge to democracy, when in 1986 the wishes of Londoners were brushed aside so casually. I look forward with great excitement to the campaign for a yes vote in May. We will give Londoners what they want: a voice for the capital, dynamic leadership and effective scrutiny of the decisions and policies that affect us. It will be the different, but complementary, roles of the mayor and the Greater London authority that will deliver those aims; and it is because those roles are so complementary that it is necessary that we put a single, simple question to Londoners.
  I derive a certain personal pleasure from speaking in the debate, because it was Dame Shirley Porter's Westminster council that led the campaign for the abolition of the Greater London council. I now represent part of Westminster and am able to give a voice to those who opposed the abolition of the GLC then and who now want the return of a single London authority. I disagree with Conservative Members who say that such an authority has
  638
  not been an issue, because, again and again, when on the doorstep during the election campaign and since, I have found that the lack of a voice for London is a recurrent theme. People feel that London has been the poorer for the past 11 years for being without an authority.
  Far greater satisfaction comes in knowing what the mayor and the Greater London authority together will achieve for London, for the story of contemporary London is truly a tale of two cities. The story of both cities must be heard if we are to get the full picture—that is a mixed metaphor, but I am sure that hon. Members will forgive me.
  The first London is on a roll: last week, we were voted the best city for business for the eighth year running; London is setting the trends in art and culture; and our property and housing markets are booming—land in central London currently fetches up to £3 million an acre and the housing market is dominated by international investors attracted by the business climate. This London attracts the envy, and sometimes the annoyance, of other parts of Britain. London's success is something we should be proud of and I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) in that respect. We want to attract tourism as well as top-quality business and industry, and central to the mayor's role will be the championing of London.
  Yet London's success masks and sometimes aggravates the problems of the second city. The property values I have just mentioned add up to a crisis in affordable housing, especially in central London. Because of London's position as a capital city, our local authorities shoulder a disproportionate share of both the practical and the financial responsibility for the care of asylum seekers. As the London Research Centre's excellent strategy document "The Capital Divided" demonstrated a few months ago, we have pockets of the most acute deprivation to be found anywhere in the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the problem of unemployment in the capital; in my constituency, there are estates and pockets where the rate of unemployment, especially among members of ethnic minorities, far exceeds 50 per cent.
  We have a complex needs profile because we have high levels of mobility. We have many single people, which can lead to problems of support. We have great ethnic diversity and, although we should celebrate that diversity, there is no question but that it adds to the pressures on the city by increasing the complexity and costs of service delivery in every field—from health care, to further education, to policing. Without a single voice for London, we cannot tackle those problems effectively.
  The solutions to the problems of the second city of London must be Londonwide and arrived at democratically. They must ensure that commercial success and social cohesion go hand in hand. That view is expressed in the prospectus for London published by London Pride, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate referred and which demonstrates that business interests recognise the importance of social cohesion to the creation of economic success.
  I pay tribute to the work of the Association of London Government, which represents many London constituencies. It is a measure of the maturity of modern London politics that its wide geographical differences and diversity of politics have so often been synthesised in

  639
  a way that allows the ALG to speak convincingly for London. The ALG should not, however, be London's sole voice. It is quite properly concerned with local government, and its representatives from the boroughs must champion, first and foremost, the interests of those boroughs. It is quite right that the representatives of each local authority should vigorously lobby for their own corner, but the new London mayor and the new authority must speak for the whole of London and be free from local concerns. I therefore strongly believe that the new authority should not consist of an elected representative for each borough. The danger is that such representatives would inevitably champion their own corners at London's expense.
  When it comes to promoting London commercially, or to regeneration, social cohesion or transport policy, we need a pan-London focus. Representatives must stand above the interests of particular boroughs; hence I agree completely with my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) that it would be wrong to elect people on a borough basis.
  I have a request to the Minister: we must not allow a yes vote to be the end of extending local democracy, however excellent the latter may be. Many organisations such as the London Voluntary Service Council and London Youth Matters have come up with imaginative ideas for building on local democracy in London. If there is a democratic deficit in London—and there is—that deficit is even greater among young people and black and ethnic minority communities. Perhaps the GLC's most creditable achievement was that it connected with groups of people who were usually outside the traditional processes of government. Even the GLC's fiercest critics would recognise that, in its last years, through its grant giving and its arts and culture policies, it managed to connect with people's imaginations and to draw in people who would not ordinarily even vote.
  The new mayor and the new GLA must bring that achievement up to date for the 21st century. As the London Youth Matters journal says, the mayor and authority
  "should establish strong, clear and recognised channels for consulting stakeholders, experts and service users, including the youth sector".
  The priorities of the mayor and the GLA will probably mirror the concerns of young people. A great deal of work will be done on the environment, on sustainable development, on promoting the arts and culture and on policing. We shall have an excellent opportunity to engage with young people in the black and ethnic minority communities—people who are usually left outside the traditional political process, albeit at our peril.
  The London Voluntary Service Council has published proposals for a civic forum to increase participation by Londoners in their own government. Certainly, there are dangers in creating ever more tiers of organisation, but a great many good ideas are present in the proposal for a civic forum, which I commend to the Minister for more debate after the White Paper comes out. There is, for instance, the idea of holding a regular and open question time for the mayor and of holding meetings in rotation across London. I am not so sure about the proposal to copy the mayor of Barcelona, who stays with families around the city now and then. That might turn into too much of a good thing: first prize in the raffle would be a night with the mayor, second prize would be two nights with the mayor.
  640
  Be that as it may, such ideas, although not appropriate for legislation, have a great deal to commend them. They also give the lie to Conservative Members who have poured scorn on the scale of the consultation exercise. Most of the 1,200 responses came from representative organisations that had themselves consulted their members or member groups and which have stimulated an exciting debate, whose fruits we are only just beginning to see in London.
  As a central London representative, I am conscious of the fact that many people who will want to vote in the referendum will be excluded because they are not on the electoral register. My constituency, possibly along with that of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), must contain the lowest number of eligible voters on any register in London. It is difficult to ensure that everyone is on the register; it is up to local authorities to make sure that they are.
  I hope that the Minister will do everything in his power to urge registration officers during the next couple of months, while lists are being prepared for next spring, and to sign up everyone—particularly single people living in houses in multiple occupation. They are often the hardest to reach, but it is important that they take part in the referendum too. They want to vote in this exciting extension of democracy. They will vote yes in the referendum. That is what the people of London want and deserve.
  7.46 pm
  Mr. Tom Brake: The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), who is no longer in the Chamber, represents a constituency that I, too, have visited. I wonder whether anyone in the Chamber has not visited it, in fact. He said in his maiden speech today that he was a bearded nonentity. That is certainly not true. Within seconds of his starting his maiden speech, many of his hon. Friends had come into the Chamber to support him. He is lucky to be able to wear a beard; I understand that beards are frowned on in the Labour party these days—although I can spot one on the Labour Back Benches this evening.
  I also congratulate the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale) on an excellent maiden speech. Wimbledon is near my constituency; I know the Polka theatre well. Indeed, I could recommend a number of places in Wimbledon which he did not mention, although he may know of them. I particularly enjoy Zorba's, and the best tea house in south-west London, if not the whole of London, is Samuel Johnson's. The hon. Member for Wimbledon had an easier job of describing his constituency and its contents than did the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound).
  I welcome the progress made so far by the Government on the Bill. I also welcome the admission by the official Opposition that, years after they abolished London's elected authority, they have finally recognised that London needs strong government. I should also welcome an apology from the Conservatives for what they did.
  The first half of the question on the proposed ballot paper concerns the elected mayor. Although it has been mentioned frequently, it is worth mentioning again.
  The proposal has the support of the Government and of the official Opposition. However, I do not believe that it has been extensively tried and tested. The Minister

  641
  mentioned Cologne; he might have mentioned Rome, but after mentioning those two cities he might run out of working examples. The truth is that the idea is an American import, like zero tolerance, and may not work terribly well here either.
  The concept of an elected mayor is alien to our culture. It may be an exciting democratic innovation, as the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) said, but that is exactly why the proposal deserves a second question on the ballot paper. The mayor may be tyrannical and overrule the elected assembly. Alternatively, the mayor may be weak and there may be no strong government in London.
  An issue that has not been addressed in depth is the possibility that the mayor will be of a different political persuasion from the majority of representatives to the assembly. In that case, what will happen to strong government in London? The Labour party appears to recognise that possibility in its general election manifesto, which says that both the
  "strategic authority and a mayor … will speak up for the needs of the city and plan its future".
  That is all very well, but if they are both speaking up and they say different things, what will happen? If one adds the roles and responsibilities of a development agency in London, an even more confused picture is painted. I should welcome feedback on how that anomaly will be tackled.
  On the second half of the question, I strongly support the proposal for an elected assembly if it means genuine regional government; that is the key point. It is not true, as a Conservative Member said, that we want to break up the United Kingdom. Regional government is not about breaking up the UK but about giving people throughout the country more say in their business.
  As I am sure hon. Members know, Liberal Democrats prefer the single transferable vote system because we believe that it will bring the greatest representation from a wide range of communities to London government. The Minister asked whether we wanted a third question on the ballot paper, to which the answer has been given that we do not. Nevertheless, we are worried about whether the elected authority will have teeth—whether it will have tax-raising or tax-varying powers which will enable it to be something other than a talking shop.
  Liberal Democrat Members have serious doubts about mayors. I am afraid that we have serious doubts about the Government's commitment to genuine regional government with the powers to back it up, and we have serious concerns about the appropriateness of debating the Bill without a White Paper before us. For that reason, we shall support our reasoned amendment.
  7.52 pm
  Mr. Geraint Davies: I was pleased to hear the maiden speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) and for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale), and by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), none of whom, sadly, is now in the Chamber. I was going to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon that Wimbledon football club is very happy indeed in Croydon, in Selhurst park; long may that continue. Further to the comments by the
  642
  hon. Member for Uxbridge about the by-election victory, one lesson that the Labour party learnt from that campaign was not to pick a by-election candidate with the name of Slaughter. I believe that the Minister without Portfolio will muse over that piece of advice.
  We face a new future with a new Government, with a new confidence. The problem confronting our capital is that London has no strategic authority, no champion, no voice in the global community to lead it in a way that such a great city deserves. That means that we have no holistic view of our transport, planning, economic and environmental needs, and that position should not be sustained if we want to keep our place in the world pecking order.
  After 18 years of Conservative government, the legacy in London is there for all to see: social exclusion, homelessness, poverty, rising crime and an emergent underclass, which are, largely, symptomatic of a Government who had a laissez-faire view on social and economic matters, and a transport system grinding towards an inevitable halt.
  In Paris, the catastrophe of car emissions has led to draconian measures and crisis management. We do not want our Government to adopt such measures in London. That is one reason why a strategic authority is crucial in our capital city.
  We have heard that the economy is doing well, but the economy has no real direction. The business community, and the economic community more generally, welcome our proposals.
  In the general election, the new Government were given an unprecedented mandate for change, and nowhere more so than in London. A primary reason is that Londoners were promised not only the Government's fresh policies, but a Greater London authority and a mayor to champion London in the global community. We already have a mandate for change, therefore, and in many respects people may be asking, "If you have this tremendous mandate for change, for a mayor and for a Greater London authority, why bother having a referendum at all?" That is a very good question. The answer is that democracy is at the heart of the new Government, at the heart of the Labour party.
  Mr. Pickles: But if one does not give the electorate of London a choice, is not that phoney democracy?
  Mr. Davies: It is a bit rich to hear comments about democracy from the beleaguered ranks of the rump of the former Conservatives in London: a political anachronism, a handful of people who cannot make up their minds among themselves, talking about democracy 10 years after the only choice that Londoners were given was no choice—abolition. It is ridiculous.
  Mr. Pickles: And the answer is?
  Mr. Davies: The answer is that we advanced the proposition of a mayor and a Greater London authority to the people of London—that is in our manifesto and that is our mandate—and we said that we would conduct a referendum, and we will.
  Mr. Lansley: Will the hon. Gentleman continue on this subject for a moment? A referendum that takes place

  643
  before Parliament has legislated for an assembly and a mayor in London is essentially advisory to the Government and cannot be binding on Parliament—that is in the nature of our constitution. Would it not be more democratic, in the terms that the hon. Gentleman proposes, to hold the referendum after debate and the passage of legislation through the House, so that the Government's set of proposals, if approved by the House, is then presented for the democratic mandate of the public to which the hon. Gentleman refers? Why hold the referendum now?
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman knows that 61 questions are out for consultation. We are an open Government who listen to people's views, but we are not prepared to pick to pieces the strategic element of our proposal, which we are duty bound to put to the people of London, in the absurd way that is suggested. The academic points that are being suggested by the handful of rabble on the Conservative Benches are ridiculous.
  The abolition of the Greater London council was not only the abolition of an administrative structure without consulting the people, but a negation of democracy—a slap in the face for the people of London. The people of London have retaliated and said that they want change and new government, and that is what we are delivering. We are returning to them to advise them of what we are considering, and we are keeping some of our options open, because we are sensitive to the people who elected us—unlike the previous Administration.
  Our great city comprises 33 boroughs, each with a unique identity. I had the great privilege and pleasure of leading the council of Croydon, the biggest of the boroughs, and being part of the leaders' committee of the Association of London Government, which has been referred to with such blessing by Conservative Members. The Conservatives propose that the leaders' committee be the assembly that governs London as the tier beneath the mayor. That is a silly suggestion. The leaders have enough to do in running their authorities. It is clear from the leaders' views, as reflected in the views of the Association of London Government, that they value strategic direction and want more rather than less power, which would be exerted holistically for the good of the capital, rather than the fragmented mish-mash supported by the Opposition, whose numbers seem to be falling every moment.
  It is not just local authorities and the people of London who want a strategic authority; so does the business community. The Confederation of British Industry in London looks forward with glee to the idea of a Greater London authority, a mayor and a London development agency.
  Mr. Lansley: It is good of the hon. Gentleman to give way twice. I am a former member of the leaders' committee of the Association of London Government, and I am not clear whether the hon. Gentleman is saying that the members of that committee felt incapable of acting as scrutineers for a mayor giving strategic direction. It would be for the mayor rather than the assembly to give strategic direction, and for the assembly, as executive body, to act as scrutineer. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the borough leaders—he was once such a leader—are incapable of acting as scrutineers of the strategic direction coming from the mayor?
  Mr. Davies: I have a number of points to make in response to that intervention. First, borough leaders are
  644
  not elected to do that; they have their own constituencies to look after. The key point is that the Government take the strategic development of our great capital seriously and would want members of the authority to work full time with the mayor, not just as a counterbalance, but to define London's destiny. It is not enough to have a group of people who spend their time doing other things as well.
  When I was leader of Croydon council—London's biggest council—I was also running a business. The suggestion that someone can lead an authority and also take on the governance of London is symptomatic of the fact that the Opposition do not take the governance of London seriously.
  Mr. Pickles: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's courtesy to the House. Does he propose that each and every member of the strategic authority should be full time?
  Mr. Davies: That question remains open. My personal view is that members should be given an opportunity to devote more time to their duties than the leader of an average council does. As with many such matters, we are in a process of consultation and I have expressed my personal view.
  As I was saying, a number of us from the London group spent an enjoyable evening with leading members of the CBI in London, who were at great pains to express their joy at the prospect of a Greater London authority, a mayor and a London development agency. They want the strategic development of a transport infrastructure, so that businesses and economic development do not grind to a halt, as they inevitably will unless we intervene. They look forward to a new deal for business, focusing on manufacturing development, and to the opportunities of new markets and new technologies. They want to combine a partnership approach to the new economy in a new world with the idea of combating social exclusion through economic development. Any visionary business community realises that it is not simply a matter of individual segments of the economy working randomly while the social community disintegrates. London's wider community needs to be planned, so that London can be a place to live and work. That is a key to the underlying transport problem. People live in one place and work in another, and there is no overview of the capital's long-term sustainable environmental development.
  Environmental sustainability is another great key for the Government. We seek to achieve a 20 per cent. reduction in emissions by 2010 and, given the amount of carbon dioxide generated by London—more per person than elsewhere—it is the principal player in the country. Unless we take a wider view of that problem, individual boroughs will have different policies, and we shall be unable to proceed coherently.
  The City of London is happy about the change in Government as we have introduced a more rational interest rate policy and are taking a new direction towards economic and monetary union. The City now has a chance to hold on to its eminence in world markets rather than seeing all its jobs go to Frankfurt as a result of the Euro-scepticism expressed by certain members of the rather small Conservative party.
  Opposition to the proposal is symptomatic of what we have seen since May: Canute conservatism—resisting inevitable change rather than embracing positive progress.

  645
  It is very sad to see. The Opposition cannot see the wood for the trees. They regard London as the sum of its ingredient parts rather than as a large body that needs to be managed holistically. They see the future as the activity of an invisible hand, which will bring about spontaneously some great social and economic result that will inevitably be in London's best interests. Demonstrably, that is false and facile, and the people of London know it.
  It comes as no surprise to learn that 82 per cent. of Londoners who were recently polled support the idea of an assembly with a mayor as a composite proposition. The positive consultation on which we have embarked echoes that proposition, which is why we are proceeding in this way.
  The Conservatives have changed their view on the London issue. First, they were against all our proposals; then they wanted some sort of mayor; now they say that they want an assembly but that it should consist of ALG leaders. They are gradually moving forward, which is a slight improvement on their normal position: that the best policy is to do nothing, assuming that nothing will change in the rest of the world. Change occurs constantly and we need positive proposals rather than Canute conservatism.
  The proposition of a mayor without the accountability provided by a wider authority cannot be seriously entertained, because there would be neither balance of power nor a democratic mandate. The system proposed by the Opposition would lead to fraud and corruption, as has happened in parts of the United States. Opposition Members ask why the referendum will not contain more questions, which is ironic, given that originally they wanted no questions at all. They did not want a referendum because they did not want change. No one asked about the abolition of the GLC.
  Opposition Members also said that you cannot vote for a principle unless we have every detail before voting, because that would be a recipe for confusion and inaction. They then said that the police authority cannot be changed on the ground that it has not been changed since 1829. That is extremely convincing—probably your best argument.
  Mr. McDonnell: Does my hon. Friend recall that, when the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was Home Secretary, he proposed that there should be a police authority for London, but he was rapidly replaced by—I cannot remember his constituency—Michael Howard?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) has twice used the word "your", which is not the correct language for this House. The hon. Gentleman who has just intervened, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), must remember the names of constituencies. We do not use names of that kind in this House.
  Mr. Davies: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your guidance on the use of the word "your".
  As regards the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), I did not recall that. It is an illuminating story about the way in
  646
  which the former Government used to behave, and is another reason why only three Conservative Members are present. [Interruption.] Indeed, a gang of three.
  I take seriously the points made by the Opposition, and am dealing with them one by one. As there are only a few more arguments to deal with, I shall not take longer than three hours.
  It was suggested that there would be inevitable conflict between the local authorities and the Greater London authority. The Government have a holistic vision for London and support the principle of subsidiarity. The ideas of democracy and decentralisation are dear to the hearts of the Government. That is why we want regional development agencies and devolution. It would be wrong to argue otherwise. There will be no conflict; there will be a happy partnership for progressive change.
  One of the arguments advanced by Liberal Democrat Members was that there should be two questions in the referendum. I understand the arguments for two questions, but we are presenting a package to the people of London.
  We heard arguments about health and education. One of my hon. Friends suggested that strategic scrutiny and advocacy were to be welcomed. The overall package for the Greater London authority already embraces the economy, transport, the environment, planning, police and fire services, and is a great step forward in the strategic management of London. Clearly, we are committed to a streamlined, efficient and strategically geared authority.
  We see a great future for our great city in a new world. I am proud to support the Bill, and look forward to the referendum with glee.
  8.11 pm
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: It has been a pleasure to listen to the debate, not least because it gave me the opportunity to listen to the maiden speeches of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound)—who entertained the House extraordinarily well and gave us all the hope that, although we have had to wait several months to hear his maiden speech, we will not have to wait long before hearing further speeches from him—and of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). I know that he will be a worthy representative of the constituents of Uxbridge, as was his predecessor, who was much respected in the House.
  I regret that I was unable to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale). I shall make a point of listening to him on future occasions, as will other hon. Members.
  I do not represent a London constituency, but I wish to speak in the debate because the Bill raises two important issues that have implications that go beyond London. First, hon. Members have referred to the Bill as the precursor to the implementation of regional government in London, as part of a pattern of regional government around England. Many Conservative and other Opposition Members will see that as an unhappy precedent for other parts of England, and, therefore, as one which should be examined with great care during its passage through Parliament and in the discussion of the proposals that will flow from it.
  The second and related aspect is the implications of the Bill for local government. I declare an interest in that respect: I am the vice-president of the Local Government

  647
  Association. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) rightly made an important distinction by way of a rebuke to the Minister for London and Construction who was wont to speak of the implementation of regional government as local government. It is not local government; it is regional government.
  There are those who support regional government for itself. Some of us see in regional government the tendency—I suspect that it is an inevitable tendency—to exercise the powers presently held by central Government. That will probably be the lesser part of the activity of regional government over time. The greater part of its activity will be to draw powers up from subsidiary bodies in local government, and to reduce the strength of local government.
  For my own purposes, which I hope to commend to the House, I have examined the Bill and the proposals that it contains or to which it will lead in respect of three tests. First, will it strengthen local government? Secondly, will it result in better government? Thirdly, will it improve the effectiveness and value for money of government?
  There are two proposals: the proposal for an elected mayor, and the proposal for an assembly. Let us apply the three tests to the proposal for an elected mayor. Will it strengthen local government? I freely confess that I was in a minority among Conservative candidates before the election, in that I publicly supported the principle of an elected mayor and wrote on that subject before the election. I welcome the fact that my Front-Bench colleagues supported the concept of an elected mayor after the election.
  It never seemed to me likely or desirable that an elected mayor would come first in London, and then elsewhere. It always seemed more likely that an elected mayor would come in other parts of the country, in more manageable circumstances, in a unitary authority rather than in London, with its many and complex problems, where, unfortunately, the concept of an elected mayor may be tested to destruction. I support the concept for reasons that I shall explain later, but I am worried that using London as a testbed may prove to be an unfortunate choice.
  There is a tension in relation to an elected mayor and the strength of local government. Back in 1991, an elected mayor was one of the options that the Conservative Administration tested, and it met with no support in local government. Yet there are clear needs in local government that an elected mayor would meet.
  There is a regrettable lack of public participation in local government elections; there is a lack of public awareness of the importance of the decisions and spending undertaken by local government; there is a lack of political impact within their communities on the part of many elected councillors. In a modern media environment, in which we must all live, happily or unhappily, the need for leadership and personalities with impact is part of the process of securing public acceptance of the Government, their purposes and direction. We must recognise that an elected mayor can play a role in providing such impetus, direction and impact of personality.
  There are concerns in local government that elected mayors, and the proposal for London in particular, will tend to draw powers away from more locally elected representatives. That may be so. A mayor on a
  648
  Londonwide basis will tend to diminish the authority of the London boroughs. That is unlike the potential impact of directly elected mayors in other smaller unitary authorities around the country, who might reinforce the strength of local government.
  If the proposal will not strengthen local government in London, will the direct election of a mayor lead to better government in London? On that question, we can reach a more positive view. I will not elaborate, as that has been widely agreed across the House during the debate, except by Liberal Democrat Members. A directly elected mayor would give leadership, offer strategic vision, provide energy and impetus and draw national policies towards a more London-oriented view. London is different from other regions in that there is a complex interplay, especially on transport and other policies, between the priorities for London and for the nation as a whole.
  On the third criterion of effectiveness and value for money, the election of a mayor is a low-cost and high-impact option compared with other means of providing a voice for London and strategic direction. It is possible, and I hope that it will be the case, that the mayor of London will be supported by a small executive body working with and through existing bodies, rather than through a bureaucracy of his or her own making. According to the test that I postulate, an elected mayor gets two yeses and one question mark.
  What about a separately elected assembly? I have no doubt that such an assembly would weaken the powers of London boroughs. I believe that it would take powers from them and, therefore, by extension, make government more distant from those whom it is meant to serve. It is the nature of the beast that members of such a body who have no alternative responsibilities, other loyalties or pressures on their time—some hon. Members have said that that is not desirable—will seek to aggrandise their powers in the separately elected authority by creating more work, which is presently undertaken by the London boroughs.
  Mr. Brake: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he believes that if the London assembly were given the powers of the Government office for London or of quangos, it would inevitably—as he has stressed on several occasions—take powers away from local government?
  Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that very important point. We should begin by examining the powers that will be given formally to a separately elected assembly. At the outset, they may appear to be the powers of central Government rather than those of local government or the London boroughs, but I believe that the assembly will be constrained in several ways. Central Government will find it extremely inconvenient if a separately elected assembly seeks to second guess, depart from or contradict central Government policies. Therefore, over time, central Government will pressure that body to spend less time second guessing central Government policies and more time seeking to implement its strategic direction through the powers of other subsidiary bodies. I fear that such an assembly will ultimately seek and receive the power from central Government to issue directions to bodies within London.

  649
  I suspect that the first and most serious of those areas of activity will involve the relationship between the regional development agency and the planning system in London. I shall not elaborate on that point now, but I believe that that will be affected. A separately elected assembly will add a further tier of government—it will reflect the regional ambitions of Ministers through which they seek to justify their devolution plans elsewhere. In seeking to expand their role, assembly members will second guess the mayor. The danger is that that will create the grotesque over-government of London.
  That brings us to the question of what we should have instead of a separately elected assembly. I must depart from the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and the Minister. It seems extraordinary to assert that the leaders of the London boroughs are incapable of coming together and doing other than arguing solely for their local interests. It is extraordinary to claim that they are incapable of acting as the scrutineers of strategic activity and direction given by an executive mayor. I believe that we should look to the London boroughs or their representatives—the leaders or other people within those boroughs—to provide the essential checks and balances on the activities of the directly elected mayor. That should occur not simply for reasons of propriety or so that committee appointments are made in accordance with Nolan rules, but in order to meet the needs of many parts of London.
  I make no claim to represent any part of London, but I was born in that area that was kindly called "Essex London" earlier in the debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge discovered during the by-election campaign, those who live in boroughs such as Hillingdon and Havering—whence I came—do not necessarily consider themselves part of an homogenous London.
  Hon. Members have referred time and again to the communities of London, the diversity of London, the differing interests of London and the culture and geography of London. It is vital that the representatives of that diversity should be at the core of scrutinising the activities of the directly elected mayor.
  Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend has generously allowed me to have a second bite of the cherry. He and I are at one in recognising the fact that particular borough interests should be represented on the assembly so that the views of constituents in those areas are put across and so that the mayor pursues policies that suit those interests. However, would it not be better if the representatives were elected directly by the borough electorates so that the voters may choose the people who are best able to represent them on a Londonwide forum? Even if the representatives fulfil that function indirectly, we must remember that they were elected originally to represent a particular ward at borough level, which is a different level of responsibility and may require different qualities.
  Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, which allows me to understand his case better. I agree that representatives on an assembly that scrutinises the activities of a directly elected mayor should be drawn from the London boroughs, for precisely the reasons that my hon. Friend has given. However, I believe
  650
  that there is positive merit in representatives having direct responsibility for implementing policies within boroughs and having other pressures on their time. As I explained earlier, I am afraid that the assembly may draw unto itself more activities simply to justify its existence.
  I shall move towards a conclusion, as I do not want to delay others who wish to contribute to the debate. The assembly does not pass any of the three tests that I have suggested, including cost effectiveness. According to the Government's estimates, it will cost £20 million simply to establish the body, let alone meet its future expenditure requirements. Therefore, as we must draw differing conclusions about the two proposals that lie at the heart of the legislation, I believe that the people of London should be able to reach different views about the merits of a separately elected assembly compared with a directly elected mayor. It seems wholly wrong to encapsulate the two issues in one question: if people have differing views, they should be able to express them. I think that the Government should be abashed at their transparent fear that the people will opt for a mayor and against an assembly.
  I must refer to another serious flaw in the legislation, which—at the risk of repeating myself—I raised by way of intervention during the speech of the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies). As with the devolution legislation for Scotland, on which I made my maiden speech, the Bill seeks to treat a referendum that will be held before legislation is passed in this place as if it took place after the passage of legislation. There is a long constitutional tradition in this country that the role of referendums is to approve constitutional changes after the two Houses of Parliament have decided on the measures. When referendums were held in the past—I think particularly of the 1975 referendum—it was made clear that if the relevant legislation had not been passed, the results were advisory and not binding on Parliament. Yet Labour Members referred to the referendum today as though it was mandatory—as though a mandate would be exercised on Parliament. I repeat the point that I made on 21 May in the House: it is a constitutional aberration to treat a referendum in that way. If the Government wish to be advised of the views of the people of London on their policy, I have no problem with their holding a referendum, but I object to their treating that referendum as binding on Parliament.
  London is a unique city. References to forms of government in other countries are probably misplaced, because London is unique in many ways. People have often sought to translate the circumstances of other cities to those of London and have found that it is not possible, because London is much bigger or because it has more complex problems. London is a city of many communities. The borough councils are close to those communities. If a mayor is needed to give London impetus and direction, he should be given the support and the scrutiny of the London boroughs in an assembly derived from the councillors of those boroughs rather than in a separately elected body, distanced from the London boroughs.
  The deficiencies of the Bill are clear. I urge hon. Members to support the Conservatives' reasoned amendment.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Tony Colman: We have heard three excellent maiden speeches this evening. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) said that he was particularly interested in wildlife and conservation. I look forward to hearing him speak on that subject. He will welcome the fact that, as the consultation document points out, one of the key roles of the new authority will be ensuring sustainability for London in the 21st century. I welcome him as a fellow business man. I am pleased to see him swell the ranks on both sides of hon. Members with such backgrounds.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) also made an excellent maiden speech. It was extremely humorous and greatly enjoyed on both sides. He certainly placed his constituency on the map in a way that no other Member has managed.
  The third maiden speech was from my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale). I am a constituent of his. It gave me great pleasure to see the results in Mitcham and Morden and in Wimbledon. I thank him for his kind words about my previous role as leader of Merton council.
  I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies), who is not now in the Chamber, that Sam Hammam of Wimbledon football club tells me that he has great interest in returning to the borough. Many hon. Members will know that my first allegiance is to Norwich City football club, but, for most of the past six years, I have been dealing with how to bring Wimbledon football club back to the borough. I am glad that my hon. Friend is taking on that additional role. I look forward to seeing them play back in the borough shortly.
  Although I am a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, I live only 600 yd from my Putney constituency. I mention that because those Conservative Members who are previous leaders of Wandsworth council seem to have done the chicken run to leave Wandsworth as quickly as possible. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) has moved a significant distance. The hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) previously represented Croydon, Central, but I think that he felt that the heat was getting a bit much, so he moved even further away.
  The current leader of Wandsworth council tried to move to Beckenham recently, applying to be the Conservative candidate. Wandsworth is no longer flavour of the month, or even the decade, as it was under previous Administrations. Mr. Lister did not make the final list and is not the candidate. Obviously he was seeking to leave Wandsworth before defeat in next May's election.
  Mr. Lister has put forward 11 questions that he believes should be included in the referendum. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) suggested that the Greater London authority and the concept of a directly elected mayor were part of Parkinson's law. Parkinson's law has already struck in Wandsworth, with the 11 questions. Mr. Lister says:
  "It may be a trail-blazing referendum to include so many separate questions."
  I suggest that it would be a trail blazed too far.
  Hon. Members may like to know what the 11 proposals to be put to a referendum are. The first is that there should be a directly elected mayor. The second is that there
  652
  should be a directly elected Greater London assembly. The third is that there should be an assembly of the 32 borough leaders. The fourth is that tax-raising power should be given to the mayor and the GLA. The fifth is that the budget should be set by the London boroughs. The sixth is that there should be proportional representation on a Londonwide list. The seventh is that there should be local candidates voted in locally.
  We have got to only number seven. There are still four to come. I was wondering why the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) intervened in the debate, but he may be interested in the remaining questions, because they relate to options on the boundaries of the Greater London authority. The first option is to adopt the old Greater London council boundary. The second is to use the Metropolitan police boundary. The third suggestion is to use the M25 as a boundary. The fourth, which takes us to number 11 in the list of questions, is to use the boundary of Serplan—the south-east regional planning committee. I wondered whether that was an attempt to extend the boundary so far that there might be a chance of somebody voting Conservative. So many people in London vote Labour that the boundary would have to stretch as far as South Cambridgeshire for anyone to vote Conservative.
  Mr. McNulty: They would even lose that.
  Mr. Colman: Indeed.
  The great explosion of interest in referendums has not applied to the workings of local councils. Wandsworth has undertaken many interesting policies, but the people of Wandsworth or Putney have not been polled, other than on a four-yearly basis, on their views on the cuts.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was concerned that the Bill should not result in an unsigned cheque being given. The White Paper will be available next March, giving the people of London full information on which to base their views.
  The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) was concerned about a perceived attitude among Labour Members that we are the masters now. We are talking about a manifesto pledge that was subject to considerable debate and many statements during the general election campaign. We put our proposals for a Greater London authority made up of a directly elected mayor and a directly elected assembly to the people of London during the election campaign.
  I am in favour of the combination of mayor and assembly. I have spoken elsewhere about Seattle in the state of Washington in the United States of America. It has done excellent work on sustainability, in which it leads the world. Seattle and King county together contain 7 million people, which is equivalent to the size of London. There we have an excellent directly elected mayor, Norm Rice, who has been mayor for over a decade. Jim Street was the leader of the assembly between 1979 and 1993—some 14 years. The leader is elected by members of the assembly in the same way as council leaders are elected in the London boroughs. I commend that system as a concept. It is important to have a balance between a leader elected by the membership of the assembly and the directly elected mayor. Such a system of checks and balances works; I have seen it working in

  653
  Seattle, one of the most prosperous and fastest-expanding but civilised cities on this earth. I very much commend the system to the House as a way forward.
  I was particularly impressed by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) who seemed to break ranks with the Opposition in terms of coming out in favour of a directly elected assembly and a directly elected mayor. He believed that that was the only way in which to make things happen, but he was concerned that the directly elected mayor would be there only for photo opportunities.
  I was proud to be on the streets of London on Saturday with my four-year-old son Oliver, whose birthday it was. I have often attended the Lord Mayor's show and this year, it was again a marvellous spectacle for all Londoners. It may be a photo opportunity, but it is great to see the ceremonial attached to that ancient office. I look forward to the first Lord Mayor's show of the whole of London in 2000 and I look forward to taking my children to it. I assume that it will be in April or May 2000. We shall have a show that is not just a photo opportunity, but a celebration by the people of London of their future and what they have voted for. They will be able to see what they lost in 1986 and have now got back.
  I talked about the London borough of Wandsworth and the document it produced. I am interested by the positions that Wandsworth takes, which often seem to be contradictory. Two major issues face my constituents, both of which are related to the Greater London authority. The first is air traffic noise and the second is the national health service. My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London was kind enough to reply to me in an Adjournment debate on aircraft noise last Monday and she gave me some assurances. In that debate, I pointed out the terrible suffering of the people of Putney and the need for responsibility for aircraft noise to come under the directly elected mayor and assembly rather than under national Government. That is very much wanted by the people of my area.
  Interestingly, the leader of Wandsworth council states clearly:
  "However, the existing framework copes well in the limited areas where co-ordination is needed. Many issues (e.g. noise and air quality) are not peculiar to London, and it is sufficient for national arrangements and powers to apply."
  On noise, the leader of the council says:
  "it is difficult to identify what added value could conceivably be supplied by a GLA. The powers are mainly national ones applied locally by the boroughs. Any London co-ordination is already handled by the ALG".
  I very much support the Association of London Government, but I do not think that it is involved with aircraft noise. The leader of the council continues:
  "The main London-wide issue, aircraft noise, is handled through the land-use planning framework, as currently exemplified by the public enquiry on the proposed Terminal 5 at Heathrow."
  That is not acceptable to the people of Putney and Wandsworth. They want to see those matters decided regionally and not nationally. I strongly disagree with the leader of Wandsworth council and my view has significant support in my constituency.
  At the moment, national health service planning in London is rather like Serplan as it goes up to Cambridgeshire at one end and to the English channel at
  654
  the other, with the North Thames and South Thames regional health authorities. There is no London health executive. I feel that most keenly in terms of fighting for the future of Queen Mary's university hospital. My predecessor, David Mellor, claims that I am doing nothing of the sort. I assert strongly to the House that I am fighting with every bone in my body to ensure that the hospital stays open and has a full range of services.
  The leader of Wandsworth council, having backed the need for the hospital to remain open and to have full services, nevertheless feels that health should not be dealt with at Greater London authority level. He says:
  "However, I do not believe health is a desirable function for any GLA, either at the strategic or operational level."
  That is a disgrace. What is needed is for the Greater London authority to take an interest in health. We should move away from the extraordinary situation whereby health policy is made over a huge area stretching from Cambridgeshire to the English channel.
  I very much look forward to the White Paper in spring 1998 which will give us a blueprint for the Greater London authority. There are two areas about which I am particularly concerned. I am pleased that we now have a business board for London. It has been a pity that the voice of the business community has been muted or indistinct. The London Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Confederation of British Industry London region and London First are coming together in a business board. It is very much the way forward to have a single voice that can put views to the new strategic London authority.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) talked about the London Voluntary Service Council's proposals for a civic forum. Something similar has already been agreed to go alongside the Scottish Parliament and I hope that we can have such a forum in London. I am proud of what I have been able to do over the past two and a half years in putting together the London Agenda 21 Forum. It works on the basis of a stakeholder forum and it ensures that all voices are listened to in London—that black and ethnic minorities, young people, the voluntary sector, women and all the various communities of London have a say in the future of London. Such a forum will be important in advising the Greater London authority, both in terms of the directly elected assembly and the directly elected mayor.
  It is right to go for only one question in the referendum. That is made clear in our manifesto, the basis on which we fought the general election. I look forward to the Wandsworth 11 questions being brought down to only one question in Wandsworth and to two questions in London. Who will rule Wandsworth for the next four years? I look forward to there being a Labour council there. I also look forward to our having an elected strategic authority in the form of a directly elected assembly and a directly elected mayor.
  8.48 pm
  Mr. Eric Pickles: We have been fortunate today to hear a number of distinguished maiden speeches. I heard the speech by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound). It was an amusing contribution and he spoke with great clarity. I am very

  655
  much looking forward to the next time that we have an opportunity to hear him because we can then intervene and have a really good go at him.
  Unfortunately, I was unable to hear the two other maiden speeches because of a constituency commitment, but I look forward to reading them in tomorrow's Hansard.
  It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman), who made a number of proposals with regard to the mayor. In particular, he suggested Seattle as a likely model. After all, Seattle is the suicide capital of the United States and I can think of no better model for the referendum than a city where many people earnestly wish to cast off this mortal coil.
  Having heard the hon. Member for Putney speak a number of times, it is clear that he really must rid himself of his obsession with Eddie Lister, the leader of Wandsworth council. Over the years, the hon. Gentleman has taken a significant number of biffings from Eddie Lister, and no doubt he will face more over the next few years. However, we should like to hear his views on other matters than his dislike of Eddie Lister. It has to be said that Mr. Lister's suggestions, which offer the electorate considerable choice, result from the fact that the Government are providing no choice at all.
  A number of Labour Members have chided the Conservatives for changing their views about the election of a London mayor. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and I made a significant contribution to that and I make no apology for that. We listened to our local councils, London boroughs and, above all, we listened to the people of London to find out what they wanted. The Government may elaborately dig an elephant trap for the Conservative party, but we have no obligation to fall into it and repeatedly impale ourselves on the sharp sticks waiting there. [Interruption.] The Minister makes a sedentary intervention, but I explained the position to him in a television studio not so long ago. [Interruption.] The Minister and I move in exalted circles.
  It is important that a referendum should ask two questions because the first real mayor in the United Kingdom with substantial powers, other than ceremonial powers, will be in London. It is an important innovation, so we should be able to give the people of London a choice. After all, most people understand what a strategic authority is about and have no problems in coming to terms with it. We should be able to ask the people of London, "Do you want this innovation or would you prefer a traditional model? Would you prefer to have the traditional model alongside this innovation?"
  Let me take my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire to task in a small way for saying that referendums are not mandatory on Parliament. That may be the constitutional position, but the hard truth is that votes get results, and results give a mandate. Hon. Members who are elected to Parliament would be extremely foolish to ignore what the people of London say.
  If referendums are to have a regular place within our constitution and we are to work in the same way as a Swiss canton, we should embrace the concept of referendums. However, there is no point in having a referendum simply to rubber stamp the Government's actions and asking questions such as, "Do you want
  656
  a General Pinochet elected for another seven years?" or "Do you want a London mayor?" or "Do you want an elected assembly for London?" There has to be a real choice. As has been pointed out by hon. Members on both sides of the House, it is perfectly possible to vote yes in the referendum for a London mayor and a London assembly or for a London mayor or simply for a strategic authority. The Liberal Democrats have made it absolutely clear that they will support a yes campaign in the referendum, even if they have to vote for a London mayor.
  A mayor has enormous potential within local and regional government. Clearly, the London mayor will not be the last mayor within the constitutional framework. However, there is a difference. I would have anticipated—and so would my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire—that the first mayor would represent one of our larger city conurbations such as Manchester, Birmingham or Leeds, where the mayor would have significant powers. The mayor for London will have significant powers of persuasion and considerable authority, but he will not have the same powers as the mayor of a metropolitan borough. He will have the opportunity to speak up for the needs of London and to co-ordinate strategic services across the city. However, the real function of a mayor should be to speak for, co-ordinate and control the two sectors of government in London that have real power—central Government and the London boroughs.
  Since the abolition of the Greater London council, the London boroughs have carried enormous clout in terms of the delivery of services. We have to recognise that there is a function for local government in London.
  I represent an Essex constituency on the fringe of London, but part of my constituency is served by the Metropolitan police. My electorate will have no voice in respect of the policing of the part of my constituency that is served by the Met. Previously, if I was unhappy with the Essex police, I could consult the chief constable, and if I was not happy with the chief constable, I could talk to the police authority. In respect of the part of my constituency served by the Met, I could speak to the Commissioner, and if I was not satisfied I could consult the Home Secretary. However, my constituents who live in the area served by the Met will feel disfranchised and so will I.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) pointed out most persuasively, one needs only to look at a map of the United Kingdom—the airlines and the road network—to recognise that our transport system is centred around London. I should say to the hon. Member for Putney that I do not support the idea that the London authority should be responsible for monitoring aircraft noise, in that the majority of flights in the stacking procedure for Heathrow airport fly over my constituency. I would be very resentful if a London authority were to determine aircraft noise, because much of the aircraft noise is suffered by my constituents in Essex, and not the constituents of the hon. Member for Putney.
  We have to recognise that there is a touch of nostalgia or a naivety in speeches from Labour Members. In one breath they charge us with the disappearance of the Greater London council and present the Greater London authority as some kind of retaliation. Unless I have misread the consultation document, there does not seem to be any intention to bring back the Greater London

  657
  council. Therefore, in many ways, Labour Members are endorsing the decision to abolish it. If they thought that the GLC did such a great job, they would bring it back. Clearly, they do not.
  An excellent paper by Tony Travers describes a time in the 19th century when people wrote that London did not exist. As in the 19th century, we have a number of diverse communities across London. There are 33 distinct communities. Labour Members talked about a tale of two cities. The truth is that, in the Greater London area, we have a tale of 33 communities. That is why London boroughs' leaders should play such an important part in consultation and decision on how London should be governed.
  It is wrong to suggest that members of a Greater London authority should not be elected on a borough basis. People should be responsive and accountable to their communities. If they are not, they end up on a list, being the property of the political parties. No longer would people stand up for the individual communities that make up London. We would have people who curry favour to ensure that they feature higher and higher on their party's list.
  Communities have a right to ensure that London is looked at as a whole. It is very insulting to borough leaders and the people of London to think that one part of London will not pay attention to the others. If a list system exists, the nightmare that Labour Members described will come about. There will be enormous concentration on Westminster, the City and the west end to the detriment of people in outer boroughs.
  The primary function of a Greater London authority is to be a check on the mayor. I, however, believe that it will start to grow in one specific area: in its powers to scrutinise, call witnesses and hold inquiries. It is from those inquiries that it will gradually receive its mandate. Increasingly, it will find itself the main executor of Government diktats.
  I return to the central question whether we should have two questions on the referendum; whether the referendum is to be used as a rubber stamp. In his very thoughtful introduction to the debate, the Minister for London and Construction promised us many things. He promised us that we would get an explanation of why it was not possible to have a mayor without a strategic authority. Other than saying boldly that that would not work, nothing came out. It is clear to me that he might have a system that is better than what the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives offer, but he does not have—even so early in what undoubtedly will be a distinguished ministerial career—an absolute monopoly on truth.
  The point of political debate is that the public should have an opportunity to make a choice. It could be that the Minister is right. It could be that the Opposition are right. None the less, the people have a right to choose. Otherwise, we are left with the rather sad thought that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) suggested, the referendum is really about trying to get a turnout for an election in which the Government suspect they might not be as popular as they currently are. If we are to have a proper debate, it should have a conclusion. Members of the public have a right to choose.
  658
  We have listened to Labour Members talking about 82 per cent. of people being in favour of a mayor and a strategic authority. They have seen opinion polls, done their own private polling and listened to focus groups. If they are so sure, why do not they put the matter to the ultimate test? If they believe that their arguments are so solid, why do they not seek an endorsement from the population of London? A party that pays so much attention to opinion polls and focus groups must also pay attention to a referendum. No political party has anything to lose by giving the people a decent choice in a referendum. The only people who will ultimately lose are the mayor and the members of the strategic authority who will not have any legitimacy because the referendum was confused.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. Clive Efford: I am grateful to be called to speak in a debate that will give the people of London a say in the future government of their city. I wish first to pay tribute to several hon. Members who have made maiden speeches this evening. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) made an amusing speech about his constituency. I share with other hon. Members a knowledge of his constituency gained from recent visits, but I am probably the only hon. Member who can say that he has frequently visited and knows intimately almost every constituency in London, as I did in a previous life. I can recommend greasy spoons across the capital and perhaps in a later life I will write an Egon Ronay guide to those august establishments.
  I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale) who gave a rallying cry for his constituency and made an eloquent speech on behalf of the people whom he represents. What can I say about my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound)? I feel some sympathy for hon. Members with constituencies adjacent to Ealing, North because they must have great difficulty avoiding the rush of people attempting to leave it. I know that my hon. Friend has a fondness for his constituency that allows him to use the acute sense of humour that he displayed this evening.
  As someone who was involved in local government in London for more than a decade, I feel both relief and pride that tonight we will give a democratic voice back to London. When we discuss a Londonwide authority, the discussion inevitably leads to comments about the Greater London council. The criticisms of the GLC have been blown out of proportion and I do not share them. They were mainly cited by those who supported the abolition of the GLC against the best interests of the people of London. However, it cannot be denied that Londoners are more angry today about the lack of an elected Londonwide authority than they ever were with the GLC, for all its faults. All large corporations are open to criticism, and the GLC—and any local authority in London or elsewhere for that matter—is no exception. None of the criticisms of the GLC justified its abolition.
  Londoners understand the problems of living in London and the need for a democratic voice across London. That is why we are today debating the reintroduction of a strategic authority. Londoners understand the problems and have a good idea how to solve them.
  I can speak with some authority about the problems of the transport system, having worked for more than a decade in the London transport sector. Much has been

  659
  made of the need for an integrated transport system in London. Indeed, there are many theories about the definition of an integrated transport policy. To me, it means the transport of people from their point of embarkation to their point of destination, using a variety of transport systems and with the transition from one system to another as seamless as possible. We therefore need to take a strategic approach to London's transport, and we need a Londonwide authority to do that on behalf of the people of London.
  Mr. Hill: Drawing on his extensive experience of the transport system, does my hon. Friend agree that it is a massive indictment—it makes the case for a London authority—that in excess of 50,000 minicabs are plying their trade in this city without any form of regulation? That is precisely the role in which an authority for London could be engaged in dealing with the problems of our transport system.
  Mr. Efford: I agree with my hon. Friend, who gives me an opportunity to pass on my wisdom on this issue. The suggestion that we need 33 licensing authorities across London is patently barmy. We need legislation to tackle the problems in the private hire industry across London. I have strong views on the issue, which I hope to be able to voice in the House in future.
  The traffic congestion across London is another example of the lack of a strategic authority and approach. The piecemeal approach of local traffic management schemes across London is not working. One authority may have an obsession with speed humps—I am thinking of my own local authority. Another uses pinch points and closes roads left, right and centre—I am thinking of Islington here. There is no strategic approach or uniformity in dealing with traffic congestion and no serious attempt is being made to tackle the growth in the use of cars to travel from the suburbs into the centre of London. That issue can be addressed only by a strategic, Londonwide approach.
  The majority of people who travel from my constituency for employment travel to central London or around the south circular road, which condemns them to hours and hours of traffic congestion. The transport system is subject to constant breakdowns, delays and cancellations, and buses cannot be relied on because of traffic congestion.
  Ms Oona King: Is it not astonishing that the amount of time wasted daily by traffic congestion on the M25 and the M3 is equivalent to 300 years' working time? I am not sure whether I believe that statistic, but would my hon. Friend care to comment on it?
  Mr. Efford: My hon. Friend did not mention the condition in which people arrive at work after hours of driving on motorways and congested roads into the centre of London. One wonders why this issue has not been debated with enthusiasm in previous years—perhaps the emphasis on the car has dominated the debate on traffic congestion and public transport.
  Air quality is another important issue for which a strategic approach across London is needed. I am a former chairman of the environment committee of Greenwich council and I played a part in the Londonwide network
  660
  on air quality to tackle this issue. The problem is underlined by the growth in the number of young people in my local community who are suffering from asthma which is exacerbated by the poor quality of air, the main cause of which are the cars using the arterial routes which dissect the borough of Greenwich, and mainly my constituency.
  Public health is another area where we need a strategic approach across London. We must address that matter in the White Paper in March next year and promote public health on a Londonwide basis. Homelessness and housing are also important. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North referred to trying to navigate the rocks of the quangos in London.
  In economic development alone, the Green Paper lists no fewer than 17 governmental organisations, 16 private sector organisations, six education and training sector organisations, and 11 others. I will not bore hon. Members by reading them all out, as they can see for themselves the plethora of quangos and bodies that have been set up to try to tackle the democratic deficit in London and to provide services. For every £1 spent by a democratically elected authority, £60 is spent by an unaccountable quango. A strategic authority will provide some accountability in that area of public life.
  Strategic planning across London for people with disabilities is an essential issue. London desperately needs a strategic approach to transport, planning, education and employment to improve the quality of life for disabled people.
  The people of London have no one with a clear responsibility for London services to whom they can turn to express their views. The Bill will fill the gaping chasm that exists in accountability for London's public services and give the people of London a democratic voice. It will supply the deficit created by an act of political spite by the then Tory Government when they abolished the Greater London council, purely because they knew that the GLC would have remained under Labour control had they dared to face the electorate in 1986. That was illustrated by the results of the Inner London education authority elections following the demise of the GLC: Labour swept the board across the London boroughs.
  The Tories' detestation of local government did not stop there: without a mandate from the electorate or any reference to the people of London, they went ahead in 1987 to abolish the ILEA.
  Mr. McDonnell: The issue was indeed put to the electorate, because there were four by-elections at the end of the GLC, in which four GLC members stood down and risked the majority party's overall control. The London electorate returned them with resounding majorities, solely on the principle of opposition to the abolition of the GLC in 1986.
  Mr. Efford: I could not agree more.
  The parents of children in London schools had their own referendum on the future of the ILEA and more than 90 per cent. of those who voted—more than 50 per cent. of those eligible to vote—were in favour of retaining it. We will take no lectures from Conservative Members about accountability in a referendum or consultation with the people of London.

  661
  Following the devolution in Scotland and Wales, the people of London have every right to expect to be next. I am sure that on 7 May next year they will have their say and vote resoundingly in favour of restoring a democratic strategic authority—a right which was taken from them in a most undemocratic way by the previous Government. As we pledged in the general election campaign, the Government will restore a democratic voice for everyone in London.
  9.18 pm
  Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: I add my congratulations to those who made maiden speeches: the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale) and, especially, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), whose speech, according to his own description of what previously emanated from that constituency, will soon be regarded as forgettable.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), who is an Essex Member, and to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), for contributing to a debate on London government. The Scots would be even more grateful to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, given that they have no Conservative representation at all. However, it was good to see the official Opposition fielding contributors to this debate, in the absence of many London Members who one would have thought should be here to participate.
  We heard one or two ironies from Opposition Members. One was the jibe that the Evening Standard was the only paper in London to support the Government's proposals for a strategic authority—I thought that the Evening Standard was the only paper in London to be sold at regional level, so its support is an endorsement of the Government's proposals for a strategic authority. It was also somewhat ironic and almost Pythonesque to hear to the official Opposition's jibing at the Greater London council—it was almost reminiscent of "Monty Python's Life of Brian"—and saying, "Well, what did the GLC ever do for us?" I am grateful to hon. Friends who have clearly outlined the number of services provided by the GLC to improve the quality of life in the capital and maintain a strategic fabric for the city—something that has been absent for these past 11 years. I was an employee of the GLC, as a member of the London fire brigade, for 23 years, and I am still an out-of-trade member of the Fire Brigades Union, of which I was an elected official.
  I was equally disappointed that not one member of the official Opposition was present last week when the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) secured an Adjournment debate on the financial crisis facing the London fire service today as a legacy of the previous Government's approach to the service. The discussion was carried on by Liberal Democrat and Labour Members.
  There has been a democratic deficit in the capital. I particularly welcome the fact that the Bill offers an opportunity to deal with London in a way that it has not been dealt with before, which offers it new politics for the capital and, indeed, a new start for this great city.
  Mr. Stephen Twigg: In the light of the argument that my hon. Friend is pursuing, will he comment on the
  662
  official Opposition's failure to respond to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), who is no longer present, as to how they would vote in the referendum if their amendment were unsuccessful? We had a clear answer from the Liberal Democrats that if their line of argument were unsuccessful they would support a yes vote. We did not get a similar answer when that question was put to the Conservatives.
  Mr. Fitzpatrick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question, which reinforces the point that I was making—the referendum and the directly elected mayor and assembly will provide an opportunity for us to reinvigorate and reinforce democracy. Contrary to the jibes that we have heard from the official Opposition that this measure is about weakening our democracy, Labour Members believe that it will improve and strengthen it in the way that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire requested.
  The official Opposition have been asked a clear question. Despite the fact that their amendment will fall, they have not yet said whether they will support the prospect of strategic government for London. Obviously, that is simply a result of the embarrassment that they feel about the act of political spite that their colleagues carried out in 1986.
  Mr. Hill: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the United States of America—a country notorious for the low turnout at elections and which has an extensive system of elected mayorse—lections for mayors invariably generate turnouts in excess of 50 per cent., which is far higher than turnouts in British local elections? Does that not also reinforce my hon. Friend's argument that the election of a mayor for London is a means of renewing democracy in this country?
  Mr. Fitzpatrick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that fact to my attention. I was not aware that that was the experience in the United States of America. Labour Members are certainly trying to reinvigorate our democracy by bringing new ideas and politics to the public's attention. We believe that having the referendum on the same day as people elect the 32 London local authorities will lead to an increase in the turnout, which cannot but be good for the future of London.
  Ms Ryan: Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to ensure that all Londoners are on the electoral roll? That is not currently the case. In the borough of Enfield, we have already held three consultations on the London strategic authority Green Paper, with an enormous positive response. Before entering the House, I was deputy leader in Barnet. I disagree with the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman). There was not universal approval by any means in Barnet for the abolition of the Greater London council, and there would certainly be enthusiasm for it now. I wonder whether the situation is much the same in my hon. Friend's neck of the London woods.
  Mr. Fitzpatrick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. It is clear that the attitude of the previous Government to local government was to reduce the resources offered to local government for providing decent services. Electoral registration has been one of the

  663
  casualties over the years. If local authorities had been given the necessary resources to do the job, areas of deficit, where people are not on the electoral roll for whatever reason, could have been addressed by more vigorous campaigns to ensure that people recognise that in a democratic society, it is their duty to participate by turning out at the polls and voting whenever an election is called. That is why the prospect of a referendum on 7 May next year is a reinforcing act.
  Dr. Rudi Vis: After 1986, London became quangoland. It is always argued that what the Conservatives wanted to create would be more efficient. In fact, it has been most inefficient and very expensive. I hope that you will comment on that.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman again used the word "you". I would be grateful if he would remember that that is not the terminology of the Chamber.
  Dr. Vis: I apologise to you, Sir.
  Mr. Fitzpatrick: I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful question. The matter of quangos has been effectively addressed in the debate. The case has been strongly made that democracy was weakened by the initiation of so many quangos to take the place of the GLC and the Inner London education authority. To return London to democratic control and government will address the deficit and improve the situation.
  Mr. McDonnell: My hon. Friend mentioned resources. Does he agree that, while there may be no second question on taxation, when we come to the main Bill we must tackle the crucial issue of the resourcing of the strategic authority to ensure that the powers to be exercised by the mayor and assembly can be exercised effectively through adequate resourcing? Will my hon. Friend join me in urging the Minister to consider issues such as virement between budgets in the authority and the potential for restoring business rates to London, or at least to a return to some formula which creates equity for London in terms of taxation and distribution across the country? The Minister should also consider change over time so that the authority will be adequately resourced.
  Mr. Fitzpatrick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing those matters to the attention of the House. I recognise his expertise in the field. I am sure that those matters will be addressed.
  My last point concerns the home for the elected mayor and strategic authority. I suggest that east London would be an appropriate venue.
  Mr. Pound: What about Ealing, North?
  Mr. Fitzpatrick: The case for Ealing, North has been effectively made but we would be flying in the face of history were we to do something about Ealing, North now.
  The Anglo-French summit that took place at Canary Wharf last week clearly signalled the symbolism that the Government attach to the east end. I have spoken of the need to reinforce our democracy, and one should remember that the east end has traditionally been the poor
  664
  relation of the capital; its flirtation with the extremists of the right resulted from that neglect and the poverty and unemployment that it has suffered. The centre of gravity of the capital has been moving eastward in the past 15 years, and it will continue to do so. There is no more fitting place to be home to the new strategic authority and the elected mayor than east London.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Richard Ottaway: I congratulate the three hon. Members who made their maiden speeches.
  The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale) paid generous tribute to his predecessor, Charles Goodson-Wickes, a good friend of mine, whom we miss very much in the House. I am envious of the fact that the hon. Gentleman is able to represent his home constituency.
  The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) made the most entertaining maiden speech that I have ever heard. I note from his interests as listed in "The Times Guide to the House of Commons", May 1997 edition, that he is a collector of comics, so perhaps that humour should come as no surprise. He, too, paid generous tribute to Harry Greenway, who is held in much affection in the House. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that he is not as tall as my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), but he most definitely made his mark with his speech. Speaking of my right hon. Friend, I noted that the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) intervened on the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) and urged him to support the licensing of minicabs. I hope that both hon. Members will be present when my right hon. Friend introduces his private Member's Bill later in the Session to propose such a measure. I hope that they also note that that is a Conservative party proposal.
  We had an excellent maiden speech from my good and hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). In common with everyone else in the House, I, too, tramped the streets of Uxbridge. Unlike the majority of those in the Chamber, but in common with my hon. Friend, I hope that the Prime Minister takes it upon himself to maintain his tradition of attending every by-election by visiting Beckenham and Winchester.
  As my hon. Friend's Whip, I have some idea of the emotions he went through when, on 1 May, he found himself electing his candidate, his good friend Michael Shersby, and when, just three months later, he found himself standing in his place. It must have been a traumatic experience, but he has come through it with flying colours and we welcome him to the House.
  We are debating a Bill which provides for a referendum on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. That is it. The future of London will be wrapped up in a single 24-word question, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) has rightly said, is arguably defective. London is a city which hon. Members are proud to represent and it does not deserve this.
  One of the Conservative party's proudest achievements in government was to see Londoners turn their city into one of the world's greatest cities. That success has

  665
  become apparent not just since May. [Interruption.] The Deputy Prime Minister may jeer, but the first sentence of his manifesto refers to London as the greatest city.
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): The Conservative Government abolished London's council.
  Mr. Ottaway: I shall come to that in a minute.
  That success has been achieved not just since May; it is a success story of the past two decades—a Conservative success story. London is now one of the world's leading financial centres. Its theatres, cinemas, museums and art galleries and its venues for opera—we hope—and for dance and music are internationally acclaimed. Its universities are world class. The latest survey reveals that it maintains its leading position as the best city in Europe in which to locate a business.
  Those hon. Members who spoke about the need to consider our transport systems should note that the same poll contained a supplementary question about transport, and business men voted London the easiest European city to travel around. We may think that it is bad, but the others are even worse. However, we share the Government's view that the time has come to reform and modernise our capital's system of government—to build on the tremendous success story and prosperity achieved during the Conservatives' time in government.
  Labour Members have criticised us for changing our minds on this proposal. That is rich coming from the Labour party, which has changed its mind on every fundamental issue of the past two decades and a fair few since the general election. Let us hear no criticism from the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg): as president of the National Union of Students, he advocated resistance to tuition fees, but he seems to have gone strangely silent on the subject. [Interruption.] We will be watching him.
  Many hon. Members have argued that it was a mistake to abolish the Greater London council in 1986, but I am not one of those people. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) rightly pointed out, to apologise presupposes that we want to return to the GLC. In paragraph 1.09 of the Green Paper, the Government state:
  "This is not an exercise in bringing back the Greater London Council",
  so the Labour party does not want it back. That leaves only the Liberals and I am not sure that they want it back either. Who is urging the House to advocate a return to the GLC?
  Mr. McDonnell: An apology is required because the Conservative party was given the opportunity, by all parties on the GLC, by Londoners and by many London organisations, to reform the GLC instead of abolishing it. However, in a pig-headed way and showing a cowardly lack of interest in London, Conservative Members marched through the Division Lobbies to obey the diktat of the then Prime Minister. That is what the hon. Gentleman should apologise for.
  Mr. Ottaway: I do not lament the departure of the old GLC any more than the hon. Gentleman's own party does and I will not apologise for the abolition of what was a dinosaur running out of control.
  666
  We recognise that things have moved on since that time. I accept that 10 years is a long time in politics—the world has become a global village and we need a mayor to stride around the village square. However, Labour Members have to realise what the proposed authority will not do. Many hon. Members have referred to elected mayors in the United States and to the powers of the mayor of New York, but it is an illusion to believe that the success of the mayor of New York can be drawn down as an analogy with what is proposed for London. If Labour Members believe that our mayor will be able to solve problems in the same way as the mayor of New York has done, they have another think coming.
  The mayor of New York's great success was his crackdown on crime. That was achieved by the introduction of a law banning squeegee merchants who were funding juvenile crime and the imposition of a sales tax to put extra policemen on the beat, who were then targeted at the worst areas. No such powers will be available to the mayor of London or to the assembly and it is illusory to think that they will. The hon. Member for Eltham brought the debate down to the level of road humps—the authority would decide which borough had road humps—and other hon. Members wanted the authority to deal with health and education, but that will not happen either.
  The Bill will give London's 5 million voters the chance to vote in a referendum on the plans for a Greater London authority. The authority has two parts: first, a directly elected mayor and, secondly, a directly elected assembly. Two options, two proposals, two choices—so why are the Government introducing a Bill that offers only one question? Londoners now find themselves in an impossible position; the future government of their city is at stake, yet the Government continue to ignore the variety and depth of their cosmopolitan views. London is a city of villages—varied, colourful and, at times, awkward. It has the energy of New York, without the downside. It has many opinions and Londoners want their say. Two choices demand two questions. It is democratic, it is necessary and it is right. That is why the Conservatives are fighting for a two-question referendum—so that the people of London can be given the fullest possible opportunity to have their say about the sort of London government that they want.
  I have been canvassing in my constituency and in the rest of London. I accept that there is wide support for a voice for London, but hardly anyone agrees with the detail of the Government's proposals. Indeed, most speeches this evening have disagreed with the detail.
  Mr. Raynsford: Nonsense.
  Mr. Ottaway: Yes, they have. The hon. Member for Ealing, North wanted the GLC back, even though the Green Paper was against that. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) wanted health and education to be run by the proposed authority. I could list many more examples.
  By all means let us have a mayor for London; on that our parties can agree. He or she will be an ambassador for the city, a strong voice for its people, a champion of Londoners promoting London on the national and international stage. The mayor could push the capital's case on issues ranging from inward investment

  667
  to regeneration funding, and could bid for the World cup or the Olympic games. It is obvious to all of us who live and work in London that the capital's environmental problems are challenging. Together, we produce more than 12 million tonnes of rubbish and use more than 20 million tonnes of fuel a year. From rubbish to graffiti to recycling, the influence that a mayor would bring to bear on overseeing a new environmental strategy would be enormous.
  The last thing that London—or the mayor—needs, however, is a directly elected assembly—the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). The assembly will generate an anti-borough culture; the boroughs are deeply concerned about its scope for interference in their activities. In the Green Paper there are no fewer than 15 diminutions of the boroughs' powers, and in part II of the Bill the Government seek authority to obtain advice on the assembly's electoral arrangements. The relevant clause does not specify the method of election, although the Minister dealt with that earlier today.
  In his letter to The Times, the Minister argued that he intends to avoid the problem of assemblymen fighting for their own patches rather than the wider interests of London—
  Ms Hodge rose—
  Mr. Ottaway: I will not give way at this point.
  Not even Scotland and Wales are breaking their constituency links in this manner. By maintaining that the assembly must think strategically and not take local views into account, the Minister is saying, in effect, "Vote us in; we need your votes, and then we don't want to hear from you."
  Mr. Raynsford: The purpose of my letter to The Times was to point out the deficiencies of the Conservative party's proposal that the mayor should not have a directly elected assembly to keep him or her accountable, but should instead have a committee made up of all 32 London borough leaders. I was pointing out, as did another correspondent in that newspaper the same day—someone expert in the American system—that The Times was wrong and that there was no American city that did not have an assembly to keep its mayor accountable. I also pointed out that the 32 borough leaders could not do so because they would be fighting for their own interests.
  Mr. Ottaway: Then the Minister let the cat out of the bag—he could not contain himself—and went even further. He said that he wanted the authority to think strategically—
  Mr. Raynsford: Absolutely.
  Mr. Ottaway: Fair enough; but he also said that he did not want the assemblymen to fight for their own patch. If so, I repeat: the Minister simply wants people's votes, but thereafter he does not want to hear any more from them.
  I think that the Coulsdon bypass for Croydon is important, but no one in the assembly would fight for it. Who is to fight for it then—a Member of Parliament, a councillor? If so, what is the point of the authority?
  Ms Hodge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ottaway: No, I am short of time.
  668
  We will have a load of assemblymen with no local knowledge and no constituency links; their only job will be to hang around and veto the mayor or his appointees. The assembly will become a hotbed of intrigue and gossip, and the only way for assemblymen to draw attention to their dull careers will be to say no to the mayor. The temptation will be irresistible. It will lead to clash and conflict, gridlock and indecision. Vetoes will be overridden. The headlines will be endless.
  Neither the mayor nor the boroughs need to work with another layer of bureaucracy when London is already so well served by its present elected representatives. In addition to the Government office for London and the London development agency, we shall have 32 unitary boroughs, the Corporation of London, 74 Members of Parliament and 10 Members of the European Parliament.
  Labour Members spoke with affection of the old Greater London council, an organisation of which many hon. Members need no reminding. A unique band of Labour Members held office in it, and I am sure that the House and the people of London will welcome their explanation why it cost more than £2 billion a year to run with so little output and why it spent £8,000 on the campaign to curb police powers, £30,000 on the Camden policing the police group and £38,000 on the campaign against the Police Bill.
  Perhaps we should ask the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), now Under-Secretary of State for Health. He should know; he was chairman of the Greater London council police committee at the time. Or we might ask his neighbour, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), noticeable by his absence tonight, who is campaigning against his party's proposals. We could even ask the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), the Minister for Sport, a man who, after the Greater London council's abolition, mysteriously found the GLC's silver in his attic at home. He was the last chairman of the Greater London council. We do not want a return to those old days; we must avoid it at all costs.
  The Conservative party wants an indirectly elected assembly, made up of a representative of each of the 32 London boroughs and the Corporation of London. Whichever way one looks at them, our proposals for that assembly of borough leaders constitute an arguable case. The Guardian, not traditionally a Conservative newspaper, said:
  "to deny them"—
  those with alternative views—
  "any expression on the ballot seems peculiar. After all, the whole point of a referendum is to allow all the people their say."
  Borough leaders are the men and women who have day-to-day contact with boroughs and wards, working with chief executives to solve local problems. To have them form the new assembly would be to build a bridge between the boroughs and the mayor. It will provide a vital link with the electors and ensure that those with all-important local knowledge will he at the heart of decision making. It will remove the inevitable conflict between the authority and the boroughs on planning, transport and much else. It will provide effective scrutiny, tempered with responsibility.
  The Minister today—as he has in the past—criticised our proposal for an assembly made up of 32 borough leaders and the Corporation of London as an inadequate alternative to the assembly. However, he totally failed to explain why

  669
  32 elected assemblymen would be better equipped to contain the excesses of a mayor than the 32 borough leaders. It does not show much confidence in local government or in his party. The majority of borough leaders are Labour councillors, and not one speech today mentioned their work—I am not surprised, looking at them.
  Mr. Fitzpatrick: Too long.
  Mr. Ottaway: The Prime Minister insists that we are in a giving age, so why does not he give the people of London a two-question referendum? Anything less would be a deliberate and calculated slap in the face of democracy. Two simple, straightforward questions that would reveal the true views of Londoners about their future—that is all it would take. [Interruption.] Labour Members are complaining about the length of my speech. I remind them that the agreement is that the Minister wants only 10 minutes in which to reply, so I have two minutes to go.
  Two simple, straightforward questions that would reveal the true views of Londoners about their future—that is all it would take. London's future is too important to the Opposition for us to fight for anything less. Two questions would show that the Government have nothing to hide about reforming the capital's government. With the Liberal Democrats supporting us, the Government could point to all-party consensus on the issue. That would show that the Government had confidence in the electorate's ability to assess the merits of each proposal before them, and that the Government really wanted to listen to Londoners' views.
  One question on a referendum simply shows that the Government do not really want to know—that they have something to hide. Are they afraid to dig a little deeper? Are they just not interested in finding out what Londoners think about those reforms? The Minister probably knows how many Londoners think that Labour's way is not the best way to reform London's government.
  The Conservative party wants two questions on London's future—two choice for two futures. Those who live in the world's greatest capital city deserve nothing less. I urge the House to support our amendment.
  9.49 pm
  The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): As other hon. Members have said, we have been privileged to listen to three maiden speeches today. The speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) was notable for both its wit and its entertainment value. While bewailing the historic lack of great people, buildings and events in his constituency, he happily heralded a better future for his constituents with a strategic authority of the kind proposed by the Government. His speech was hailed as being witty in the extreme, while the speeches by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) win tonight's comedy cup.
  For Opposition Members to argue that we are failing to offer the people of London a genuine choice in our desire to restore to them a democratic voice, when the
  670
  Conservative party summarily abolished democratic citywide government in London without previously consulting the people of London, is risible in the extreme. Since then, Londoners have been at one in demanding the return of their democratic voice. This Government were elected on a manifesto promise to bring back democratic government to our capital. With the approval of the people of London, that is what we shall undoubtedly do.
  I welcomed the positive contributions from both sides of the House to a debate in June on the government of London. This evening's debate seems to have broken down into a clear commitment by the Labour party to the restoration of a democratic voice for London, while Opposition Members have displayed no clear vision, constantly referring to history and misrepresenting our ideas by suggesting erroneously that we wish to create a GLC mark II.
  The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) and the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) spoke today, as they did in June, from an interested and informed position, and asked specific questions. I understand that the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster is probably enjoying the dessert or savoury at the Lord Mayor's banquet. He asked what provision there would be if it were necessary to have a recount in the referendum. There will be provision by Orders in Council, should that necessity arise.
  The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet asked several specific questions, particularly on the rights of European Union nationals to vote in the referendum. They will indeed have that right. The result will be announced borough by borough, and then the total will be announced. Counting officers will determine the number of boxes and the number of people required to count the votes. I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman believes that there could be any confusion about the voting procedure when the ballot paper says:
  " mayor and a separately elected assembly".
  "Separately" is the operative word.
  Since July, we have received more than 1,000 responses from all parts of London, representing business, local government, trade unions, community groups and others. Many responses have come from individual Londoners who want a say in their city's future. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) referred to electoral reform. We are still attempting to assess the responses on that point.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked for this debate to be conducted with an open mind, but he ended up—as far as I could understand—discounting his own reasoned amendment. He therefore seemed to be asking less for an open mind than for empty minds. Of the responses that we have managed to analyse, only 10 per cent. have put in a request for an additional question. However, the responses are still being considered and analysed. It is clear that the people of London do not want simply to re-create the old GLC, the abolition of which made Londoners particularly determined to have their democratic voice restored. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. There are many conversations going on in the Chamber. Hon. Members should be listening to the Minister.
  Ms Jackson: Our proposal is that we should learn from the experience in other world cities, draw on the best that is on offer and look carefully at what London needs.

  671
  The hon. Member for Northolt, in his reasoned response, although he does not agree with our proposals, asked why my hon. Friend—
  Mr. Wilkinson: There is no Member for Northolt. Northolt is in the constituency of one of my hon. Friends. I presume that the hon. Lady is referring to the Member for Ruislip-Northwood. If she concentrated more on the debate, and read less and gabbled less, she might get such points of detail right.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is in perfect good order.
  Ms Jackson: I thank the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) for demonstrating that he is always one of the most courteous hon. Members. He said that my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction had not mentioned a strategic transport authority. My hon. Friend certainly did so. He referred to the need for a strategic transport authority, a need reiterated from direct practical experience by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford). My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) emphasised the point in a telling intervention.
  If a start is to be made, London needs the strategic leadership that can be provided only by a mayor who is directly elected by, and speaks for, the people, and who is capable of bringing all of London together. It also needs an assembly capable of scrutinising, questioning and holding the mayor to democratic account, creating a proper balance of accountability, but also capable of advising the mayor and contributing ideas and expertise in regular dialogue.
  The two proposals are inseparable. Neither on its own would provide the mix of leadership and accountability that London needs. That was stressed in almost all the contributions of Labour Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) described the proposed referendum question as realistic. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) highlighted our manifesto commitment to a strategic authority and a directly elected major.
  In a maiden speech that was generous and graceful in the tribute that was paid to his predecessors, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale) underlined the multicultural nature of his constituency, and emphasised the need for a strategic transport authority.
  The third maiden speech that we were privileged to hear was that of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), who paid a moving tribute to his predecessor.
  In his cogent and informed speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate highlighted the democratic element inherent in our manifesto commitment. My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) welcomed our manifesto commitment, as we welcome her call for voter registration to be encouraged, particularly among young voters.
  The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) had serious doubts about our proposals, yet he, too, looked forward to our White Paper, which we have given a clear commitment to publish next year.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) spoke of the mandate for change vested in the Government and the clear commitment in our manifesto to a new deal for London, with a strategic authority and directly elected mayor.
  672
  I referred earlier to the contribution of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, who seemed to fear our proposals, which he thought would suck away power from local authorities. That was a somewhat remarkable contribution in view of the fact that, over 18 long years, the former Conservative Government introduced 60 separate Bills that took powers away from London government.
  I regret that I cannot name all the Labour Members who made a clear, passionate commitment to what we propose and what we intend to see delivered.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 342.

  Division No. 85]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Gale, Roger

  Amess, David

  Garnier, Edward

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Gibb, Nick

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Gill, Christopher

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Baldry, Tony

  Gorrie, Donald

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Green, Damian

  Bercow, John

  Greenway, John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Grieve, Dominic

  Blunt, Crispin

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Body, Sir Richard

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Boswell, Tim

  Hammond, Philip

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Hancock, Mike

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Harvey, Nick

  Brake, Tom

  Hawkins, Nick

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Hayes, John

  Brazier, Julian

  Heald, Oliver

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Horam, John

  Burstow, Paul

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cash, William

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Jenkin, Bernard

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Johnson Smith,

  Chidgey, David

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Chope, Christopher

  Key, Robert

  Clappison, James

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Collins, Tim

  Lansley, Andrew

  Colvin, Michael

  Leigh, Edward

  Cotter, Brian

  Letwin, Oliver

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Lidington, David

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Loughton, Tim

  Day, Stephen

  Luff, Peter

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Duncan, Alan

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  MacKay, Andrew

  Faber, David

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Fabricant, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fallon, Michael

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Malins, Humfrey

  Flight, Howard

  Maples, John

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Fraser, Christopher

  Moore, Michael

  673

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Pickles, Eric

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Prior, David

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Randall, John

  Townend, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Tredinnick, David

  Rendel, David

  Trend, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Viggers, Peter

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Wallace, James

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Walter, Robert

  Ruffley, David

  Wardle, Charles

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Webb, Steve

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Wells, Bowen

  Sanders, Adrian

  Whittingdale, John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Shepherd, Richard

  Wilkinson, John

  Willetts, David

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Willis, Phil

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

  Wilshire, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Spring, Richard

  Woodward, Shaun

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Yeo, Tim

  Steen, Anthony

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Streeter, Gary

  Stunell, Andrew

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Swayne, Desmond

  Mr. James Cran and

  Syms, Robert

  Sir David Madel.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cann, Jamie

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Casale, Roger

  Ainger, Nick

  Caton, Martin

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Allen, Graham

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Chaytor, David

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Ashton, Joe

  Church, Ms Judith

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clapham, Michael

  Austin, John

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Banks, Tony

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Barnes, Harry

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Barron, Kevin

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Clelland, David

  Benton, Joe

  Clwyd, Ann

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Coaker, Vernon

  Best, Harold

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Betts, Clive

  Cohen, Harry

  Blizzard, Bob

  Coleman, Iain

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Colman, Tony

  Boateng, Paul

  Connarty, Michael

  Borrow, David

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Corbett, Robin

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Cousins, Jim

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Cox, Tom

  Browne, Desmond

  Cranston, Ross

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Crausby, David

  Burden, Richard

  Cummings, John

  Burgon, Colin

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Byers, Stephen

  Dalyell, Tam

  Caborn, Richard

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Darvill, Keith

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Davidson, Ian

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  674

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Denham, John

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dismore, Andrew

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Donohoe, Brian H

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Drew, David

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Jones, Ms Jennifer

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Edwards, Huw

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Efford, Clive

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Ennis, Jeff

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Etherington, Bill

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Kemp, Fraser

  Fisher, Mark

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Kidney, David

  Flint, Caroline

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Flynn, Paul

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Follett, Barbara

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Foulkes, George

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Fyfe, Maria

  Laxton, Bob

  Galloway, George

  Lepper, David

  Gapes, Mike

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gardiner, Barry

  Levitt, Tom

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Linton, Martin

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Livingstone, Ken

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Goggins, Paul

  Lock, David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Love, Andrew

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Grant, Bernie

  McCabe, Steve

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McDonnell, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gunnell, John

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hain, Peter

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McLeish, Henry

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McNulty, Tony

  Hanson, David

  MacShane, Denis

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  McWilliam, John

  Healey, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mandelson, Peter

  Heppell, John

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hill, Keith

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Martlew, Eric

  Hoey, Kate

  Maxton, John

  Home Robertson, John

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hood, Jimmy

  Meale, Alan

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Merron, Gillian

  Hope, Phil

  Michael, Alun

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Milburn, Alan

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Miller, Andrew

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hurst, Alan

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hutton, John

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Morley, Elliot

  Illsley, Eric

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Ingram, Adam

  Mountford, Kali

  675

  Mudie, George

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mullin, Chris

  Snape, Peter

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Soley, Clive

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Olner, Bill

  Stevenson, George

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Pearson, Ian

  Stott, Roger

  Pendry, Tom

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stringer, Graham

  Pike, Peter L

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Plaskitt, James

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Pollard, Kerry

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Pond, Chris

  (Dewsbury)

  Pope, Greg

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pound, Stephen

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Timms, Stephen

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Todd, Mark

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Touhig, Don

  Purchase, Ken

  Trickett, Jon

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Truswell, Paul

  Radice, Giles

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Rammell, Bill

  Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Robertson, Rt Hon George

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  (Hamilton S)

  Vaz, Keith

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Rogers, Allan

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Rooney, Terry

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Watts, David

  Rowlands, Ted

  White, Brian

  Roy, Frank

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Ruane, Chris

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  (Swansea W)

  Salter, Martin

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wills, Michael

  Sawford, Phil

  Winnick, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wise, Audrey

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wood, Mike

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Woolas, Phil

  Singh, Marsha

  Wray, James

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Tellers for the Noes:

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Mr. David Jamieson and

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mr. John McFall.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills),
  That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—
  [Ms Glenda Jackson.]
  Question agreed to.
  Committee tomorrow.

  GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY (REFERENDUM) BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
  (1) the charging on and payment out of the Consolidated Fund of—
  (a) any fee payable to, or charge made or expenditure incurred by, the Chief Counting Officer, a counting officer or a returning officer which is to be charged on and paid out of that Fund by virtue of an Order in Council under the Act; and
  (b) any grant payable by the Secretary of State under the Act to a London borough council or the Common Council of the City of London in respect of expenditure incurred (or to be incurred) by them by virtue of an Order in Council under the Act;
  (2) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
  (a) any expenditure of the Secretary of State in connection with the referendum held by virtue of the Act (other than expenditure authorised by paragraph (1) above to be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund);
  (b) any payments made by the Secretary of State under the Act to the Local Government Commission for England; and
  (c) any expenditure of the Secretary of State in preparation for a Greater London Authority.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  Question agreed to.

  House of Commons Members' Fund
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That Mr. John Butterfill, Dr. Vincent Cable, Mr. Barry Gardiner, Dr. Nick Palmer, Dr. Howard Stoate and Ms Gisela Stuart be appointed Managing Trustees of the House of Commons Members' Fund in pursuance of Section 2 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act l939.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: I would have expected an explanation of the proposed composition of a body that touches on the interests of all hon. Members. When I have said just a few words on the subject, I hope that one might be forthcoming. It seems rather odd, to say the least, not to have a balance of representation on such a body, which represents the interests of Members in the widest possible context.
  We are used to deputing colleagues with certain specialist knowledge of to deal with various matters, but here we have a matter that touches on the interests of Members themselves. I am seeking an explanation because I am puzzled that the proposed Labour Members dealing with the House of Commons Members' fund all appear—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. There is far too much conversation in the Chamber.
  Mr. Forth: The proposed Labour Members all appear to have been elected recently. I do not wish to criticise them as individuals; indeed, I am rather impressed that they are prepared to take on the onerous responsibility dealing with a matter as potentially sensitive as the House of Commons Members' fund so early in their parliamentary careers. However, Members would have expected a spread of experience on such a body so that the Members dealing with the matter could have offered knowledge, experience and perhaps a length of service in the House.
  I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) is a proposed trustee. That pleases me enormously, not least because my hon. Friend entered the House at the same time as I did in 1983. His wide range of experience in the House and outside will enable him to make a real contribution to the deliberations that will take place from time to time on the House of Commons Members' fund. That is encouraging.
  On the other hand, although I am encouraged by the presence of my hon. Friend, I am somewhat at a loss to understand why the Government, given the opportunity to offer a range of experience, have failed to do so. At the very least, surely we are owed an explanation. I am not saying that I wish to divide the House—
  Mr. Mike Hall: Get on with it.
  Mr. Forth: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene? [Interruption.] I am glad that I am now beginning to arouse some interest among Labour Members, which is a rarity.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. All the right hon. Gentleman needs to worry about is that I am interested in what he is saying—and I am listening—and that he keeps to the point.
  Mr. Forth: I hope that I have kept very much to the point. I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would
  678
  agree that this matter bears very much on Members' interests. I am very much encouraged to see—I suspect that it is largely because of such interests—the large number of Members who are unusually present on the Government Benches. This is certainly a novelty. It may be—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me warn the right hon. Member that this is a very tight subject. He must stick to it. How many Members are in the Chamber is of no consequence to this debate. He knows the subject, he has risen to speak on it and he must speak to it.
  Mr. Forth: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you are right. Indeed, you are, by definition, right. I am talking about Members and I confess that I allowed myself to stray to Labour Members. As you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the point is very narrow, but it is important.
  What disappoints me about the way in which the matter has been offered to the House is the fact that the Government have not been prepared even to offer the simplest, almost elementary, explanation of the composition proposed for the body that deals with the House of Commons Members' fund. I suspect that, if we had had that explanation, the matter could have been dealt with in a very straightforward way. Given that it has been presented to us on the Order Paper and moved formally, should the House be surprised if Members such as myself—I do not know whether any of my hon. Friends share my concern about the matter—wonder at the very least why we are not being offered a range of experience among Members on the body? Is it too much to ask that Members from different election intakes are represented? The House of Commons Members' fund deals with matters in which all Members have an interest. I should have preferred Members of greater experience on the body.
  I have no doubt that if we are given a reasonable explanation, we shall be prepared to accept it. In the absence of a reasonable explanation, we may want the matter to be deferred, thought about again, taken away and dealt with, no doubt in the usual expert and, very often, companionable way, through the usual channels. I regret to say that, if I am not given that reassurance, we may want to divide the House not only to make the point that this is the wrong way in which to bring such a matter before the House—it is almost insulting—but to get more reassurance that the Members who are being proposed to deal with the fund will have a greater range of experience than those who are currently proposed.
  I hope that, in those very few words, I have been able to encourage someone on the Government Benches to come forward and give us the explanation. I await that with eager anticipation.
  10.22 pm
  Mr. David Wilshire: Despite the fact that I sense irritation from Labour Members who do not want to discuss this matter, it strikes me that it is sufficiently serious for us to spend some time on it. It would be wrong simply to nod it through without giving it decent consideration.
  If I understand you correctly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are dealing only with the first of two motions on the Order Paper. I am sure that it will be necessary for the House to

  679
  have a sensible and rational debate subsequently about the contributory pension fund, but, for the moment, we are talking solely about the Members' fund. It is a fund to which every hon. Member contributes and which all of us one day—Heaven forbid—may wish to use. We should therefore take it seriously. Some answers to some questions should be given before we vote on the matter. I shall pose a number of questions to which I would like answers before I decide whether to divide the House on the issue.
  First, why are we being asked to approve six trustees? I notice that when we come to debate the next motion, we will be asked to approve eight trustees and the House should be told the reason for the difference. We should be told why six will be adequate for the task. If six trustees are considered adequate, we must reassure ourselves that the work load for those six people is right. If there is much work to be done, we will need more than six. Secondly, may we be told the exact work load of the trustees? What will the trustees decide and how often will they have to meet?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The motion is only about the membership of the body, not its work load. The House is being asked to approve the membership and the individual names.
  Mr. Wilshire: I understand that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I hope that you will understand in return that to make up my mind about whether the membership level is right, I need an understanding of the task facing the six people. Otherwise, I will find it difficult to vote one way or the other. We need to get to grips with the work load.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the matter is covered by an Act of the House. If he wants to know the work load and the commitment, he should read the Act. We are considering only the six names before us.
  Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful for that advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When some of my friends speak subsequently, I will have a chance to read the Act. After I have read it, it may be necessary for me to seek to intervene to clear up such matters. For the moment, I fully understand your ruling and I will therefore talk about whether it is right for us to approve the six names.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Does the hon. Gentleman object to the name of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill)? If he does not, to which members of the body has he taken exception?
  Mr. Wilshire: If the hon. Gentleman can contain himself for a moment, I have it in mind to come to exactly that point. In due course, I will no doubt solve his worries. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene again?
  Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I have noticed that only one of the six names was a Member of Parliament before I May this year. I wish to make it clear that I mean no criticism of individuals. I am sure that all the other five are deeply worthy Members of Parliament, but they lack any understanding of the working of the House before 1 May.
  680
  We must understand that the people who will apply for help from the Members' fund are those who were Members in the past, not those who serve at the present.
  Mr. Forth: Lest the House imagine that my hon. Friend is being uncharitable, I ask him to agree that one hon. Member from this year's intake would be appropriate—perhaps even two—to bring a fresh perspective on matters. I share his objection that so many new Members will mean that the body is unrepresentative and that that is taking an unnecessary risk with something as sensitive as the matter before us.
  Mr. Wilshire: Like the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), my right hon. Friend anticipates some of the points that I wish to make as my speech progresses. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need a fresh view on these matters, and one would not object to one, two or maybe three new Members on the Committee.
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: Does my hon. Friend accept that some new Members take the view that there is a world of difference between a fresh view and a view without foundation, and that many of us would not wish to see too many new Members on the Committee?
  Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend is right, and he is exactly the sort of new Member that I would wish to see on the Committee. I commend him to the Government as a potential replacement for some of the names that they have put forward to represent the Labour party view.
  Mr. John Hayes: Can my hon. Friend explain the precedent for the matter? Has this body typically consisted of entirely new Members or has it been more balanced?
  Mr. Wilshire: To the best of my knowledge, the fund was treated with the respect it deserves when there was a Conservative Administration. Trustees with experience and knowledge—and who could recall the service of those people who would be applying for help from the fund—were appointed. It is a poor show if the best that Labour can do is to put forward four very worthy people with no knowledge of the workings of the House before 1 May and no direct experience of the former Members who might be seeking help from the fund.
  Mr. Peter Luff: Is my hon. Friend aware that three of the trustees during the last Parliament were Privy Counsellors, all of them distinguished Members with a long record of service? This is a departure from the precedent of the last Parliament, and my hon. Friend is right to insist on an explanation from the Government.
  Mr. Wilshire: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. If the Labour Government cannot bring themselves to provide people with experience, understanding and compassion, it suggests that they have nothing but contempt for what happened before 1 May. That worries me greatly because of the nature of the fund, which is all about care and compassion for former Members from all parties. We now have a Labour Government who treat the care and compassion of former Members with contempt.

  681
  If I am wrong, no doubt the Government will give me a good explanation of why these four new Labour Members are the right people to appoint to the Committee. If I receive a good explanation, I shall be happy to accept it.
  It is not only the Labour party which has taken this view—we have one name from the Liberal Democrats. Before 1 May, there were one or two Liberal Democrat Members—perhaps they have a few more now. It is surely not beyond the bounds of possibility that the Liberal Democrats could show care and compassion to former Members by putting up the name of someone with long service in this House. I have no disrespect for the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who I am sure is a worthy person who will do a first-class job. But why has the experience of the past been ignored by the Liberal Democrats?
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: At the serious risk of prolonging a particularly tedious and pointless debate, may I point out that the Liberal Democrat Member who has been nominated has wide experience outside the House, has knowledge of the issues to be dealt with by the Committee and is thoroughly suitable? When it comes to establishing a Committee—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is this an intervention?
  Mr. Stunell: Yes, it is an intervention, and the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) gave way to me.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Interventions must be very brief. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) is verging on speaking about the qualities of hon. Members. As far as I am concerned, each and every individual in the House is a caring individual, so let us hear no more about qualities.
  Mr. Wilshire: I understand your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  We need to pursue the question of experience. I entirely understand the inexperience of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) and I was enjoying his intervention. I was rather disappointed that you cut him short, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I wanted to hear what he had to say. What he said—and it is important that we see it in Hansard in the morning—is that the Members' fund is pointless, and that it is pointless for us to consider the problems that arise for former Members of Parliament. If that is Liberal Democrat policy I am glad that I gave way and got it on the public record.
  Labour Members are clearing out, either because they cannot face criticism or because they have gone to look up the answers—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I stated earlier that who is or is not in the Chamber is absolutely irrelevant and does not matter. The motion is very tight—it refers to six names—and I do not want to hear about anything else from the hon. Gentleman or anyone else who cares to make a contribution.
  Mr. Wilshire: I was doing my level best to focus the attention of the House, or at least of the few Labour
  682
  Members who are still here and the larger number of Conservative Members, on those six hon. Members. It is crucial that we are told why only one of the six has any experience of the workings of the House and of Members of Parliament before 1 May this year. It is a serious matter which calls for experience, and new Members, however well intentioned, do not have that experience.
  Mr. Hayes: Much has been said about the new Members, but we have heard nothing about them specifically. Mr. Deputy Speaker has told us that the motion concerns six individuals. Could we hear some more, at some length, about their curricula vitae?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not for the hon. Gentleman to direct another hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend made a fair point. As I understand it, others of my hon. Friends want to address the detailed points about the individual trustees. It is for me to raise the general questions in advance. I believe that I have done that. I have set out the questions that the Government must answer to satisfy me. There are many other questions and I should be grateful if the Leader of the House could answer them all.
  10.38 pm
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): Conservative Members' contributions have been extremely interesting. They are obviously preparing to be former Members, or they would not be so interested in the provisions of the pension fund.
  I treat with great seriousness the concerns expressed by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). That is a new constituency for him. I remember talking to him when he was not so sure about his future in the House—we discussed redundancy payments—but that is not a matter for this evening. I know that he is concerned about these issues.
  I take seriously any reservations that hon. Members have about the membership of such bodies. If Conservative Members have concerns, they could have raised them with their Front Benchers and the usual channels with whom such arrangements are made. For my part—
  Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you clarify for the House that the motion, which the Order Paper states can be debated for up to one and a half hours, is debatable and, therefore, that it is in order for hon. Members to raise these matters and to ask legitimate questions about them? The Leader of the House seems to be implying that that is not the case.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Of course, the motion is debatable. That is why I allowed the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) to speak and that is why I am allowing the Leader of the House to speak. The right hon. Lady is in perfect order at the moment.
  Mrs. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, I have looked at the list of those nominated from the Labour Benches and have been extremely impressed by the expertise of the new Members whom

  683
  we have been able to nominate. I would have had every confidence in those Labour Members. If the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and his Conservative colleagues do not have confidence in the person whom the Opposition have nominated through the usual channels, I am perfectly willing to take the matter back to the usual channels and look at it again. On that basis, perhaps it is best that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  Ordered,
  That—
  (1) The following Standing Order (Environmental Audit Committee) be made:

  ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT COMMITTEE

    ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT COMMITTEE
    (1) There shall be a select committee, called the Environmental Audit Committee, to consider to what extent the policies and programmes of government departments and non-departmental public bodies contribute to environmental protection and sustainable development; to audit their performance against such targets as may be set for them by Her Majesty's Ministers; and to report thereon to the House.

    (2) The committee shall consist of fifteen members, of whom four shall be a quorum.

    (3) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.

    (4) The committee shall have power—

    (a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from time to time;

    (b) to appoint specialist advisers to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference;

    (c) to communicate its evidence and any other documents relating to matters of common interest to any committee appointed by this House or by the Lords; and

    (d) to meet concurrently with any committee appointed under Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments), or any sub-committee thereof, or with any committee appointed by the Lords, or any sub-committee thereof, for the purposes of deliberating or examining witnesses.'

    (2) Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended, in line 27, after the word 'Accounts', by leaving out the word 'and', and in line 28, after the word 'Committee', by inserting the words 'and to the Environmental Audit Committee'.—[Mr. Clelland.]

  Court Closures (Essex)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland.]
  10.41 pm
  Mr. Bob Russell: When I first decided on this debate, I thought that only the county of Essex was subject to court closures of such magnitude, but, as we have heard in recent weeks and, indeed, this afternoon, magistrates courts are closing throughout the country. It could be said that the magistrates court system, which has evolved over centuries, is being systematically dismantled. That policy is driven by the Treasury and it will lead to fewer, larger courts and to almost a production-line distribution of justice. That is not what local justice is all about.
  Essex courts have suffered cuts totalling £1 million in the past three years, on a budget of £017 million. The evidence shows that the object of the exercise is to reduce the number of courts in the county to five, although Essex has one of the largest populations of any shire county.
  What is the object of the exercise? The consultation process has shown that everyone is against the court closures save the Crown Prosecution Service and the magistrates courts organisers. In other words, this is all about the convenience of the bureaucrats rather than the distribution of justice in local communities.
  It is a case of one side of Government saving money—or so it seems—but that is more than outweighed by the costs to other aspects of Government and to the community at large. The move is also contrary to the Government's policies on traffic reduction. It may seem strange to mention that while on the subject of court closures, but it is a serious question and it needs to be addressed because people will have to travel further.
  The Government's policies of greater police presence and being tough on crime are being undermined by magistrates courts committees shutting courts. MCCs are, of course, quangos. In Essex, the quango has seven members, unelected and unrepresentative of the county. They are not there to respond to the wishes of hon. Members across the political divide or local councils. All those involved in the life of our magistrates courts are opposed to the closures, but the MCC meeting behind closed doors—so much for open government and accountability—made the decision to close.
  I invite the Minister to comment on who knows best about the court system in the county of Essex: those who have to be there—solicitors, probation officers and, above all, the police—or the bureaucrats who run the system. We acknowledge that there are financial constraints on the public sector, but to save money on the one hand the public purse will pay far more on the other for a worse service. Except for the Crown Prosecution Service, whose reduced staffing will be helped by having fewer courts, nobody supports the closures envisaged in Essex.
  The chief constable of Essex, Mr. John Burrow, wrote to me saying:
  "I trust that you can bring to the attention of the House that this is not only a case where saving in one area of the criminal justice system will result in significant increased expenditure in other areas, but also there is a very real issue of the loss of local justice across large swathes of the County."

  685
  Colchester is not going to lose its courts, at least not on current plans, but it will become a centre of courts for the whole of north Essex and further afield. In time, that will lead to the merger of the magistrates benches and to the loss of the local knowledge of local magistrates of local cases. Magistrates in Colchester will adjudicate cases from Clacton and Braintree, and vice versa.
  The Minister noted:
  "The magistracy deals with about 97 per cent. of criminal offices prosecuted in England and Wales. It also has important family and local licensing jurisdictions."
  He also referred to the
  "efficient and effective administration of the courts".—[Official Report, 29 October 1997; Vol. 299, c. 901.]
  That is what it is all about. It is to do with the bureaucracy of the administration of the magistrates courts rather than fairness to the people involved.
  There has been a range of media criticism. The courts at Halstead, Castle Hedingham and Southminster have been closed. Now Braintree, Clacton and Saffron Walden are under attack. Does the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) wish to intervene?
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin indicated dissent.
  Mr. Russell: The offer was there.
  When the Minister replies, will he dissociate himself from the words of the director of central services at Essex magistrates court, Mr. Richard Hawkes? He said:
  "There's been a lot of wild talk but we have had no evidence to support the claims"
  of those opposing the closures. Among those who have opposed the closures is the chief constable of Essex, who stated:
  "The decision will greatly inconvenience the victims of crime and witnesses who are required to attend court … but more importantly it will in the long-term undermine the very concept of local justice as there are now large areas of Essex that are without a local court."
  That is what is happening in a county that has one of the largest populations in the country.
  This afternoon, other hon. Members expressed their concern because their local magistrates courts were to close. It is clear that the Government are pursuing a systematic closure scheme throughout England and Wales. Such closures fly in the face of the opposition of local Members, county and district councillors, members of the legal profession, the police and public opinion.
  The closure of a magistrates court in any town means a loss of the concept of local justice. It also has large cost implications for the police force because of increased travelling expenses and increased overtime payments. The greatest cost, however, is that an officer is no longer available for ordinary operational duty on the streets of the home town because he or she has to travel to a distant court.
  Mr. Eric Pickles: The hon. Gentleman has quoted a suggestion from those who seek to close courts. A spokesman has said on BBC Radio Essex that the majority of those who appear before magistrates plead guilty. Surely that strikes at the
  686
  argument of those who want to close those courts. People are entitled to justice within their locality and to be judged by those who know that locality.
  Mr. Russell: I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
  Evidence suggests that some people are pleading guilty, by default, because it is a cheaper option than pleading their innocence at a faraway court. I do not believe that anyone would want to support such a system of justice.
  Mr. Jenkin: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for inviting fellow Essex Members to take part in the debate and I associate myself with much of what he has said. In particular, removing the means of justice from the local community hardly seems to be in keeping with the message that everyone in the House wants to send to local communities about justice being at the heart of each of our communities.
  The closure of such courts will not lead to super-enhanced services and better courts in the localities where they will remain. We will be left with the same courts, but they will be faced with additional strain and inadequate facilities. That can lead only to further congestion and delay in the process of justice. Although we have sympathy with the magistrates courts committee trying to live within its means, I put it to the Minister that that will hardly enhance the objective on law and order.
  Mr. Russell: I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
  We are witnessing production-line justice, which is not in keeping with what we would all like to see. The court closures will greatly inconvenience the victims of crime, and witnesses who are required to attend court. Such closures will destroy the concept of local justice according to which local magistrates make decisions on local cases.
  Will the Minister make the quangos take proper account of public opinion? It is not good enough for one part of government to try to save money when, as a consequence, the police and society will end up worse off financially. The chief constable has said that the police service in Essex will be poorer because of the closures, and he knows his patch better than anyone in the House.
  For the sake of Essex and all the other localities about which we are now hearing, I urge the Minister to rethink seriously whether it is in the interests of the Government's policies on crime, traffic reduction and overall spending to cut magistrates courts committees' funding so that they, in turn, reduce the number of courts in each locality. In the fulness of time, we in Essex will be left with five super-courts and a pick-and-mix magistrates bench. I urge the Minister to reconsider the whole concept of the systematic dismantling of the magistrates courts in this country.
  10.54 pm
  Mr. Alan Hurst: I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) for raising this topic, which is one of general concern in the county of Essex. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention and that of the House to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests as partner in a firm of solicitors.
  I have recently met my hon. Friend the Minister, by way of leading a delegation to discuss with him the closure of Braintree magistrates court, and he will

  687
  remember the local feeling expressed on that occasion. The delegation included the leader of Braintree district council, which is unanimously opposed to the closure of the local court. More significantly, the leader of Witham town council, which would be the recipient town were Braintree magistrates court to close, also endorses the opposition to the closure. The reason for that is that towns need local justice, as the hon. Member for Colchester said.
  The other member of the delegation was the chief constable of Essex who, as I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister recalls, expressed strong objection to the closure, not only of Braintree magistrates court but of courts in Clacton and Saffron Walden.
  Angela Smith: I wish to raise a matter connected with Clacton magistrates court, but first I should declare that my husband is a magistrate in Essex. Is my hon. Friend aware that there was a proposal in 1995 to refurbish Clacton court, which was turned down by the previous Government? Does he agree that it would be better to have refurbished the court then than to see it close now?
  Mr. Hurst: I am grateful for that information, of which I was not aware. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's remarks.
  The chief constable of Essex was strongly of the view that any saving achieved in the magistrates service would pass the burden to the police, and the point was endorsed by the leader of Braintree district council. Consequent on the closure of Braintree county court, cases for possession and other district council cases are being heard in the magistrates court building. Were that to close, the estimated cost to the district council of moving on to Witham or Colchester would be about £12,000, which almost matches the anticipated savings of £14,000 from the closure of Braintree courthouse.
  In closing, I am pleased to note that Essex county council has lodged an appeal and I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider that appeal sympathetically in due course. I urge him to seek to maintain local justice and civic pride and to save public money.
  10.57 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): This is an important topic and I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the debate. I am sure that all those hon. Members present are delighted that the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) has initiated tonight's debate. The considerable interest that hon. Members have shown illustrates the importance of magistrates courts, their courthouses and the organisation of magistrates courts committees, as was indicated recently when I set out the Government's policy in that respect.
  It is necessary at the outset to remind the hon. Member for Colchester that the Essex magistrates courts committee, in common with every other magistrates courts committee in the country, is solely responsible for the effective and efficient administration of the magistrates courts in its area. It is for magistrates courts committees, in consultation with the relevant paying authority—in this case, Essex county council—to determine how many courthouses and what other
  688
  accommodation is needed locally. That is why it is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that there is anything systematic about court closures or that there is a policy in the Treasury or anywhere else to call for closures. This is a matter solely within the responsibility of local magistrates courts committees. Clearly, when resources are tight, it is the responsibility of the local committee to manage within available resources.
  Whether a court should close is in the first instance a matter for the local magistrates courts committee—it is a local decision based on the committee's estimate of the needs of the local community. The only role that the Lord Chancellor has in these matters is to determine an appeal in the event that one is made. That is the limit of his jurisdiction.
  Sir Robert Smith: Surely the Government's other role is in deciding on the available resources. As my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) has already said, the savings that the Government have got from the magistrates courts are being wasted in the policing budget. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should be looking at a more global accounting system.
  Mr. Hoon: I intend to deal with resources in due course. The hon. Member for Colchester said that the removal of a magistrates court from any town also removed the concept of local justice. I invite him to think again about such an extravagant statement. Many towns across England and Wales have not had these courts for a very long time now; even in Essex, a number of towns have not had magistrates courts for some time. It is necessary for the local magistrates courts committee to make judgments about where best to locate its courthouses. Only in the event of that decision being challenged by the paying authority—Essex county council or any other paying authority—does the matter become the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor.
  Essex magistrates courts committee made a formal determination to close Braintree, Clacton and Saffron Walden magistrates courts from 1 April 1998. There has been a lengthy debate this evening on why they should remain open. The paying authority has appealed to the Lord Chancellor against the closures, and those appeals have yet to be determined. That is why at this stage I cannot comment on the merits or otherwise of closing the courts.
  I can, however, explain the procedures in place for each appeal. Each appeal against the decision of a magistrates courts committee to close a magistrates court is dealt with entirely on its own merits. I hope therefore to be able to give hon. Members a reasonable idea of some of the considerations that will ultimately be taken into account in determining these questions. They are the provision in the courts of modern facilities, such as facilities for the disabled; security arrangements for violent offenders; and separate waiting areas for defendants and witnesses.
  The Government are particularly concerned to ensure the provision of courtrooms best suited to enable cases to be listed in a manner that will achieve the Government's aim of reducing delay in the criminal justice system. We also take account of the need for any renovations to bring the courthouse in question up to a modern standard. We are also aware of the distance people have to travel, of the cost of that travel, and of the time taken to complete the return journey.

  689
  The Government are committed, however, to the better distribution and use of the considerable public resources that are allocated to magistrates courts committees as an integral part of the process of delivering justice. We want to provide a modern system of justice with well-equipped and secure courtrooms, to reduce delay in the time taken for cases to proceed through those courts, and thus to honour our manifesto commitments. Moreover, we are committed to remaining within the spending ceilings that we have inherited for the next two years, so I am unable to say that there will be any more money for the delivery of justice.
  The real answer to the point about resources is that resources for the criminal justice system and legal aid inevitably have to compete with resources for education, the health service and other areas of Government spending that attract public support more readily. That is why the Government are committed to radical reform in the delivery of legal aid—to ensure that the Department that I represent can confidently compete for scarce taxpayers' money when the Government determine their spending priorities. Obviously, however, there may well be scope for drawing more value from what is, overall, a very large budget. The existence of a large number of small courts with inadequate facilities and limited potential to reallocate work and speed through decisions is hardly the efficient and forward-looking picture that any Government would like to see.
  I remind hon. Members that there has been an extensive formal consultation process, carried out by Essex magistrates courts committee, which chose to consult more widely than the relevant statute requires.
  Mr. Bob Russell: They ignored everyone.
  Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman's definition of "consult" is obviously different from the one that I am used to. To consult does not necessarily mean to agree with all the arguments advanced. Consultation means giving people the opportunity to advance arguments; whether those arguments are accepted is a matter for the authority consulting.
  Essex magistrates courts committee invited comments on its proposals to close the three courthouses from all the local Members of Parliament, from the district councils and from the benches concerned, in addition to carrying out its formal statutory consultation, as legally required, with Essex county council. I understand that
  690
  before that consultation took place the Essex magistrates courts committee considered how to make the best use of its accommodation, by assessing how many courtrooms it needed to meet its workload requirements. Apparently, the committee concluded that it has more courtrooms than it needs.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) said, I had the considerable advantage of meeting him and my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Henderson) during a recent visit to the Essex magistrates courts committee. In addition, I have received a deputation with the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir A. Haselhurst). Each of those hon. Members advanced powerful arguments in defence of their local courts. Indeed, I was most impressed by the representations that I received during my visit to Essex. No Member of Parliament could do more to set out effectively the interests of their constituents.
  In addition, I have received numerous letters from all parties interested in the future of these courthouses, setting out the difficulties that the proposed closures might cause. I must reassure the House that all those representations will be fully taken into account before a final decision is taken, and each appeal will be considered separately and on its merits.
  Undoubtedly, one of the factors that will weigh heavily in the minds of those taking the decision is that work load is not the only factor to be taken into account. We must take into account the cost of running and maintaining the court, the standard of the accommodation, the length of any lease and the ability to renew it and the issue of rehousing. However, the costs and practical implications of running any court must be measured against the role that the court plays in providing a service to the public, and the effect and implications of providing an alternative for current users.
  Leaving aside the very considerable costs of legal aid, the work of this country's principal courts and tribunals cost the taxpayer almost £800 million last year. It is our duty to ensure that money is well spent and well accounted for.
  I should emphasise that the Government are especially anxious to reduce delays. That is one of our key manifesto pledges. It is important that courthouses are located and suited to enable cases to be listed in a way that helps to achieve our aim of reducing delays in the criminal justice system.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Eleven o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Yemen
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister what progress was made at the Commonwealth Conference on Yemen's application to join the Commonwealth; and when he estimates that Yemen will join the Commonwealth. [14985]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement that I made to the House on 28 October,Official Report, column 714.

  Former Prime Ministers (Private Offices)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the annual cost to public funds of maintaining the private offices of former Prime Ministers. [14986]

  The Prime Minister
  All former Prime Ministers are eligible to receive an allowance to assist them with the continuing heavy burden of office and secretarial costs arising from their special position in public life. The allowance is similar in purpose and amount to the parliamentary office costs allowance, but is paid in respect of public not parliamentary duties.

  The maximum amount of the allowance available to former Prime Ministers during the current financial year is £47,568 plus £4,757 for contributions to pension schemes of members of staff whose salaries are paid from the allowance.

  I do not think it right to disclose the amounts of this allowance claimed by individual former Prime Ministers, any more than the House discloses details of claims by Members under the office costs allowance.

  European Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Ministers if he will ensure that Ministers make available to Parliament details of United Kingdom proposals for European Council meeting discussion in advance of council meetings held under the British presidency. [14710]

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. and hon. Friends will keep the House properly informed of their activities during the UK's presidency. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will shortly be giving evidence before the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on the UK's priorities and objectives for the presidency.

  Focus Groups
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Prime Minister what use he makes of information from focus groups. [14835]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government, like their predecessor, monitor public opinion in a number of ways.
  386
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the organisations or persons who supply him with information collated from focus groups. [14836]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government monitor public opinion in a number of ways, using a number of different organisations.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Prime Minister when he will reply to the letters dated 12 June, 12 August and 20 October from Mr. Nicholas Bennett concerning a Labour member of Reading Borough Council and Berkshire County Council; and if he will publish his reply in the Official Report. [14749]

  The Prime Minister
  My office have replied.

TREASURY

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had or plans to have with his EU counterparts on the problems facing computer systems through the century date change; and if he will make a statement. [13153]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Chancellor has had no contacts with his EU colleagues directly about the problems facing computer systems thanks to the century date change.

  Government Expenditure
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate in cash terms in 1995–96 prices the reduction in central Government expenditure for 1997–98 and 1998–99 between the assumptions made in(a) the November 1996 Budget, (b) the July 1997 Budget and (c) the most recent assumption. [13190]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 30 October 1997]: The provision made in the last two Budgets for Central Government within the Control Total programmes in 1997–98 and 1998–99 in cash and in 1995–96 prices are set out below:

  £ billions

  1996 FSBR

  1997 FSBR

  1995–96

  1995–96

  Cash terms

  prices

  Cash terms

  prices

  1997–98

  187·2

  179·0

  187·4

  177·5

  1998–99

  191·4

  179·5

  192·6

  177·5

  The Government have not revised their economic assumptions since the July 1997 Budget.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of general Government expenditure in cash terms for(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99, using (i) current estimates, (ii) the estimates at the time of the July 1997 Budget and (ii) the estimates at the time of the November 1996 Budget. [13644]
  387
  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 5 November 1997]: The Government's estimates in cash terms of general government expenditure for 1997–98 and 1998–99 are set out in the table below:

  Budget

  £ billion

  1997–98

  1998–99

  July 1997

  319

  331

  November 1996

  319

  327

  The July 1997 figures are the current estimates for general government expenditure.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is his estimate for the number of people who would cease to pay income tax if the personal income tax allowance were raised to £10,000 per annum; [13247]

  (2) what is his estimate of the cost of raising the personal income tax allowance to £10,000 per annum. [13248]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 5 November 1997]: The estimated cost at 1997–98 income levels of increasing both the non-aged personal allowance and the aged personal allowance to £10,000 is £29 billion. This would take 9.8 million taxpayers out of income tax.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is the policy of the Government to adhere to the existing control total for public expenditure for 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [13287]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 6 November 1997]: The Government are firmly committed to the Control Total for 1998–99.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Visas (Correspondence)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what, at 1 October, was the average time it took for the migration and visas correspondence unit to deal with an hon. Member's inquiry; and how many outstanding cases there were on 1 October. [14222]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer my hon. Friend to the replies that I gave to him on 4 November,Official Report, columns 166–67, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) on 3 November, Official Report, column 11.

  Iraq
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the United Nations Security Council Presidential Statement of 29 October on Iraq. [14711]
  388
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  A copy of the United Nations Security Council Presidential Statement on 29 October on Iraq has been placed in the libraries of the House.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library copies of the five most recent reports to the United Nations Security Council of the UNISCOM inspection and verification mission in Iraq. [14713]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  A copy of the five most recent reports submitted by the Executive Chairman of the UN Special Commission to the UN has been placed in the libraries of the House.

  Bananas
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the Government have to encourage(a) the World Trade Organisation members and (b) EU members states to accommodate the interests of the ACP banana producers and facilitate the diversification of their economies; over what time scale; and if he will make a statement. [14997]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We are working actively on the implication of the WTO findings on the EC banana regime. We are in close touch with the Commission in Brussels, which has responsibility for devising a WTO compatible response on behalf of the Community. They will be discussing the implications with our traditional banana suppliers and other interested parties such as the US. At the CHOGM in Edinburgh last month, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear to Caribbean leaders that the UK will play a major role in devising new banana import arrangements. We want to ensure Commonwealth and other ACP banana producers have continuing access to the EU banana market. New arrangements are likely to come into effect in early 1999.

  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what transitional arrangements the Government plan to make to reduce the impact of the recent World Trade Organisation ruling on Commonwealth banana producers; and if he will make a
  statement. [14996]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  In the Edinburgh Economic Declaration agreed at CHOGM last month, Heads of Government resolved to encourage the EU and WTO members to accommodate the legitimate interests of the ACP banana producers and facilitate the diversification of their economies. The UK has for a number of years been promoting good commercial practice and competitiveness among those Commonwealth banana producers likely to be most affected by the WTO ruling, principally the Windward Islands. The UK-funded Cargill report outlined the steps necessary to restructure and modernise their banana industries and was agreed with the Windwards Governments in 1995. Caribbean Governments also receive large allocations of EC aid to improve competitiveness, assist economic diversification and develop social safety nets.

  We are also liaising with the Commission in Brussels, which has the principal responsibility for the Community's response to the WTO ruling. As leading advocates of Caribbean interests we want to ensure the

  389
  new regime is both WTO compatible and meets our obligations to our traditional banana suppliers in the Caribbean.

  EU Presidency
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the statements he has made outside Parliament on the proposed priorities for the United Kingdom presidency of the European Union since 1 May; and if he will place copies of each in the Library.
  [14719]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  On 3 November, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Institute for European Affairs in Dublin about the Government's priorities for the UK's forthcoming Presidency of the European Union. A copy has been placed in the libraries of the House. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary looks forward to giving evidence on this same subject to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on 1 December—in advance of which he will be submitting a Memorandum-and to the House's debate on European Affairs later that month which may also choose to cover the subject.

  Kenya
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 29 October,Official Report, column 824, on human rights in Kenya, what action he plans to take to follow up his meeting with the Kenyan Foreign Minister. [15021]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We shall maintain a vigorous dialogue with the Kenyan Government on human rights issues through our High Commissioner in Nairobi and at Ministerial level when the occasion arises.

  Chechnya
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the actions taken by his Department to obtain the release of Camilla Carr and Jon James, presently held by kidnappers in Chechnya. [14800]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Since 3 July, when Jon James and Camilla Can were kidnapped, their employers and we have sought to establish the facts and are working hard for their release. As their families know, the Prime Minister spoke to President Yeltsin about the couple last month. We are also in touch with the Chechen authorities, but the ability of the Russian or, indeed, any government to help in this troubled region is limited. There has been a spate of kidnappings in and around Chechnya in recent months, which may be criminally inspired: one reason why our strong consular advice is that British citizens should not travel to Chechnya.

  Algeria
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department will take steps to persuade the Government of Algeria to allow an investigation of events in their country by the United Nations rapporteur on extrajudicial summary and arbitrary executions. [14765]
  390
  Mr. Fatchett
  While a solution to the serious problems in Algeria must come from the Algerians themselves, we condemn unreservedly the violence which has prevailed there. In our regular contact with the Algeria authorities, we encourage Algeria's democratisation process. As part of our discussions, we have encouraged them to accept the proposed visit by the United Nations Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Summary and Arbitrary Executions and will continue to do so.

  European Courts
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what challenges the United Kingdom Government have made to other member states' nominations to judicial positions within(a) the European Court of Justice and (b) the European Court of Human Rights in the last five years. [15023]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  (a) None. Judicial appointments to the European Court of Justice are made by common accord of the governments of the Member States.

  (b) Judges are elected to the European Court of Human Rights by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. We have not previously challenged judicial nominations, nor is there any formal procedure for doing so. An informal procedure has now been agreed, at our suggestion, for the examination of prospective candidatures for the new Protocol 11 Court of Human Rights.

  Bosnia
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions the Government propose to take to effect the arrest of war criminals in Bosnia before the withdrawal of IFOR. [14768]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We demand that the responsible authorities surrender indictees to The Hague. We are not prepared to speculate on possible alternative action.

  GCHQ
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to announce a decision on the possible relocation of GCHQ facilities; and if he will make a statement. [14905]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The invitation to tender for GCHQ's accommodation Private Finance Initiative (PFI) project has been issued to four private sector consortia. The tender responses are expected in Spring 1998 and will be subject to a process of detailed evaluation and post-tender negotiations. The complexities of this process make it difficult to predict when an announcement will be made relating to the possible relocation of GCHQ facilities, but it is not expected that it will be before summer 1998.

  International Criminal Court
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the proceedings at the Preparatory Committee for the International Criminal Court held in August indicating the issues remaining to be decided at the Plenary Conference in 1998. [14769]
  391
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The August 1997 session of the Preparatory Committee considered mechanisms for triggering action by the Court, the Court's procedures, and the relationship between the Court and national criminal justice systems. Progress was made towards producing an agreed text on all these issues and in particular on the last. Further discussion will be possible at the two remaining sessions of the Preparatory Committee, but many matters will be left for decision at the Diplomatic Conference next year.

  Refugees and Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the concept of burden sharing in relation to refugees and asylum seekers as introduced by the Amsterdam treaty. [14746]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Under Article 73k(2)(b) of the Treaty establishing the European Community as introduced by the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Council is to adopt measures promoting a balance of effort between Member States in receiving and bearing the consequences of receiving refugees and displaced persons. Decisions will be by unanimity. These measures will not be binding on the UK unless it opts in to them.

  EU Legislation (Gibraltar)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all EU legislation agreed within the last 15 years as a result of Her Majesty's Government agreeing to Spanish requests to exclude Gibraltar. [14676]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This information is not readily available. But the main legislative items falling within the category to which my hon. Friend refers are five EC Measures relating to the Single Market in aviation, which have been agreed by the EU since 1987 subject to the suspension of their application to Gibraltar airport.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all current EU proposals that are blocked because of Spanish insistence that Gibraltar be excluded. [14671]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The main recent items on which no agreement has been reached are the draft External Frontiers Convention, the draft Winding-Up Directive and the draft Airport Statistics Regulation.

  EU (Police and Judiciary)
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what provisions of the Amsterdam treaty apply to the operations of police and judicial authorities from one member state in the territory of another; and if he will make a statement. [14743]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  New Article K.4 of the Treaty on European Union, as introduced by the Treaty of Amsterdam, provides that the Council shall lay down the conditions and limitations under which the competent authorities referred to in Articles K.2 and K.3 may operate in the territory of another Member State in liaison and in agreement with the authorities of that state. By virtue of Article K.6, the Council must act by unanimity.

  EU Territory
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the territorial definition of the European Union. [14750]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  As the European Union is not a State it has, itself, no territory, as distinct from the Member States.

  EU Commissioners
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the President of the European Commission is required, under the Amsterdam treaty, to give reasons for rejecting the nomination for Commissioner of any member state; and if he will make a statement. [14745]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  There is no such requirement under the Treaty of Amsterdam. Article 158(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam provides for future members of the European Commission to be nominated by the Governments of the member states "by common accord" with the nominee for President. This will inevitably entail dialogue between the nominee for President and the Governments of the member states.

  Amsterdam Treaty (Visas)
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if decisions on the issuing procedures in respect of short-term visas will be made by co-decision under the treaty of Amsterdam; and if he will make a statement; [14744]

  (2) if proposals to tighten the procedures for issuing visas would be subject to a veto in the European Parliament under the Amsterdam treaty. [14747]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Under new Articles 73j(2)(b)(ii) and 730 of the treaty establishing the European Community as introduced by the Treaty of Amsterdam, for a period of five years after the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam the Council is to adopt measures, by unanimity, having consulted the European Parliament on the crossing of external borders. This will include procedures and conditions for issuing visas by Member States for intended stays of no more than three months. After a period of five years after the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, such measures are to be adopted by the council in accordance with the codecision procedure. Such measures will not be binding on the UK unless it opts in to them.

  BBC World
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the total receipts, and for how many programmes or hours of television broadcasting, that the BBC World Service received from BBC World in each year since BBC World's inception. [14740]
  393
  Mr. Fatchett
  The following sums were paid by BBC Worldwide (the BBC's commercial arm) to the World Service to fund the cost of provision of news output for BBC World:

  Financial year

  Payment£

  World Service Output (hours per day)

  1991–92

  6,089,979

  12

  1992–93

  7,133,000

  12

  1993–94

  9,130,000

  12

  1994–95

  15,646,715

  115

  1995–96

  210,704,074

  15

  1996–97

  10,650,000

  15

  1Average.

  2The annual payment was reduced from 1995–96 onwards when BBC Worldwide took on the provision of the technical resource requirements (studios etc) for BBC World news directly: previously the cost of these had been reflected in the sums paid to the World Service.

WALES

  Bathing Beaches
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many beaches in Wales currently have been designated Blue Flag beaches; and if he will make a statement. [14091]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Nine Welsh beaches are currently in receipt of the prestigious Blue Flag awards. This is more than twice as many as Wales has received before. As part of the Green Sea Initiative there is a target of achieving 50 Blue Flags in Wales by the year 2000.

  Health Care Providers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, by health care provider, for each of the last four years, the number of contracts each health authority had in place, indicating how many of these had been referred for arbitration within the NHS region; and how many were left unsigned by(a) the provider and (b) the purchaser at the end of the year to which they applied, and, for 1997–98, by the end of October 1997. [14610]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Information on the number of contracts between health authorities and trusts or on their status is not held centrally.

  During the period 1 April 1993 to 30 March 1997 only one contract between a Welsh Health Authority and NHS trust went to arbitration. None are expected to go to arbitration in 1997–98.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Charles Haughey
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps her Department is taking to investigate the propriety of the payment made by Dunnes Stores, Bangor, through the late John Furze, to the former Taoiseach Charles Haughey; and if she will provide evidence to the tribunal of inquiry investigating such payments. [13022]
  394
  Mr. Ingram
  The circumstances surrounding various payments allegedly made to Mr. Charles Haughey are at the centre of investigations being conducted by a Tribunal of Inquiry in the Republic of Ireland. No similar or other investigations have been instituted in Northern Ireland, neither has there been received any request for assistance to that Tribunal of Inquiry.

  Environmental Protection Agency
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken to establish an independent Environmental Protection Agency in Northern Ireland. [14074]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  No steps have been taken to establish an Environmental Protection Agency in Northern Ireland.

  The Environmental and Heritage Service, a Next Steps Agency within the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland was set up on 1 April 1996 to assume operational responsibility for environmental issues.

  Electricity Prices
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the progress of discussions about the level of electricity prices in Northern Ireland.[14283]

  Mr. Ingram
  Electricity prices are coming down. Northern Ireland Electricity reduced tariffs form 1 April 1997 by an average 8 per cent. for domestic and up to 3 per cent. for industrial and commercial customers. The MMC review of NIE's price controls will have retrospective effect from 1 April 1997 and will lead to further tariff reductions of at least 6 per cent. for domestic and 2 per cent. for industrial and commercial customers. The precise details of the revised price controls are currently the subject of legal action. In addition, the Director General of Electricity Supply has secured voluntary agreements on lower generation costs at both Coolkeeragh and Belfast West power stations. He has announced his intention to refer the Ballylumford and Kilroot contracts to the MMC and, in the absence of voluntary agreement on these contracts, is likely to do so very shortly.

  The Government are discussing with the Director General and NIE how best to use the £45 million balance of the £60 million support package for the future benefit of all electricity consumers.

  Stormont
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to(a) remove and (b) relocate (i) statues and (ii) memorials in Parliament Buildings, Stormont. [14052]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Some items were removed from Parliament Buildings during refurbishment to a secure store for their protection. Consideration will be given to the appropriate relocation of these items in due course.

  Telecommunication Masts
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will commission research into potential harmful effects of microwave radiation emitted from telecommunication masts. [14053]

  Mr. Worthington
  No. The National Radiological Protection Board advises Government on the risks to health of exposure to electromagnetic fields. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 3 November,Official Report, column 7, which details research in this area.

  Delegated Legislation
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list all(a) secondary, (b) other delegated legislation and (c) all deregulation orders her Department made during the summer adjournment. [14386]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 5 November,Official Report, column 216, by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Cattle
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the numbers of cows(a) exported from Northern Ireland (b) slaughtered in Northern Ireland and sold for human consumption and (c) slaughtered and incinerated in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years and in the current year to date. [14051]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information requested is as follows:

  A. Export1 of cows from Northern Ireland

  Number

  1992

  456

  1993

  68

  1994

  112

  1995

  222

  1996

  25,261

  1997 (to date)

  25,295

  1Includes exports to GB

  2Animals exported to GB for cull under the Over Thirty Months Scheme.

  B. Cows slaughtered in Northern Ireland and sold for human consumption

  Number

  1992

  64,116

  1993

  60,686

  1994

  66,206

  1995

  69,523

  1996

  16,774

  1997 (to date)

  1193

  1From 29 March no animals over 30 months of age were slaughtered and used for human consumption on /SEAC advice. The 1997 figure represents animals which calved and were later slaughtered before reaching 30 months of age.

  C. Cows slaughtered and incinerated1 in Northern Ireland

  Number

  1992

  392

  396

  C. Cows slaughtered and incinerated1 in Northern Ireland

  Number

  1993

  587

  1994

  456

  1995

  222

  1996

  127

  1997 (to date)

  42

  1Totals include heifers.

  For sake of completeness, the number of cows slaughtered and their carcasses rendered (but not yet incinerated) under the Over-Thirty-Months' Scheme:

  Number

  1996

  86,381

  1997 (to date)

  66,827

  Monitor Consultancy
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of Stare for Northern Ireland if she will list(a) the nature and value of contracts her Department has entered into and (b) discussions ministers or officials have held with the Monitor Consultancy since 1990. [14948]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 7 November 1997]: The Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments have had no contract with Monitor Consultancy.

  Beef Cattle
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has for the introduction of a beef cattle subsidy to be paid at slaughter. [14772]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 7 November 1997]: A beef deseasonalisation premium will be paid in Northern Ireland in 1998, as in 1997, on eligible steer cattle which are slaughtered between 1 January and 10 June 1998.

  Mr. Andy Wood
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions she had with the Minister without Portfolio(a) in respect of her Office's information officer Mr. Andy Wood before he was replaced at his post and (b) in respect of identifying his replacement; and if she will make a statement. [14524]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Before asking for Mr. Wood to be removed from the post of Director of the Northern Ireland Information Service I did not discuss his removal with my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio. After Mr. Wood's removal, my right hon. Friend was one of a number of colleagues that I consulted about Mr. Wood's replacement.

  On foot of those consultations I put in hand a review of the structures and working practices of the Northern Ireland Information Service. I have just received the report of that review, one consequence of which is that the Northern Ireland Office will shortly be advertising an open competition of the post of Director of the Northern Ireland Information Service.

SCOTLAND

  Student Awards Agency
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set up an inquiry into the administration of the Student Awards Agency for Scotland. [14292]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Student Awards Agency for Scotland to provide a full report on the difficulties encountered by the Agency in processing student award applications timeously this year so that we can determine what measures need to be implemented to prevent a recurrence.

  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what factors underlie the delays in the payment of grants by the Student Awards Agency for the current academic year; and what steps he is taking to address the problem. [14291]

  Mr. Wilson
  A number of factors have combined to affect adversely the ability of the Student Awards Agency for Scotland to process awards within its normal timescale in the current academic year. Most of these flow from the introduction of a new awards processing system in April of this year. There were a larger number of initial problems encountered than had been anticipated and these, together with delays in converting data from the previous system, unfamiliarity with the new system, and the need to enter large volumes of 'standing' data in its first year of operation, resulted in a backlog of applications building up. The profile of receipt of applications is heavily concentrated into the months from May to September and it is extremely difficult for the Agency to recover from a backlog once one has developed. The new awards system has, however, performed well after the initial problems were overcome. It has proved resilient under intensive use and significant improvements in efficiency are expected to be realised in future years.

  Scottish higher and further education institutions were provided with an advance of their block grant in recognition of the fact that their income from tuition fees in October would be less than they had reason to expect. This was also designed to enable institutions to offer short term assistance to those students in financial difficulties because of delays in receiving their grant cheques, and was in addition to the Access Funds which are normally used for this purpose. Meanwhile, the Agency was set a demanding target to clear the vast majority of the backlog by the end of October, which has largely been achieved. It is expected to be up to date with processing applications by the end of November.

  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications for grants by students from Scotland to study at Scottish universities and colleges for the Session 1997–98 were received by the Student Awards Agency for Scotland(a) before the normal closing date and (b) after it; how many were processed and paid (i) by the beginning of the student term, (ii) by four weeks after the beginning of the term and (iii) at the latest count; and how many remain unpaid. [14293]

  Mr. Wilson
  The closing date for the receipt of undergraduate applications by the Student Awards Agency for Scotland in academic year 1997–98 is 31 January 1998 and it is not therefore a factor in the present 398
  situation. Students continuing a period of full-time education were, however, advised to apply by 15 May 1997 in order to ensure that any grant payable would be available at the start of the first term. New students are encouraged to apply as soon as they receive an unconditional offer of a place on a course.

  Of the 71,436 applications received from continuing students up to 3 November 1997, 20,656 were received by 15 May. At the same date 40,434 applications had been received from new students. Applications are not attributed to a specific course at the point of receipt and term dates vary between institutions. The best estimate is that about 27,750 applications had been received four or more weeks before the start of the term, which is the normal period allowed for processing fully completed applications.

  As at 3 November, 42,884 awards had been processed in sufficient time to allow any payment to be made at the beginning of the students' terms and a further 22,721 had been processed in time to allow any payment to be made by 4 weeks after the beginning of the term. A total of 90,217 applications had been processed and 28,927 had yet to be processed; many of the latter are likely to be "fees only" cases with no payment due to the student.

  These figures cover all Scottish domiciled students eligible for support under the Students' Allowances Scheme and the Student Nursing and Midwifery Bursary Scheme rather than only those attending Scottish institutions. Detailed figures split by institutional location are not readily available.

  EU Students (Tuition Fees)
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements he proposes to put in place to discover the incomes of the parents of EU students at Scottish universities so that they can be assessed for the students' contribution to their tuition fees. [14294]

  Mr. Wilson
  The student award application forms already have facilities for the collection of information on parental, spouse and student income, as required, and these will in future be used to collect the necessary information from EU students.

  We are currently considering the nature of the documentation which will be required to support the information provided, and the most appropriate means of dealing with currency differences, to enable EU students' contributions to tuition costs to be assessed on the same basis as those of Scottish domiciled students. Detailed guidance on how this will work in practice will be available early in 1998.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what criteria he plans to use in determining whether to suspend or revoke an authorisation issued under the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997; and if he will make a statement. [13914]
  399
  Mr. Morley
  A transporter can be removed from operating under a General Authorisation or a Specific Authorisation can be revoked or suspended in the event of repeated infringements against the Order or any one infringement which involves serious suffering to animals. These sanctions apply whether or not the infringement leads to a criminal conviction.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in how many cases he is currently considering suspension or revocation of an authorisation issued under the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997; and if he will make a statement. [13915]

  Mr. Morley
  The Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997 came into force on 1 July this year, with the Specific Authorisation Scheme operational from 1 October. We have not yet had cause to revoke or suspend any authorisations, but we have made it clear we will not hesitate to use these powers wherever appropriate.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to alter the minimum values system under which horses, donkeys and ponies are prevented from being sent for slaughter abroad; and if he will make a statement. [13916]

  Mr. Morley
  I have no plans to alter the legislation which requires a minimum valuation to be provided for specified categories of equines before a welfare export licence is issued.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure that exported animals receive(a) a mid-journey break and (b) a 24-hour break once they have left the UK when such breaks are required by directive 95/29/EC; and if he will make a statement. [13920]

  Mr. Morley
  Enforcement of the rest period requirements of EU Directive 95/29 is the responsibility of the authorities of the member state in which a rest is required to take place. For their part, the Government ensure that exporters plan journeys in accordance with the EU rules, making such arrangements for rest periods as are required. We will not hesitate to use the sanctions provided by the Directive against transporters who are shown to have made false declarations about the journeys they have undertaken.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the costs to his Department of monitoring and enforcing the terms of the common agricultural policy. [14429]

  Mr. Rooker
  Separate figures for the costs of monitoring and enforcing the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) are not available. Such costs form part of the overall administration costs of seeking to implement CAP obligations efficiently. These costs are set out in the Departmental Report 1997 (CM3604) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Intervention Board.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Human Rights
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the President of the Council what her timetable will be for establishing a Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights. [14759]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  The Government intend to take into account what is said during the passage of the Human Rights Bill before deciding what form of parliamentary committee and terms of reference to recommend.

  Mail Services
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what was the amount of money paid to the management consultants for their study and advice on trying to improve the flow of mail(a) internally and (b) through the Royal Mail to hon. Members. [15075]

  Mrs. Roe
  The consultancy was let following a competitive tender. The cost is commercially confidential.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what problems have been identified in the delivery of internal and external mail to, and within, the Palace of Westminster since the recent changes; and if she will make a statement on measures that will be taken to improve the system. [15074]

  Mrs. Roe
  At its meeting on 4 November the Administration Committee raised with the Serjeant at Arms certain problems with the new postal arrangements that had been brought to its attention by hon. Members. It was agreed that there had been some initial difficulties, but my Committee does support the new initiative, and considers that once the identified problems are remedied a more efficient service should result. It was reported to the Committee that there had been some industrial action by Royal Mail staff in Essex, and this may well have affected deliveries adversely in my hon. Friend's and other hon. Members' constituencies in this region.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what was the total cost of implementing the recent changes to the internal and external mail systems in the Palace of Westminster. [15076]

  Mrs. Roe
  The total works and equipment costs to date borne by the House Authorities are £45,096 excluding VAT. Costs borne by Royal Mail are not available.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what plans the Committee has to seek an assessment of the changes to the mail system made by the Department of the Serjeant at Arms; and if she will make a statement. [15077]

  Mrs. Roe
  A review of the changes will be carried out once the new system has been successfully settled in, and the result will be reported to the Committee for its consideration.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Hawk Aircraft (Indonesia)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will state the value of the export credits extended as part of the 1996 deal to supply Hawk aircraft to Indonesia,(a) in absolute terms and (b) as a percentage of the value of the arms deal with Indonesia. [12584]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The ECGD loan in support of the supply of Hawk aircraft amounted to £280 million. ECGD's support for this transaction amounted to 87 per cent. of the total support it provided for defence business with Indonesia in 1995–96.

  Delegated Legislation
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list all(a) secondary, (b) other delegated legislation and (c) all deregulation orders her Department made during the summer adjournment. [14388]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on 3 November,Official Report, columns 43–44, and also to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 5 November, Official Report column 216.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the average time taken by her Department to give full answers to letters received from hon. Members. [13960]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 4 November 1997]: My Department has a target of answering 90 per cent. of correspondence from hon. Members within 10 working days. In addition I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 3 November 1997, Official Report, column 5. Figures for handling DTI correspondence will be published in due course.

  India
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which representatives of British industry are to accompany her on her forthcoming tour of India. [14691]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I will be accompanied by a delegation drawn from the consultancy, infrastructure, power, oil and gas, Scotch Whisky, financial, insurance and education and training sectors.

  Cabinet 2000
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what response she has made to the proposal of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux for a public-private partnership to support its Cabinet 2000 project; and if she will make a statement. [14475]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  NACAB has put proposals to the DTI for additional funding as part of the grant-in-aid we provide each year to finance part of the Cabinet 2000 project. It is itself seeking separate funding from the corporate sector, from its member bureaux and from other 402
  potential sponsors such as the National Lotteries Charities Board. The bid for additional funds from my Department is being considered as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Holocaust (Confiscated Funds)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects the work identifying confiscated funds deposited by victims of the holocaust to be completed; and if she will make a statement. [14485]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  I have announced, 31 July,Official Report, column 641, that the Government have set in train a research project to examine papers relevant to the Trading with the Enemy legislation under which the property of residents of enemy countries was confiscated during the Second World War. The project, which has been co-ordinated by the FCO in close partnership with the DTI is making good progress, but is not yet complete. As previously announced, a report of the findings will be published as soon as possible.

  River Wear (Quays)
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many deep water quays on the River Wear are currently leased to(a) NESL/British Shipbuilders and (b) Tyne and Wear Development corporation; what is the present state of repair of each quay; what is the remaining term of each lease; and if she will make a statement. [14682]

  Mr. Battle
  This Department does not lease any land or quays to either British Shipbuilders or the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation.

  Tax Advice
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the policy of her Department on the purchase of tax avoidance advice; and if she will make a statement. [13264]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 5 November 1997]: The Department has sought external advice on tax matters in order properly to carry out its role (e.g. in relation to privatisation) but not for tax avoidance purposes.

  Lookalike Products
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs will meet the British Brands Group to discuss lookalike products. [14618]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 6 November 1997]: The British Brands Group has made its views clear to me in writing on the question of lookalike products. I have no plans to meet representatives of the group at this time.

  Cable Television (West Midlands)
  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list those towns in the west midlands region which have undergone street trenching by cable television companies. [14727]
  403
  Mrs. Roche
  The information is not available in the form requested. However the figures below show the number of homes passed by cable companies operating in the west midlands.

  Construction of cable networks in the west midlands area (Latest available figures)

  Franchise

  Homes in franchise area

  Homes passed to date

  Percentage of homes passed

  Wolverhampton, Walsall, Dudley, Sandwell, Cannock

  508,900

  325,406

  63·9

  Telford

  56,939

  52,554

  92·2

  Shrewsbury

  58,000

  —

  —

  Stoke and Newcastle Under Lyme

  175,000

  68,141

  38·9

  Stafford and Stone

  37,271

  33,488

  27·9

  Lichfield/Burntwood/Rugeley

  39,290

  Tamworth/North Warwicks/Meriden

  43,315

  Birmingham/Solihull

  460,000

  404,392

  87·9

  Wythall

  4,000

  —

  —

  Coventry

  119,000

  112,983

  94·9

  Stratford/Warwick/Leamington

  50,000

  57,509

  100

  Rugby

  24,000

  11,362

  47·3

  Daventry

  8,710

  —

  —

  Nuneaton/Bedworth

  43,000

  —

  —

  Figures provided by the Independent Television Commission. Overall figures for the west midlands area (where construction has started).

  Total homes in franchise areas: 1,513,715.

  Total homes passed in franchise areas: 1,065,835.

  Total percentage of homes passed in franchise areas: 70.4 per cent.

  Mr. Roger Levitt
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if she will make a statement on the application to extradite Mr. Roger Levitt from the United States of America; [14741]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the advice given by her Department to the New York judge considering the application to extradite Mr. Roger Levitt; and if she will make a statement [14742]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  Mr. Roger Levitt is charged with an offence of making a false statement contrary to Section 451 of the Companies Act 1985. Acting on advice from independent counsel my Department submitted an extradition request to the United States of America in June 1997 through the Home Office.

  It was for the District Attorney in New York to make representations to the New York judge considering the application. In doing so he made reference to advice from my Department about the facts of the case, about submissions made on Mr. Levitt's behalf to that judge and about the likely position in relation to bail in the UK in the event of Mr. Levitt's return.

  The Divisional Court granted leave on 31 October from Mr. Levitt to apply for Judicial Review of the decision to request Mr. Levitt's extradition, and the request for such extradition.

  In the light of arguments presented on behalf of Mr. Levitt my Department has reviewed the decision to request Mr. Levitt's extradition and has concluded that the extradition request should not be maintained. Accordingly it will be withdrawn. Warrants remain open in the UK for Mr. Levitt's arrest in connection both with the Section 451 offence and on a charge of breaching a company director disqualification order.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Radio Stations (West Midlands)
  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many broadcasting licences have been granted by the Radio Authority to radio stations in the west midlands since September 1996; and how many of these were granted to community radio stations. [13438]

  Mr. Fisher
  Since September 1996 the Radio Authority has granted one independent local radio licence in the West Midlands. The winning application, from 107.7 the Wolf, proposes a programme format dedicated to the specific needs of the community.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will review the accessibility of lottery funding to bids for children's play initiatives; and if he will make a statement. [13439]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  In the White Paper, "The People's Lottery", I made it clear that we are particularly committed to the development of children's play. I am currently discussing with the Lottery distributors how we can best ensure that Lottery funding for it is more easily accessible.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what criteria will be applied to consideration of lottery bids which include an estimate of revenue funding to ensure that successful existing institutions remain viable. [13442]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  It is for distributors to determine the detailed criteria for awards. For capital schemes, they may provide a revenue grant or an endowment to cover the costs of a project or to ensure its completion. We are looking at this area as part of the review of distribution announced in the White Paper, "The People's Lottery".

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has for allocating national lottery money to health-related projects. [13444]

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has for allocating lottery money to health-related projects. [13446]

  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has for allocating national lottery money to health-related projects. [13452]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  In the White Paper, "The People's Lottery", I announced the creation of a new good cause encompassing health, education and the environment. We want to enable people to improve their health and well-being, especially in the most deprived areas of the country. We therefore aim to establish a core network of healthy living centres, supported by the lottery, by 2001.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he takes to ensure a reasonable balance of lottery grants for national, regional and local projects; and if he will make a statement. [13450]
  405
  Mr. Chris Smith
  In the White Paper, "The People's Lottery", I announced our intention to ensure that Lottery money is spent according to a strategy drawn up in the light of need across all regions and parts of the country and between different groups in society. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already announced a pilot scheme where some distributors will work together on small community grants in Scotland. We hope to see this kind of approach extended where appropriate as soon as possible.

  Eastern Arts Board
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to meet the Chair and Director of the Eastern Arts Board to discuss the development of the arts in their region. [13440]

  Mr. Fisher
  I met the Chairman and Chief Executive of the Eastern Arts Board during my visit to Cambridge on 7 October. I was delighted to learn of the high quality of artistic activity in the region and was impressed with the commitment of Eastern Arts Board to the arts in the area.

  Industrial Heritage
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the importance he attaches to the role of museums in preserving the country's industrial heritage. [13443]

  Mr. Fisher
  The industrial heritage is of immense importance to our understanding both of the past and the present. Museums have a crucial role to play in its preservation and interpretation.

  UEFA Cup
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State of Culture, Media and Sport if he has raised with the European Commission the issue of UEFA debarring the winner of the Coca-Cola cup from participating in the UEFA Cup. [13445]

  Mr. Banks
  This is a matter for the Football Authorities and I understand the Football League is pursuing it with the European Commission. I share some of the concerns expressed and will be following developments with interest.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Dennis Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress he is making in increasing the figures of British cinema audiences watching British films. [13447]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  British films are enjoying a very successful year and we hope to build on that success. We have established an all-industry working group, headed by myself, and Mr. Stewart Till, Head of PolyGram Filmed Entertainment, with the aim of doubling the domestic market share for British films. I expect the working group to report in February 1998.

  Jazz
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what role he plans for the Arts Council of England in developing audiences for jazz. [13448]

  Mr. Fisher
  Jazz is an art form without boundaries and with very many ardent supporters, including myself. The Arts Council of England published a jazz policy document last November. All the Council's funding for jazz is designed to develop and build new audiences; the Government agree that the development of audiences in all art forms is a high priority.

  Millennium Projects
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much has been allocated to date by the Millennium Commission to projects to mark the millennium. [13449]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Since its first grant announcement two years ago, the Millennium Commission has awarded a total of £1.015 billion to 114 projects on 2,720 sites, £19 million to 13 Award partners benefiting 8,000 individuals and £449 million to the New Millennium Experience at Greenwich.

  Operetta
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is his policy toward promoting provincial touring light operetta. [13451]

  Mr. Fisher
  My Department attaches a high priority to encouraging the widest possible range of touring artistic activity. The Arts Council of England is responsible for devising specific touring policies across artforms and by particular organisations. National companies, regional organisations and a range of specific bodies tour productions of light operetta around the country.

  Arts (Accessibility)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture. Media and Sport what plans he has to make the arts more accessible to a wider range of people. [13453]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Access is at the heart of my policies. I believe strongly that the public has a right to better access in return for the public funding which goes into the arts. I have made a number of specific proposals aimed at increasing access to the arts. These include plans to pilot open theatre nights and an Artscard scheme for young people. I will be announcing the results of our review of access to national museums and galleries within the next few weeks.

  World Cup
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps the Government are taking to promote England's bid to host the World Cup in 2006. [14981]

  Mr. Banks
  I have just returned from accompanying an FA delegation to North and Central America to promote the World Cup bid. The trip was very successful and the Government will continue to offer all the support
  407
  they can to the FA. I will shortly be writing to hon. Members giving full details and exhorting them to use every opportunity to back the bid.

  British Academy of Sport
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recommendations he has received from the English Sports Council, the British Olympic Association and other sporting organisations about the location of the British Academy of Sport. [13737]

  Mr. Banks
  We have received a number of representations from sporting organisations about the location of the British Academy of Sport. We are currently considering the United Kingdom Sports Council's recommendations on the location and will make an announcement shortly.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Irish Republic (British Subjects)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the number of British(a) subjects and (b) passport holders presently resident in the Irish Republic. [14050]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 3 November 1997]: There is no requirement for British subjects or those persons deemed never to have ceased to be British subjects to register or make themselves known to the British Embassy in Dublin. It is therefore impossible to estimate the number of British subjects resident in the Republic of Ireland. According to the Office for National Statistics, in 1995 there were approximately 50,000 British passport holders resident in the Republic of Ireland.

  Surveillance Systems
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals have been made to his Department governing the use of evidence from CCTV cameras alone in securing criminal convictions; and if he will make a statement. [13762]

  Mr. Michael
  We have received no proposals which would affect the admissibility of evidence gathered by closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras. I have written to the hon. Member in response to this Question and his Question of 27 October,Official Report, column 568, to confirm that rumours earlier this year were based on a spurious press report that a European Directive on Data Protection could affect the admissibility of CCTV evidence. It will not have any such effect. I have placed a copy of my letter in the Library, together with a copy of information provided by the European Commission.

  Immigration
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications by persons of independent means had been dealt with by the immigration and nationality department in 1997, as at 1 October. [14240]
  408
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Persons of independent means1 1 January to 30 September 1997

  Number of persons2

  Given leave to enter the country

  50

  After-entry application for an extension of stay dealt with3

  220

  1The requirement restricting persons of independent means to those who are at least 60 years old was introduced on 1 October 1994, but extant cases were not affected.

  2Figures are provisional.

  3Including persons of independent means seeking an extension of stay in another category or seeking settlement, and other persons seeking an extension of stay as a retired person of independent means.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the backlog of cases for each of the immigration and nationality directorate's divisions on 1 October. [14242]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Cases outstanding1 in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate at 1 October 1997

  Number2 of cases

  After Entry and Appeals Directorate3

  17,000

  Asylum Directorate4

  52,500

  European Directorate

  3,900

  Nationality Directorate

  73,000

  Immigration Service Enforcement Directorate5

  24,000

  Finance and Services Directorate6

  6,100

  1Includes unactioned cases and work in progress.

  2Rounded to the nearest hundred.

  3Includes referred entry clearance applications and appeals awaiting preparation of statements.

  4Cases awaiting an initial decision and asylum appeals awaiting validation and preparation.

  5Excluding cases where illegal entry papers have been served but there is an outstanding asylum application/appeal; these cases are included in the Asylum Directorate figure.

  6Items of correspondence (mainly passports, letters and new applications being sorted and allocated to caseworkers).

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what, at 1 October, was the average waiting time for consideration of applications for each of the divisions of the immigration and nationality directorate. [14223]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information is given in the table.

  Average waiting time from receipt of application to decision for applications decided in the immigration and nationality directorate on 1 October 1997

  Months

  After entry and appeals directorate1

  4

  Asylum directorate2:

  Pre-1993 Act applications

  55

  Post-1993 Act applications

  13

  European directorate3:

  Residence permits:

  11 per cent. within

  1

  35 per cent. within

  2

  67 per cent. within

  6

  409

  Average waiting time from receipt of application to decision for applications decided in the immigration and nationality directorate on 1 October 1997

  Months

  Residence documents:

  6 per cent. within

  1

  19 per cent. within

  2

  43 per cent. within

  6

  Nationality directorate:

  Naturalisations

  17

  Independent registrations4

  6

  Right of abode

  5

  1Data relate to the third quarter of 1997.

  2Data relate to the six months March to August 1997.

  3Data relate to cases dealt with in September 1997.

  4Registration not dependent upon a parent's application for naturalisation.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were held at each prison on 1 October; what is the design capacity of each prison; and what were the occupancy levels at 1 October as a percentage of that capacity. [14247]

  Ms Quin
  The number of prisoners held at each establishment in England and Wales on 1 October 1997 is listed in column one of the following table.

  The Prison Service uses the concept of Certified Normal Accommodation (CNA) to define the uncrowded capacity of each establishment. For prisons built in recent years, this is equivalent to design capacity. The CNA measure can also be applied to older prisons, particularly those built in the last century, whose design capacity is no longer relevant because of significant building and/or modernisation work.

  The CNA of each establishment is listed in column two of table 1. The occupancy level at each establishment is expressed as a percentage of CNA and can be found in column three of table 1.

  Table 1—Population and CNA by Prison on 1 October 1997

  Prison name

  Population

  CNA

  Population to CNA (per cent.)

  Acklington

  652

  662

  98

  Albany

  434

  436

  100

  Aldington

  127

  145

  88

  Ashwell

  453

  444

  102

  Askham Grange

  126

  130

  97

  Aylesbury

  313

  318

  98

  Bedford

  393

  347

  113

  Belmarsh

  863

  822

  105

  Birmingham

  1,027

  719

  143

  Blakenhurst

  842

  647

  130

  Blantyre House

  120

  120

  100

  Blundeston

  402

  424

  95

  Brinsford

  535

  477

  112

  Bristol

  590

  487

  121

  Brixton

  579

  483

  120

  Brockhill

  121

  159

  76

  Buckley Hall

  382

  350

  109

  Bullingdon

  691

  770

  90

  Bullwood Hall

  126

  126

  100

  Camphill

  522

  470

  111

  Canterbury

  264

  158

  167

  Cardiff

  730

  531

  137

  Castington

  320

  330

  97

  Channings Wood

  608

  482

  126

  410

  Table 1—Population and CNA by Prison on 1 October 1997

  Prison name

  Population

  CNA

  Population to CNA (per cent.)

  Chelmsford

  465

  448

  104

  Colchester

  32

  32

  100

  Coldingley

  295

  298

  99

  Cookham Wood

  147

  120

  123

  Dartmoor

  622

  578

  108

  Deerbolt

  424

  434

  98

  Doncaster

  1,108

  771

  144

  Dorchester

  244

  147

  166

  Dover

  306

  316

  97

  Downview

  342

  327

  105

  Drake Hall

  277

  281

  99

  Durham

  937

  667

  140

  East Sutton Park

  99

  94

  105

  Eastwood Park

  136

  135

  101

  Elmley

  843

  760

  111

  Erlestoke

  305

  310

  98

  Everthorpe

  459

  433

  106

  Exeter

  465

  267

  174

  Featherstone

  595

  599

  99

  Feltham

  905

  849

  107

  Ford

  439

  486

  90

  Foston

  119

  150

  79

  Frankland

  455

  447

  102

  Full Sutton

  533

  576

  93

  Garth

  641

  633

  101

  Gartree

  370

  364

  102

  Glen Parva

  875

  720

  122

  Gloucester

  281

  219

  128

  Grendon

  438

  461

  95

  Guys Marsh

  322

  300

  107

  Haslar

  157

  158

  99

  Hatfield

  135

  180

  75

  Haverigg

  553

  530

  104

  Hewell Grange

  198

  203

  98

  Highdown

  719

  649

  111

  Highpoint

  698

  679

  103

  Hindley

  532

  527

  101

  Hollesley Bay

  445

  458

  97

  Holloway

  529

  517

  102

  Holme House

  871

  971

  90

  Hull

  491

  519

  95

  Huntercombe

  261

  256

  102

  Kingston

  117

  129

  91

  Kirkham

  666

  702

  95

  Kirklevington

  180

  180

  100

  Lancaster

  217

  218

  100

  Lancaster Farms

  492

  496

  99

  Latchmere House

  188

  193

  97

  Leeds

  914

  800

  114

  Leicester

  351

  219

  160

  Lewes

  490

  485

  101

  Leyhill

  366

  410

  89

  Lincoln

  638

  434

  147

  Lindholme

  693

  686

  101

  Littlehey

  643

  624

  103

  Liverpool

  1,502

  1,216

  124

  Long Lartin

  391

  379

  103

  Low Newton

  289

  189

  153

  Maidstone

  552

  541

  102

  Manchester

  1,029

  852

  121

  Moorland

  658

  620

  106

  Morton Hall

  203

  208

  98

  Mount

  629

  588

  107

  New Hall

  336

  327

  103

  North Sea Camp

  202

  213

  95

  Northallerton

  245

  152

  161

  Norwich

  746

  570

  131

  Nottingham

  413

  401

  103

  Onley

  611

  550

  111

  Parkhurst

  359

  349

  103

  Pentonville

  929

  726

  128

  Portland

  536

  526

  102

  Preston

  668

  414

  161

  Ranby

  581

  518

  112

  Reading

  240

  203

  118

  411

  Table 1—Population and CNA by Prison on 1 October 1997

  Prison name

  Population

  CNA

  Population to CNA (per cent.)

  Risley

  882

  851

  104

  Rochester

  398

  433

  92

  Send

  231

  231

  100

  Shepton Mallet

  216

  158

  137

  Shrewsbury

  332

  181

  183

  Stafford

  627

  568

  110

  Standford Hill

  300

  384

  78

  Stocken

  464

  436

  106

  Stoke Heath

  424

  454

  93

  Styal

  267

  262

  102

  Sudbury

  499

  511

  98

  Swaleside

  571

  512

  112

  Swansea

  348

  260

  134

  Swinfen Hall

  197

  208

  95

  Thorn Cross

  223

  316

  71

  Usk

  290

  246

  118

  Verne

  572

  552

  104

  Wakefield

  609

  522

  117

  Wandsworth

  907

  811

  112

  Wayland

  642

  620

  104

  Wealstun

  580

  591

  98

  Weare

  358

  400

  90

  Wellingborough

  321

  352

  91

  Werrington

  157

  220

  71

  Wetherby

  324

  360

  90

  Whatton

  222

  226

  98

  Whitemoor

  521

  522

  100

  Winchester

  612

  463

  132

  Wolds

  399

  360

  111

  Woodhill

  687

  616

  112

  Wormwood Scrubs

  1,363

  1,171

  116

  Wymott

  801

  809

  99

  Total

  62,706

  57,630

  109

  Hampshire Police Authority
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what criteria he has used to determine which of the applications to be independent members of the Hampshire Police Authority he will approve; [14454]

  (2) when the Hampshire Police Authority will receive confirmation of the Home Office's selections for new independent members of the Authority. [14455]

  Mr. Michael
  I have selected a shortlist of candidates to fill the vacancies for two independent members on the Hampshire Police Authority. My officials are writing to the Clerk to the Authority to inform him of the shortlisted candidates. The councillor and magistrate members of the Authority will then decide who from the shortlist should be appointed to the Authority.

  The following criteria apply to the selection of all independent members:

  As well as being of good character, independent members of police authorities should:
  possess good communication skills;
  be able to demonstrate the ability to challenge accepted views in a constructive way;
  be able to represent a wide range of people in the community; have an understanding of their policing needs, and of the pressures and challenges which face the police themselves;
  have skills and experience which would broaden the expertise available to the authority.

  412
  Applications for appointment as an independent member of a police authority are invited from all eligible persons irrespective of ethnic origin, religious belief, gender, sexual orientation, disability or any other irrelevant factor.

  CS Spray
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Chief of West Mercia Police on the incident at a house in Bicton Heath, Shrewsbury on Sunday 26 October which led to a five month old baby being taken to hospital as a result of the effects of CS spray; and if he will make a statement. [14489]

  Mr. Michael
  West Mercia Police are unaware of an infant being exposed to CS during this incident, in which a man was sprayed, and no complaint has been received in respect of any such allegation.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis indicating the amount of CS spray which the Commissioner has(a) purchased and (b) distributed; if all police officers receiving the spray will be trained in its use and in official guidelines relating to its use; what arrangements he has made for its storage, and inventory; and if he will make a statement. [14482]

  Mr. Michael
  The Commissioner tells me that the Metropolitan Police has made an initial purchase of 28,200 operational CS incapacitant sprays which have been distributed to all Operational Command Units. Prior to being issued with CS spray, officers will undertake an initial four hour training course. Additionally, they will receive refresher training at least once a year which emphasises the importance of after care for persons sprayed.

  CS sprays will be stored in specifically designed secure cabinets at the Operational Command Units. These cabinets are marked in accordance with fire and chemical storage regulations. A detailed record is maintained in relation to all devices. Each device is individually serial numbered and is issued against signature. The record of issue is then updated following discharge or disposal of the device.

  Deaths in Police Custody
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the report on the circumstances of deaths in police custody; and if he will make a statement. [14484]

  Mr. Michael
  The report of the research by the Home Office Police Research Group into deaths in police custody from 1990 onwards is expected to be published at the turn of the year.

  Elections (European Parliament)
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will change the polling day for the next election for the European Parliament from a Thursday to a Sunday. [14677]
  413
  Mr. George Howarth
  We do not think it would be right to change the polling day for the 1999 elections to the European Parliament, which will be held under a new regional list system.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current number of prisoners in England and Wales held on remand for a period(a) up to three months, (b) over three months and up to six months, (c) over six months and up to 12 months and (d) over 12 months. [14546]

  Ms Quin
  The latest available provisional information for England and Wales is for 30 June 1997 and is given in the table. This information is also published in successive volumes of "Prison Statistics, England and Wales" (tables 2.3 and 2.4 of the 1996 edition, Cm 3732), copies of which are in the Library.

  Remand prisoners in prisons in England and Wales by length of time since first reception1 on 30 June 1997

  Time since first remand

  30 June 19972

  Up to and including three months

  8,100

  More than three months, up to and including six months

  2,300

  More than six months, up to and including 12 months

  1,400

  Over 12 months

  300

  Total

  12,100

  1Awaiting trial or sentence. Time since first reception on remand into a Prison Service establishment. This includes any intervening time spent on bail, but excludes time spent in police cells beforehand.

  2Rounded provisional estimates.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the potential effects on remand prisoners' rights to a fair trial of arbitrary restrictions in the period leading up to and during their court appearances; what steps he has taken to ensure that the Prison Service is aware of this problem; and what special measures exist for the supervision monitoring of the treatment of prisoners in these circumstances. [13091]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 November 1997]: It is our policy that detention must not affect a person's right to a fair trial. In recognition of their special status, all unconvicted prisoners have extra privileges such as: the right to wear their own clothing; the right not to work; the right to extra visits, telephone calls and letters; and the right to continue their (legitimate) business activities. In addition, all prisons have legal aid officers and access to unlimited visits with their legal representative. Nearly all local prisons and remand centres have bail information schemes which assist prisoners to obtain bail if appropriate.

  Both Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons and the Prison Service Standards Audit, on their visits to local prisons, seek to ensure that the rights and privileges of unconvicted prisons are observed.

  Mr. Ronnie Clark
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in the investigation of the death of Mr. Ronnie Clark in Wellingborough prison on 1 March; and if he will make a statement. [14486]

  Ms Quin
  The inquest into the death of Mr. Clarke was held on 9 October 1997 at Kettering Coroner's Court. The jury returned a unanimous open verdict. The Coroner made no criticism of either the actions of staff or Prison Service policy and procedure.

  The Prison Service will consider the findings of the Coroner's investigation, together with its own inquiries, to examine carefully whether there are any lessons to be learned.

  Prison Medical Staff
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison establishments in England and Wales provide an induction programme for staff joining the Prison Service from the national health service. [14505]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 November 1997]: All Prison Service establishments are expected to arrange a two-week induction programme under the guidance of a senior medical officer for all new entrant medical staff whether they are from the National Health Service or elsewhere.

  In addition, new entrant doctors are expected to attend a week long centrally organised course within six months of joining the Prison Service.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison establishments in England and Wales are currently without a full or part-time medical officer. [14507]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 November 1997]: Fourteen establishments currently have vacancies for either full or part-time permanently appointed medical officers. Where appropriate medical cover at these establishments is augmented by the use of locum doctors. The Prison Service holds periodic recruitment drives to fill such vacancies, and the next one will be held shortly.

  Danny McNamee
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the security classification of Gilbert (Danny) McNamee; and if this prisoner will be returned to a special secure unit prior to or during his forthcoming hearing at the Court of Appeal. [13090]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 November 1997]: Decisions concerning the security categorisation of Gilbert (Danny) McNamee, who is located in a Northern Ireland prison, are a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Should Mr. McNamee return to this jurisdiction for any reason, an assessment of his security category will be made in the light of security information available at the time.

  Special Secure Units
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are presently detained in each special secure unit stating(a) the nature of the crimes for which they were convicted and (b) their security category status. [13089]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 November 1997]: There are seven prisoners, all Category A Exceptional Escape Risk prisoners, held in Whitemoor Special Secure Unit. Two were convicted of importation of drugs; two of customs evasion; and the remaining three prisoners of murder, conspiracy to murder and armed robbery, respectively. Full Sutton Special Secure Unit is temporarily closed and the accommodation which formed the Unit at Belmarsh now only holds Category A High Escape Risk prisoners and is not run as a Special Secure Unit.

  Prisons (Drug Misuse)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of(a) doctors and (b) other staff, currently working in the Prison Service, have received any recognised training in dealing with drug misusers. [14506]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 November 1997]: Forty-eight out of 197 (25 per cent.) doctors working in the Prison Service have either a Diploma in Addictive Behaviour or Membership of the Royal College of Psychiatrists which will have included training in substance misuse. A further 26 doctors have started diploma level training during 1996–97.

  Information is not centrally available in the form requested for other Prison Service staff. However, during 1996–97 over 230 health care staff attended a two day substance awareness course specifically designed for that purpose. In addition, 44 staff started diploma level training on substance misuse.

  Life Sentences
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners in England and Wales are presently serving a life sentence; and what is the total annual cost of keeping these prisoners in custody. [14909]

  Ms Quin
  The latest available information is for 30 September 1997. On that date there were 3,794 life sentence prisoners in England and Wales. Information on life sentence prisoners is also published in "Prison Statistics, England and Wales" (Chapter 8 of the 1996 edition, Cm 3732), a copy of which is in the Library.

  Information on the cost of prisoners by their type of sentence is not collected centrally. The average annual net operating cost of a prison place in 1996–97 was £24,775.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further consideration he plans to give to the possible establishment of a Human Rights Commission. [14761]
  416
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have nothing to add at this stage to what we said about this in paragraph 3.8–3.12 of the White Paper "Rights Brought Home: The Human Rights Bill" (Cm 3782), which we published on 24 October, and during the Second Reading debate in Another Place on 3 November.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what functions a Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights would perform; and what powers would be vested in it. [14760]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have nothing to add at this stage to what we said about this in paragraph 3.6–3.7 of the White Paper "Rights Brought Home: The Human Rights Bill" (Cm 3782), which we published on 24 October, and during the Second Reading debate in Another Place on 3 November.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what statistical monitoring is undertaken in relation to the detention and imprisonment of asylum seekers; and if he will make a statement. [15174]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Statistical information on persons who had sought asylum and were detained as at specific points in time is available. A copy of the most recent statistics is attached.

  Table 1: Number of people recorded as being detained1,2 on 31 October 1997 who had sought asylum at some stage, by gender and immigration status

  Gender

  Port

  Illegal entrants

  Subject to deportation action

  Total

  Male

  283

  352

  56

  691

  Female

  33

  14

  2

  49

  Total

  316

  366

  58

  740

  1Persons detained solely under the powers contained in Schedule 2 or 3 of the Immigration Act 1971.

  2These figures include people who have been in detention for less than a month. Because of the delay in recording receptions into and releases from, detention and the large number of persons detained for a short period, the figures should be used with caution.

  Table 2: Number of people recorded as being detained on1,2 31 October 1997 who had sought asylum at some stage, by stage of application and immigration status

  Stage of application

  Port

  Illegal entrants

  Subject to deportation action

  Total

  Awaiting initial decision

  158

  166

  8

  332

  Awaiting result of appeal

  104

  90

  28

  222

  Awaiting result of further challenge or documentation for removal3

  54

  110

  22

  186

  Total

  316

  366

  58

  740

  1Persons detained solely under the powers contained in Schedule 2 or 3 of the Immigration Act 1971.

  2These figures include people who have been in detention for less than a month. Because of the delay in recording receptions into, and releases from, detention and the large number of persons detained for a short period, the figures should be used with caution.

  3Includes those persons awaiting the result of a further appeal/other challenge or awaiting removal pending documentation.

  417

  Table 3: Number of people recorded as being detained1,2 on 31 October 1997 who had sought asylum at some stage, by length of detention3 and immigration status.

  Length

  Port

  Illegal entrants

  Subject to deportation action

  Total

  0-1 Month1

  109

  109

  10

  228

  1-2 Months

  83

  87

  8

  178

  2-6 Months

  85

  118

  24

  227

  6-12 Months

  28

  47

  12

  87

  12 Months +

  11

  5

  4

  20

  Total

  316

  366

  58

  740

  1Persons detained solely under the powers contained in Schedule 2 or 3 of the Immigration Act 1971.

  2These figures include people who have been in detention for less than a month. Because of the delay in recording receptions into, and releases from, detention and the large number of persons detained for a short period, the figures should be used with caution.

  3In some cases the date a person enters detention may be understated due to the method of recording.

  Table 4: Number of people recorded as being detained1,2 on 31 October 1997 who had sought asylum at some stage, by nationality and immigration status

  Nationality

  Port

  Illegal entrants

  Subject to deportation action

  Total

  India

  15

  79

  2

  96

  Nigeria

  40

  34

  14

  88

  Pakistan

  19

  30

  7

  56

  Algeria

  13

  28

  6

  47

  China People's Republic of

  14

  21

  0

  35

  Ghana

  12

  12

  3

  27

  Turkey

  10

  16

  0

  26

  Romania

  2

  23

  0

  25

  Czech Republic

  22

  2

  0

  24

  Yugoslavia

  9

  15

  0

  24

  Bangladesh

  6

  13

  3

  22

  Kenya

  19

  2

  1

  22

  Sri Lanka

  9

  9

  3

  21

  Albania

  3

  15

  0

  18

  Cyprus

  13

  2

  0

  15

  Slovakia

  15

  0

  0

  15

  Angola

  7

  4

  2

  13

  Bulgaria

  9

  1

  2

  12

  Gambia

  6

  1

  2

  9

  Ivory Coast

  5

  3

  0

  8

  Jamaica

  1

  3

  4

  8

  Lithuania

  4

  2

  1

  7

  Poland

  1

  6

  0

  7

  Russia

  1

  6

  0

  7

  Sudan

  4

  3

  0

  7

  South Africa

  5

  1

  1

  7

  Uganda

  7

  0

  0

  7

  Ecuador

  6

  0

  0

  6

  Colombia

  5

  0

  0

  5

  Iran

  4

  1

  0

  5

  Morocco

  2

  2

  0

  4

  Ukraine (Ukrainian SS)

  0

  3

  1

  4

  Afghanistan

  1

  2

  0

  3

  Lebanon

  2

  1

  0

  3

  Somalia

  3

  0

  0

  3

  Tanzania

  2

  0

  1

  3

  Armenia

  0

  2

  0

  2

  Guinea

  2

  0

  0

  2

  Kazakhstan

  0

  2

  0

  2

  Liberia

  2

  0

  0

  2

  Libya (Arab Republic)

  0

  2

  0

  2

  Nepal

  0

  2

  0

  2

  Philippines

  1

  1

  0

  2

  Palestine

  1

  1

  0

  2

  418

  Table 4: Number of people recorded as being detained1,2 on 31 October 1997 who had sought asylum at some stage, by nationality and immigration status

  Nationality

  Port

  Illegal entrants

  Subject to deportation action

  Total

  Sierra Leone

  1

  1

  0

  2

  Tunisia

  0

  1

  1

  2

  Ukraine

  2

  0

  0

  2

  Zaire

  2

  0

  0

  2

  Zimbabwe

  1

  1

  0

  2

  Nationality doubtful

  2

  8

  0

  10

  Others

  6

  5

  4

  15

  Total

  316

  366

  58

  740

  1Persons detained solely under the powers contained in Schedule 2 or 3 of the Immigration Act 1971.

  2Those figures include people who have been in detention for less than a month. Because of the delay in recording receptions into, and releases from, detention and the large number of persons detained for a short period, the figures should be used with caution.

  Freemasonry (Police and Judiciary)
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government have to implement the Home Affairs Committee's recommendations on freemasonry in the police and judiciary (Third report, Session 1996–97, HC 192). [15283]

  Mr. Michael
  I will be writing to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee later this month with the Government's response to the Committee's recommendation on freemasonry in the police and judiciary. A copy of my letter will be placed in the Library.

  Firearms
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what estimate he has made of(a) the likely total cost of the compensation scheme under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 and (b) the number of claims still to be made; [14811]

  (2) what is the average time taken to settle claims for compensation under options (i) A and (ii) B under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997; and in each case, how many claims have been settled and what is the total value of the compensation paid to date. [14810]

  Mr. Michael
  Our estimate of the total cost of the compensation scheme remains £166 million. All claims had to have been made by the end of the surrender period on 30 September. Over 38,000 claims have been received in the Firearms Compensation Section from police forces. The average time to settle claims under both options A and B is currently 13 weeks.

  To date, 15,000 payments have been made at a cost of over £20 million.

  "The Mail on Sunday"
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he plans to apply for the lifting of the injunction presently in force against The Mail on Sunday. [14696]
  419
  Mr. Straw
  No. The injunction remains necessary in order to prevent the publication of any further material which could damage national security. I would also refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis),6 November 1997, Official Report, column 215.

  Proposed Prisons
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment exercises his Department has conducted into the possibility of establishing an extra prison in the(a) West Chelmsford constituency and (b) mid Essex area during the past five years. [15072]

  Ms Quin
  During the last five years, the Prison Service has had brought to its attention a number of sites in Essex for the possible construction of new prisons. None of these were in the West Chelmsford constituency and, without exception, to date all have been considered unsuitable.

  House of Lords Judgments
  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he intends to implement the House of Lords judgment in Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Pierson given on 24 July. [15640]

  Mr. Straw
  This judgment concerned the discretion of any holder of my office to increase a tariff once set for an adult convicted of murder. The majority of the House found that it is lawful for the Secretary of State to increase a tariff previously set, as set out in a reply given by my predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) on 27 July 1993,Official Report, columns 863–65. However, one of that majority found that that statement did not purport to apply to a decision to increase a tariff set before 27 July 1993, and so a different majority found that the increase of the tariff in the Pierson case was unlawful.

  So far as the procedures for setting and reviewing tariffs of adult murderers are concerned, I am continuing the practice of my predecessor, as described in his answers of 27 July 1993, Official Report, columns 861–64 and 7 December 1994, Official Report, columns 234–35. In particular, before setting tariff, I am continuing to take the advice of the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice, informing the prisoner of the substance of that advice and inviting representations about it, and giving reasons for any departure on my part from the judicial review.

  With regard to the discretion to alter tariff, I reiterate that the view which I take (or a Minister acting under my authority takes) at the beginning of a mandatory life sentence, of the period necessary to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence is an initial view of the minimum period necessary to satisfy those requirements. It therefore remains possible for me, or a future Secretary of State, exceptionally to revise that view of the minimum period, either by reducing it, or by increasing it where I, or a successor in my office, conclude that, putting aside questions of risk, the minimum requirements of retribution and deterrence will not have been satisfied at the expiry of the period which had previously been determined. The procedure for
  420
  considering any increase of a tariff once set will include the opportunity for the prisoner to make representations after being informed that the Secretary of State is minded to increase tariff, and to be given reasons for any subsequent decision to increase it.

  So far as the potential for a reduction in tariff is concerned, I shall be open to the possibility that, in exceptional circumstances, including for example, exceptional progress by the prisoner whilst in custody, a review and reduction of the tariff may be appropriate. I shall have this possibility in mind when reviewing at the 25 year point the cases of prisoners given a whole life tariff and in that respect will consider issues beyond the sole criteria of retribution and deterrence described in the answer given on 7 December 1994. Prisoners will continue to be given the opportunity to make representations and to have access to the material before me.

  I intend to apply these policies in respect of all tariffs for adult murderers, whether or not they were originally set before 27 July 1993 and whether or not they were originally fixed by me personally, or a Minister acting on my behalf, or by or on behalf of a previous holder of my office. In the Pierson case, where the tariff has now been quashed, I intend to invite representations from the prisoner before re-setting tariff at a level which I consider appropriate.

  I take the opportunity to confirm that my approach on the release of adults convicted of murder once tariff has expired will reflect the policy set out in the answer given 27 July 1993. In particular, the release of such a person will continue to depend not only on the expiry of tariff and on my being satisfied that the level of risk of his committing further imprisonable offences presented by his release is acceptably low, but also on the need to maintain public confidence in the system of criminal justice. The position of a prisoner subject to a mandatory life sentence continues to be distinct from that of a prisoner serving a discretionary life sentence, a decision on whose final release is a matter for the Parole Board alone.

  Everything in this answer about my practice in relation to mandatory life sentence prisoners applies equally to persons who are, or will be, sentenced, to custody for life under section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982. For present purposes, a life sentence imposed under section 2 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 is treated as a discretionary life sentence.

  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he intends to implement the House of Lords judgment in Regina V Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte V and T given on 12 June. [15641]

  Mr. Straw
  This judgment was concerned with the periods of imprisonment, known as the tariff, set by my predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) as being necessary to reflect the requirements of retribution and deterrence in the cases of the two boys convicted of the murder of James Bulger. The House of Lords concluded that the current arrangements for reviewing tariff in the cases of offenders under the age of eighteen, convicted of murder and sentenced to detention at Her Majesty's pleasure under section 53(1) of the Children and Young Persons
  421
  Act 1933, failed adequately to reflect the distinctive nature of that sentence. In particular, the judgment requires that the initial view of what is necessary by way of retribution and deterrence should be capable of reduction in the light of the offender's personal development while in custody, and that the offender's personal development should therefore be considered alongside the public interest in retribution and deterrence in keeping the tariff period under review.

  The House of Lords did not conclude, however, that the sentence of detention at Her Majesty's pleasure was purely reformative in character, nor that the Secretary of State's declaration of an initial view of what was necessary by way of retribution and deterrence was unlawful. The public properly expects the unique crime of murder to attract an appropriate punishment, regardless of the age or circumstances of the offender. It is in the interests of victims' families, public confidence, and of the individual offender that a clear indication should be given, relatively quickly following conviction, of the Secretary of State's initial view of the minimum period of imprisonment necessary to reflect the seriousness of the particular offence. I intend to continue to provide that initial view as at present, taking into account the advice of the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice, any representations made on the offender's behalf and the overarching requirements of public confidence in the sentence of detention at Her Majesty's pleasure. That initial view will continue also to reflect an awareness of the offender's age and personal circumstances at the time of conviction.

  Public confidence in the sentence will not be maintained if that initial tariff is curtailed lightly or as a matter of course. Rather, it should be reduced only where the balance between the public interest in punishment on the one hand, and the public interest in the offender's welfare on the other, has clearly shifted so as to justify such a reduction. Moreover, the more serious the circumstances of the offence, as reflected in the length of the initial tariff, the higher will be the threshold at which the public interest in the offender's welfare may outweigh the public interest in the offender's punishment.

  However, I have also to act on the House of Lords' conclusion that the law requires the sentence's effect upon the offender to be kept under review and that there may be circumstances in which the desirability of promoting the child's eventual re-integration into society may justify a revision of the initial view on tariff.

  Taking these considerations into account, this is the new procedure which I shall adopt. I shall continue to seek the advice of the trial judge and of the Lord Chief Justice in deciding what punishment is required in any individual case of a person convicted under section 53(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. I shall then set an initial tariff with that advice, and the offender's personal circumstances, in mind. I shall continue to invite representations on the prisoner's behalf and give reasons for decisions.

  Officials in my Department will receive annual reports on the progress and development of young people sentenced under section 53(1) whose initial tariff has yet to expire. Where there appears to be a case for considering a reduction in tariff, that will be brought to the attention of Ministers.
  422
  When half of the initial tariff period has expired, I, or a Minister acting on my behalf, will consider a report on the prisoner's progress and development, and invite representations on the question of tariff, with a view to determining whether the tariff period originally set is still appropriate. In complex and difficult cases, I shall seek the assistance of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health in securing independent professional advice (that is to say, independent of those already charged with the care of the offender) on the young offender's condition and development.

  Any request for a review of tariff before it expires will be considered on its merits, whether that request is made by or on behalf of the offender or by one of the agencies or individuals responsible for his or her care.

  In considering requests, inviting representations, and in conducting reviews, I will look for evidence of:
  significant alteration in the offender's maturity and outlook since the commission of the offence;
  risks to the offender's continued development that cannot be sufficiently mitigated or removed in the custodial environment;
  any matter that calls into question the basis of the original decision to set tariff at a particular level (for example, about the circumstances of the offence itself or the offender's state of mind at the time);
  together with any other matter which appears relevant.

  So far as the offender's age is concerned. I shall take into account the Government's international and domestic obligations to children under the age of 18 in deciding where the balance between the public interest in punishment and the public interest in the offender's welfare lies. That balance will also have been at the heart of the decision on the proper length of the initial tariff.

  Where I consider that the offender's welfare may be seriously prejudiced by his or her continued imprisonment, and that the public interest in the offender's welfare outweighs the public interest in a further period of imprisonment lasting at least until the expiry of the provisionally set tariff, I will decide to reduce the tariff. In these circumstances, release on or after tariff expiry will be dependent on the question of risk, decided in the same way as at present.

  There are currently 106 such offenders whose tariffs have been set but have not yet expired. My officials will write to each of them with the text of this statement asking if they wish to have their tariff reviewed in the way I have described, and, if so, on what grounds. I will, in any event, undertake reviews in each of the 74 cases where the halfway point of the tariff has been passed but where there are still two years or more to serve before tariff expires. The cases of those closest to tariff expiry will be considered first.

  I believe the procedure I have described fully meets the requirement to keep the imprisonment of offenders sentenced to detention at Her Majesty's pleasure under review, and to treat such cases in a distinct way, having regard to the public interest in the welfare of children alongside the public interest in the proper and proportionate punishment of offenders. No one who has committed murder and is sentenced to detention at Her Majesty's pleasure will be released unless two conditions are satisfied: first, the tariff period necessary for

  423
  punishment must have been served; and, secondly, the Parole Board must be satisfied that the risk posed to the public by the offender's release would be acceptably low.

  The tariffs set by my predecessor in the two particular cases considered by the House of Lords have been quashed. I intend to consider reports, invite representations on behalf of those offenders, and seek independent professional advice, before resetting an initial tariff within the terms of this statement, taking into account also the criticism contained in the judgement of the reasons given by my predecessor.

  Prison Service Management and Organisation
  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Director General's review of management and organisation of the Prison Service. [15642]

  Mr. Straw
  The Director General has now completed an internal review of the management and organisation of the Prison Service.

  The review has recommended, and I have endorsed, a programme of action with the following key elements:

  (i) measures to assert and reinforce Ministerial responsibility for the Prison Service. The Government have already made clear their commitment to taking proper Ministerial responsibility for the Prison Service. Parliamentary Questions are now answered by Ministers and not by the Director General. Further measures to be taken in the light of this review are as follows:
  from 1 January Ministers will chair quarterly meetings to review formally the performance and plans of the Prison Service. The report concludes, and I agree, that in the circumstances of the Prison Service such an arrangement better supports the Government's approach to Ministerial oversight than any form of separate Advisory Board;
  the Agency Framework Document will be updated and reissued with a new Ministerial preface when the Comprehensive Spending Review is further advanced;
  the Prison Service will take action to develop a greater sensitivity to the nature and demands of Ministerial responsibility for the Service at all levels in the Agency. This will be reflected in specific training programmes and in key documentation.

  (ii) a new focus on the delivery of effective prison regimes and preparation for the release of prisoners. The Government are committed to the development of constructive prison regimes which address offending behaviour. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons has drawn attention to, and been critical of, the wide variation in standard levels of performance between prisons of the same type. The review concludes that an improvement
  424
  in performance in this area is required; and that the top management of the Prison Service is not, at present, organised in such a way as to deliver the necessary leadership and direction required to secure an improvement. The Prison Service will, therefore:
  plan for and seek substantial improvements in the effectiveness of regimes and the preparation of prisoners for release, while continuing to maintain its performance in relation to security and control; and
  create a stronger capacity within Headquarters to develop regime standards and polices for all prisoner groups and to support the operational line in monitoring performance and spreading best practice. This will be provided by a Director of Regimes at Prisons Board level, supported by Assistant Directors with separate, specific responsibility for: young offenders; women; adult males, lifers and parole; and prisoner administration.

  (iii) a major programme of change to improve the managerial effectiveness of the organisation. This reflects the need for:
  the Prisons Board itself to operate more strategically and effectively. Responsibilities will be clarified at Board level, with separate policy Directors of Regimes, Security and Healthcare. One policy Director will be designated as Deputy Director General and will deputise for the Director General in his absence and ensure effective co-ordination of the day day to work of the Service;
  more effective standard-setting and performance management systems. A clear set of core standards will be formulated, supported by a set of functional standards for different types of prisoner and prison. The contact between the Governor and the Area Manager will be used as the key business management tool of the Prison Service; and in the longer term the Service will move towards the replacement of contracts with more formal service level agreements, providing a form of internal purchaser/provider arrangement;
  a major investment in management development and training will be taken forward when the Prison Service can identify efficiency savings. The net for recruiting managers to all levels in the Prison Service will also be widened.

  I welcome the outcome of this review—not least because it is the product of an internal, rather than externally imposed, analysis. None of the proposals to be implemented is intended to pre-empt the outcome of the wider review of the Prison and Probation Services which I announced in reply to a Question from the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith). Official Report, column 172, or the Comprehensive Spending Review, which are proceeding in parallel. The action proposed will, however, help to position the Prison Service for whatever changes may emerge from these reviews and make improvements which are needed in their own right. The Review will be taken forward within existing Prison Services resources.

  I am placing copies of the Review in the Library.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has to clear the backlog of cases in the Immigration Tribunal. [13464]

  Mr. Hoon
  The backlog of outstanding adjudicator appeals is starting to come down. It has fallen by 1,721 appeals since the end of July. We are appointing more adjudicators and giving them the help they need to deal with more cases.

  Secret Societies
  Mr. Mullin
  to ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has for requiring members of the judiciary to disclose membership of secret societies; and if he will make a statement. [13467]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Home Affairs Committee, of which my hon. Friend is now the Chairman, recommended shortly before the election that police officers, magistrates, judges and crown prosecutors should be required to register membership of any secret society. The Government are considering the recommendations contained in that report and will respond to the Committee in due course.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what primary legislation his Department intends to introduce in relation to legal aid. [13465]

  Mr. Hoon
  Extending conditional fees to all civil, but not family, cases, and withdrawing legal aid from most civil claims for money or damages, can be done under existing legislation. Subject to consultation, we expect to bring in the necessary regulations soon. Making contracting the only way to provide legal aid services, and changing the merits test to reflect the availability of resources, will need primary legislation. I hope to be able to bring forward a new Legal Aid Bill in due course.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his policy toward controlling the legal aid budget. [13469]

  Mr. Hoon
  I propose to control the legal aid budget by ensuring that legal aid is targeted to where it can do most good and is used only where no appropriate alternative method of funding is available. For the longer term I wish to see legal aid being delivered under contracts that will define the price quality and quantity of service to be provided tailored to the local needs of the community.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what measures his Department is taking to ensure consistency in decisions relating to the granting of legal aid. [14930]
  426
  Mr. Hoon
  Civil legal aid is granted by the Legal Aid Board in accordance with the statutory merits test. The Board use a number of procedures to ensure the test is applied consistently. There is a programme of work to improve the decision making process in the Legal Aid Board Area Offices, through the revision of existing guidance and the production of new guidance. My officials are also reviewing the operation of the merits test with the Legal Aid Board.

  In addition the Lord Chancellor recently announced plans to tighten the merits test so that a case would generally need a 75 per cent. chance of success in order to receive legal aid unless there were other compelling reasons for granting it. It is also proposed that the decision to grant should also take account of the available resources. However it would require primary legislation to give effect to these proposals.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the cost of legal aid in each of the last three years(a) exclusive and (b) inclusive of VAT. [15069]

  Mr. Hoon
  Net expenditure on legal aid for the last three years is as follows:

  1994–95: £1,298.7 million

  1995–96: £1,390.5 million

  1996–97: £1,475.7 million

  Information on VAT is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. Since not all disbursements attract VAT, and not all solicitors and counsel have always been registered for VAT, it is not possible to calculate the total VAT that is paid out of the Legal Aid Fund.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list(a) the amount of expenditure on the Green Form scheme for 1996–97 and (b) the percentage of that expenditure which relates to (i) immigration, (ii) welfare benefits, (iii) debt, (iv) consumer and (v) other. [14931]

  Mr. Hoon
  Net expenditure on the Green Form scheme, in 1996–97, was £151 million. Expenditure, as a percentage and by category of advice given, was as follows:

  Immigration and Nationality1 17 per cent.

  Welfare Benefits 9 per cent.

  Debt 4 per cent.

  Consumer 2 per cent.

  Other 68 per cent.

  1It is not possible to identify separately the cost of advice given in respect of immigration matters.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what percentage of the statutory charge was recovered by the Legal Aid Board in each of the last three years; [15070]
  427
  (2) what is the total value of the statutory charge currently owed to the Legal Aid Board. [15068]

  Mr. Hoon
  Moneys recovered by way of the statutory charge relate to cases where charges have been outstanding over a number of years, and therefore there is no annual total statutory charge against which the moneys recovered in the same year could be measured as a percentage.

  The total value of quantified statutory charges outstanding at the end of the 1996–97 financial year was £185.9 million.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on his plans to reform legal aid. [13468]

  43. Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement about his future plans for legal aid. [13471]

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the proposed reforms of the legal aid system. [13472]

  Mr. Hoon
  Our plans for legal aid reform were announced by my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor in his recent speech to the Law Society Annual Conference. Subject to consultation, we intend to make conditional fees available for all civil non-family cases; to withdraw legal aid from most claims for money or damages; and to make contracting the universal way of procuring legal aid services. These changes will allow us to target scarce resources on the people who need them most, and will bring the cost of legal aid under better control and improve quality and value for money.

  Civil Cases (Conditional Fees)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the impact on poor litigants of a system of conditional fees in respect of civil cases. [13470]

  Mr. Hoon
  My officials are currently talking to interested parties to ensure that all can benefit from the extension of conditional fees that I propose.

  Statute of Limitations
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the review of the Statute of Limitations will be published. [13466]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Law Commission is in the process of carrying out a review of the complex law of limitation periods and expects to publish a consultation paper by the end of this year or very early in 1998. Following the consultation period, which is likely to end in April 1998, responses will be analysed and final recommendations 428
  will be drawn up for publication in a Law Commission Report. It is too early yet to say when that report will be ready for publication.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what measures he is taking to ensure that those claiming compensation for injuries incurred at work are not obliged to prove that their injury was caused by another. [14569]

  Mr. Hoon
  The arguments on whether or not the burden of proof should be reversed in respect of accidents occurring in the workplace are finely balanced and the Government have no plans to disturb the existing arrangements. In a report recently presented to the Lord Chancellor by Sir Peter Middleton, a recommendation was made that the possible advantages of no-fault compensation schemes be examined. The Government are considering this together with Sir Peter's other recommendations.

  Delegated Legislation
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list all(a) secondary, (b) other delegated legislation and (c) all deregulation orders his Department made during the summer adjournment. [14385]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 5 November,Official Report, column 216.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received in respect of proposals to close the magistrates court in Tavistock; and if he will make a statement. [14041]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have received one representation in respect of Devon Magistrates' Courts Committee's proposals to close the Tavistock Magistrates' Court.

  Magistrates' courts are provided by the local paying authority for the use of magistrates' court committees (MCC). Decisions concerning the future of any magistrates' court are for the relevant MCC to determine, in consultation with the local paying authority.

  Under section 56 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997, the Lord Chancellor's responsibility in relation to magistrates' courts is limited to that of an appellate court in a dispute between the MCC and its paying authority over a proposed court closure.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he will consult on the future of magistrates courts. [14033]
  429
  Mr. Hoon
  Magistrates' courts are provided by the local paying authority for the use of the magistrates' courts committee (MCC). Decisions concerning the future of individual magistrates' courts are for the relevant magistrates' courts committee to determine, in consultation with the local paying authority. The paying authority may appeal to the Lord Chancellor against a proposed closure. That is the only time my Department becomes involved. I have, therefore no plans to consult on the future of magistrates' courts.

  More generally, I refer the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton to the statement that I made in the House on 29 October, Official Report, columns 901–14, a copy of which is in the library.

  Conditional Fees
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many representations he has received in support of the proposals set out in the recent statement about the extension of conditional fees; and if he will make a statement. [14085]

  Mr. Hoon
  My Department has had in the region of thirty inquiries from individual members of the public. The overwhelming message is that the proposed extension of conditional fees will be a real answer to the real problem they face of being denied access to justice through unaffordable lawyers' fees.

HEALTH

  Winter Mortality Rates
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list winter death rates(a) for the whole population, (b) for those over pensionable age, (c) for those aged over 65 years and (d) per 1,000 population for those EU countries for which statistics are available. [14257]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have been asked to reply.

  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 John Fox to Mr. Nigel Evans, dated November 1997:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics has been asked to answer your recent question on excess winter deaths. In his absence, I am replying as the Director of the Census, Population and Health Group.
  Based on the latest available data, the estimated numbers of excess deaths in England and Wales during the 1996–97 winter, are given in the table below.
  Excess winter deaths are defined as the number of deaths in the four months from December to March less the average of the numbers during the preceding autumn (August to November) and the following summer (April to July).
  430
  There were 0.9 excess winter deaths per 1,000 population in 1996/97 in England and Wales. The Office for National Statistics does not compile comparable figures for other EU countries.

  Excess winter deaths

  Whole population

  48,600

  Over pensionable age

  45,600

  65 years and over

  44,800

  Mental Health (Extra-contractual Referrals)
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much of the national health service budget was spent in the last financial year in the private sector in order to treat mental health extra-contractual referrals. [13124]

  Mr. Boateng
  The provisional figure of total expenditure by health authorities, general practitioner fundholders and National Health Service trusts on the purchase of health care from the private sector amounted to £594 million in 1996–97, the latest year available. This cannot be broken down into the type of services purchased from the private sector.

  Dental Services
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average list size of dentists with NHS patients in(a) North Staffordshire, (b) West Midlands and (c) nationally; and if he will make a statement. [14254]

  Mr. Milburn
  At June 1997, the average number of adults and children registered for each General Dental Service dentist was 2,044 in North Staffordshire, 1,913 in West Midlands and 1,622 in England.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on standards of dental health in(a) North Staffordshire, (b) West Midlands and (c) nationally. [14255]

  Mr. Milburn
  One clear measure of the standards of oral health is the incidence of dental caries. The British Association for the Study of Community Dentistry co-ordinates annual surveys of dental caries prevalence in different aged children. The attached tables show the most recent data for the mean number of decayed, missing and filled in deciduous teeth only of five-year-old children, and in the permanent teeth only of twelve and fourteen-year-old children in North Staffordshire, West Midlands and England. Similar data for adults are published every ten years. However, since the most recent data are based on a survey in 1988 and are therefore not particularly up-to-date, they are not presented here.

  By tradition the acronym for decayed, missing and filled teeth is shown in upper case for permanent teeth—DMFT—and in lower case for deciduous teeth—dmft.

  431

  Mean number of dmft of five-year-olds1 in 1995–96

  Number

  North Staffordshire

  1.81

  West Midlands

  1.08

  England

  1.63

  1Deciduous teeth only.

  Mean number of DMFT of five-year-olds1 in 1992–93

  Number

  North Staffordshire

  1.17

  West Midlands

  0.85

  England

  1.15

  1Permanent teeth only.

  Mean number of DMFT of fourteen-year-olds1 in 1994–95

  Number

  North Staffordshire

  1.99

  West Midlands

  1.24

  England

  1.67

  1Permanent teeth only.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the revenue consequences of capital investments undertaken to date under the private finance initiative, listing all such schemes and the financing costs excluding any ongoing staffing costs; and if he will compare these costs with those pertaining under traditional public borrowing. [14031]

  Mr. Milburn
  The amount paid to the private sector under Private Finance Initiative contracts will vary depending on the level and quality of service.

  The annual unitary payments for the two major acute sector PH schemes that have reached financial close are expected to be:

  Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust: £18.6 million

  Carlisle NHS Trust: £10.9 million

  The unitary payment is the cost of providing a fully serviced hospital facility. It includes elements of cost for the provision and maintenance of assets, the management of facilities, and financing. To be approved a PFI contract must offer better, or comparable, value for money to the publicly funded alternative.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the capital investment by the NHS in health care projects(a) in total and (b) within the Birmingham local authority area in each of the last five years up to and including 1996–97, and in each five year period since 1972–73 at actual and constant 1996–97 prices, separately identifying expenditure under the private finance initiative. [14030]

  Mr. Milburn
  The table shows the total amount of publicly financed capital expenditure within the Hospital and Community Health Services in England and within NHS trusts and hospitals in the Birmingham area.432

  £ million

  Year

  Gross HCHS capital expenditure (cash)

  Gross HCHS capital expenditure (real terms1)

  Capital expenditure within the Birmingham area (cash)

  Capital expenditure within the Birmingham area (real terms)

  1973–74

  265

  1,754

  n/a

  n/a

  1977–78

  353

  1,207

  n/a

  n/a

  1982–83

  778

  1,475

  n/a

  n/a

  1987–88

  1,112

  1,676

  n/a

  n/a

  1992–93

  1,815

  2,002

  n/a

  n/a

  1993–94

  1,783

  1,911

  93

  100

  1994–95

  2,049

  2,162

  58

  61

  1995–96

  1,996

  2,052

  76

  78

  1996–97

  1,683

  1,683

  65

  65

  1A consistent run of figures for HCHS Capital Expenditure for the period 1972–73 to 1977–78 is not available.

  1. Figures for capital expenditure within the Birmingham area are taken from NHS Executive Regional Office records and are not directly comparable with the England figures. Figures prior to 1993–94 are not readily available.

  2. Real terms figures have been calculated using the GDP deflator of 2 July 1997.

  In addition the Private Finance Initiative has contributed an estimated further £55 million in each of the years 1995–96 and 1996–97. There are no completed PFI deals in the Birmingham local authority area.

  National Blood Service
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the redundancy and pensions costs of personnel taking redundancy or early retirement from the National Blood Service have been since 1 April 1995,(a) nationally and (b) in each zone. [14457]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is given in the table.

  £000

  London and South East zone

  1,372

  Midlands and South West zone

  987

  Northern zone

  1,067

  Total

  3,426

  The total costs, including the full lifetime costs of early retirement according to National Health Service Accounting Treatment, will be £5.694 million.

  Social Services (Winter Funding)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list for each Social Services Department his estimate of the additional funding which will be made available this winter; [14592]

  (2) if he will list by health authority the dates at which the social services departments within each authority were invited to make applications for additional funding to assist with managing pressures over this winter, indicating the deadlines they were given for completing their funding applications. [14597]

  Mr. Boateng
  An additional £300 million has been made available for the health service in the United Kingdom this winter. Details of the allocations process in
  433
  England were set out in Executive Letter EL(97)64, copies of which have been placed in the Library. This letter asked health authorities to draw up plans for using the additional resources to improve services, in consultation with trusts, general practitioners and social services departments, by 31 October. These plans were to be agreed by the regional offices of the National Health Service Executive by 7 November. Details of the allocations to health authorities will be made public once they are available.

  National Care Council
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the Rowntree Commission's proposals for a National Care Council. [14589]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Rowntree report is a significant and thoughtful contribution to the debate about long-term care arrangements, and its proposals will no doubt be looked at carefully in the context of the Government's intention to take forward their programme of work in this area.

  Hospital and Community Health Services
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each health authority(a) the integrated allocation for hospital and community health services and (b) the funding per capita for (i) 1996–97 and (ii) 1997–98. [14600]

  Mr. Milburn
  A table detailing the information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what interim weighting was used for community health services for the 1997–98 integrated allocation for hospital and community health services. [14599]

  Mr. Milburn
  An interim needs weighting was introduced into the main weighted capitation formula in 1997–98. This formula is used to inform general allocations to health authorities.

  The needs weighting took the form of a number of indices which reflect the specific pattern of need for community health services, based on indicators of health and socioeconomic status from the Census and other sources.

  Full details are given in the booklet "HCHS Revenue Resource Allocation to Health Authorities: Weighted Capitation Formulas", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Adhesive Arachnoiditis
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of state for Health for what reasons the Department of Health was not represented at the conference held in London in 1995 by Dr. Burton on the subject of adhesive arachnoiditis. [14602]

  Ms Jowell
  The Chief Medical Officer was unable to attend this conference because of previous commitments. His deputy was unable to attend the conference at short notice.

  NHS Pay Awards
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) NHS trusts in the Northern and Yorkshire region, (b) community trusts nationally and (c) trusts nationally have reached agreement with their staff over the local element of the national NHS pay awards for 1996–97; and what percentage of (i) trusts and (ii) NHS staff are covered by these agreements in each case. [14236]

  Mr. Milburn
  We are not aware of any ongoing negotiations on the local element of the National Health Service Pay award for 1996–97.

  Nottingham Health Authority
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage level of capitation funding the Nottingham health authority has received for each of the last five years; and what is the planned figure for 1997–98. [14419]

  Mr. Milburn
  The general allocations for Nottingham Health Authority for 1993–94 to 1998–99 and the percentage of the health authority's weighted capitation target they represent are shown in the attached table.

  In 1998–99 formula changes have increased Nottingham Health Authority's weighted capitation target. As a result they have received 2.39 per cent. real terms growth. This is the eleventh highest real terms growth in percentage terms of all health authorities in England.

  Nottingham Health Authority

  Year

  General allocation (£ million)

  Weighted capitation target (per cent.)

  1998–99

  286.6

  96.5

  1997–98

  272.2

  97.6

  1996–97

  262.2

  97.4

  1995–96

  253.4

  96.7

  1994–95

  232.2

  99.9

  1993–94

  224.6

  101.4

  The figures are not directly comparable year-on-year because of the following changes to the way allocations have been made:

  1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96—these figures were collected centrally and adjusted to allow for the different ways in which the regional health authorities made allocations to district health authorities.

  Since 1996–97 General Allocations have been made direct to health authorities.

  Mentally Ill Patients
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to protect mentally ill patients from harassment and intimidation in their communities. [14563]

  Mr. Boateng
  The appropriate statutory authorities have a responsibility to ensure that mentally ill patients are cared for in the community in a safe and therapeutic environment. Clearly, mental health services need to proceed with sensitivity and adopt an informative, open approach in handling their plans for community developments. However, we recognise that the stigmatisation of mental illness is a serious problem. We therefore attach great importance to the need to
  435
  increase knowledge and understanding about mental health among the general public, thereby promoting a positive image of mental health and combatting stigma. Through our Impact Mental Illness Public Information Strategy, we are working closely with the voluntary sector, the media and other groups to take forward such work.

  Refugees and Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons refugees and asylum seekers are not included in the formula for allocating funding to individual health authorities, with specific reference to health authorities in London; and if he will amend the funding formula to take account of the health needs of refugees and asylum seekers. [14622]

  Mr. Milburn
  Refugees and asylum seekers are already included in the population data which are used in the weighted capitation formula to allocate funds to health authorities.

  We are however asking the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation (ACRA) to look at all aspects of population statistics used for resource allocation. ACRA will also consider whether there are any extra unavoidable costs associated with ethnicity.

  Basildon and Thurrock General Hospitals NHS Trust
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 3 November,Official Report, columns 76–77(1) if one of the two vacant posts of non-executive director only required specific skills; and if he will make a statement; [15003]

  (2) how many of the shortlisted applicants for the post of non-executive director of the Basildon and Thurrock General Hospitals NHS Trust had audit skills; [15004]

  (3) how many candidates shortlisted for interviews for the post of non-executive director at the Basildon and Thurrock General Hospitals NHS Trust had theappropriate skills and capacity to chair the Trust's Audit Committee and met the requirements of the job description; [15007]

  Real growth in National Health Service total expenditure (England)

  Year1

  Gross expenditure

  Net expenditure

  Cash growth(£ million)

  Real growth2 (1996–97 prices) (£ million)

  Real growth2 (per cent.)

  Cash growth (£ million)

  Real growth2 (1996–97 prices) (£ million)

  Real growth2 (per cent.)

  1979–80

  1,230

  368

  1·8

  1,174

  332

  1·7

  1980–81

  2,348

  2,065

  10·1

  2,253

  1,979

  10·1

  1981–82

  1,226

  505

  2·2

  1,154

  437

  2·0

  1982–83

  1,024

  412

  1·8

  965

  364

  1·7

  1983–84

  761

  341

  1·5

  675

  230

  1·0

  1984–85

  988

  567

  2·4

  913

  492

  2·2

  1985–86

  809

  59

  0·2

  769

  56

  0·2

  1986–87

  1,123

  1,068

  4·4

  997

  903

  3·9

  1987–88

  1,608

  1,138

  4·5

  1,495

  1,036

  4·3

  1988–89

  1,974

  1,121

  4·2

  1,745

  890

  3·5

  1989–90

  1,516

  193

  0·7

  1,442

  206

  0·8

  1990–91

  2,522

  1,016

  3·6

  2,471

  1,078

  4·1

  1991–92

  3,132

  1,864

  6·4

  3,027

  1,841

  6·7

  436
  (4) for what reasons candidates for interview were not advised of detailed job descriptions relating to the need to have appropriate skills and to be able to chair the Trust's Audit Committee. [15005]

  Mr. Milburn
  The interview panel were looking for one candidate capable of chairing the trust's audit committee, and another to have responsibility for patient relations and act as a complaints convenor. Four of the eleven shortlisted applicants, ten of whom were subsequently interviewed by the panel, were judged to have the appropriate skills to chair the audit committee. All applicants received the standard job description for non-executive directors which states that non-executives may be asked to sit on the audit committee or oversee the trust's response to complaints from the public. The local advertisement for the vacancies also made it clear that one of those appointed would be expected to chair the audit committee.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 3 November,Official Report, columns 76–77, by whom and on what basis were (a) Mr. Ian MacDonald, (b) Mr. Ian Robertson and (c) Mr. Geoff Jennings selected to serve on the selection/interviewing panel for the vacant non-executive director's post at the Basildon and Thurrock General Hospitals NHS Trust. [15006]

  Mr. Milburn
  The interview panel was recommended by the current chairman of the Basildon and Thurrock General Hospitals National Health Service Trust and approved by the National Health Service Executive Regional Office.

  NHS Funding
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the annual change in funding for the national health service for each year from 1979–80 to 1998–99 in(a) cash terms, (b) 1996–97 prices and (c) percentage real terms; and if he will make a statement. [14751]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is set out in the attached table.
  437

  Real growth in National Health Service total expenditure (England)

  Year1

  Gross expenditure

  Net expenditure

  Cash growth (£ million)

  Real growth2 (1996–97 prices)(£ million)

  Real growth2 (per cent.)

  Cash growth (£ million)

  Real growth2 (1996–97 prices)(£ million)

  Real growth2 (per cent.)

  1992–93

  2,585

  1,611

  5·2

  2,617

  1,712

  5·9

  1993–94

  1,022

  181

  0·6

  971

  170

  0·6

  1994–95

  1,580

  1,184

  3·6

  1,629

  1,259

  4·1

  1995–96

  1,500

  639

  1·9

  1,388

  564

  1·7

  1996–97

  1,149

  224

  0·7

  1,086

  203

  0·6

  1997–983

  1,552

  584

  1·7

  1,541

  615

  1·9

  1998–994

  1,419

  402

  1·1

  1,529

  547

  1·6

  11978–79 to 1996–97 are outturn figures, 1997–98 is forecast outturn and 1998–99 is planned expenditure.

  2Using GDP deflator of 2 July 1997.

  3Forecast outturn for 1997–98 includes the extra resources announced for this winter on 14 October.

  4Planned expenditure for 1998–99 includes the extra £1 billion announced at the 2 July Budget.

  Suicides
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary for Health what action he is taking to reduce the incidence of suicide. [14564]

  Mr. Boateng
  Latest figures show an encouraging downward trend in the overall suicide rate–9.8 per cent. since 1990 (based on a three-year average) but there is no room for complacency. As there is no single reason why people take their own lives, action needs to be taken on a number of fronts. Measures include: reducing access to means, for example, we recently announced restrictions on paracetamol and aspirin pack sizes and improvements in warnings about the effect of overdose; increasing public awareness and understanding about mental illness; focusing on high risk groups, for example, the development of a telephone helpline for young men; educating health and social care professionals about depression; audit of serious incidents and the dissemination of findings; and improving primary and secondary mental health services.

  Monitor Consultancy
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the nature and value of contracts

  Passengers in excess of capacity: London terminals

  1995 AM

  1996 AM

  Change

  1995 PM

  1996 PM

  Change

  1995 total

  1996 total

  Change

  Chiltern (per cent.)

  5·5

  0·2

  -5·3

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  3·0

  0·1

  -2·9

  Connex South Central

  South London (Inner) (per cent.)

  2·2

  3·2

  1·0

  2·2

  1·2

  -1·0

  2·2

  2·3

  0·1

  Sussex Coast (Outer) (per cent.)

  2·2

  5·8

  3·6

  2·5

  2·2

  -0·3

  2·3

  4·1

  1·8

  Total (per cent.)

  2·2

  4·0

  1·8

  2·3

  1·6

  -0·7

  2·2

  2·9

  0·7

  Connex South Eastern

  Kent Link (Inner) (per cent.)

  2·2

  2·2

  0·0

  0·1

  0·3

  0·2

  1·2

  1·3

  0·1

  Kent Coast (Outer) (per cent.)

  3·8

  2·9

  -0·9

  0·7

  2·5

  1·8

  2·2

  2·7

  0·5

  Total (per cent.)

  2·5

  2·3

  -0·2

  0·3

  0·9

  0·6

  1·5

  1·7

  0·2

  Great Eastern

  Inner (per cent.)

  5·2

  5·6

  0·4

  1·0

  1·9

  0·9

  3·2

  3·8

  0·6

  Outer (per cent.)

  2·5

  2·8

  0·3

  2·0

  1·5

  -0·5

  2·2

  2·2

  0·0

  Total (per cent.)

  3·7

  4·1

  0·4

  1·6

  1·7

  0·1

  2·7

  2·9

  0·2

  438
  his Department has entered into and (b) discussions ministers or officials have held with the Monitor Consultancy since 1990. [14951]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 7 November 1997]The Department has no record of placing any contracts with Monitor Consultancy in the period 1 April 1992 to the present time. Information about the period 1 April 1990 to 31 March 1992 is not readily available and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Train Passengers
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, if he will list the percentage of passengers in excess of capacity carried by each train operating company during(a) the morning peak hours and (b) the evening peak hours and the number of standing passengers that this represents in each case; and if he will make a statement. [13051]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Figures for 1995 and 1996 are in the table. The trend shows that the number of peak passengers into and out of London has increased but the levels of crowding have reduced. Certain ScotRail services are also subject to Passengers in Excess of Capacity (PIXC) monitoring, but figures are not yet available.
  439

  Passengers in excess of capacity: London terminals

  1995 AM

  1996 AM

  Change

  1995 PM

  1996 PM

  Change

  1995 total

  1996 total

  Change

  London, Tilbury and Southend(per cent.)

  0·3

  0·5

  0·2

  0·0

  0·4

  0·4

  0·2

  0·5

  0·3

  North London

  Watford Local (Inner) (per cent.)

  0·0

  2·1

  2·1

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  1·3

  1·3

  Northampton (Outer) (per cent.)

  0·6

  1·3

  0·7

  0·0

  1·3

  1·3

  0·3

  1·3

  1·0

  Total (per cent.)

  0·5

  1·4

  0·9

  0·0

  1·1

  1·1

  0·3

  1·3

  1·0

  South West Trains

  Inner (per cent.)

  7·1

  3·4

  -3·7

  0·3

  1·2

  0·9

  4·2

  2·4

  -1·8

  Outer (per cent.)

  3·5

  2·2

  -1·3

  0·2

  0·3

  0·1

  1·9

  1·3

  -0·6

  Total (per cent.)

  5·9

  3·0

  -2·9

  0·3

  0·9

  0·6

  3·4

  2·0

  -1·4

  Thames (per cent.)

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·1

  0·0

  -0·1

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Thameslink

  Inner (NSC) (per cent.)

  7·5

  4·6

  -2·9

  0·0

  6·4

  6·4

  4·3

  5·5

  1·2

  Outer (North/South) (per cent.)

  1·6

  1·4

  -0·2

  3·0

  2·1

  -0·9

  2·3

  1·7

  -0·6

  Total (per cent.)

  2·6

  2·0

  -0·6

  2·6

  2·9

  0·3

  2·6

  2·4

  -0·2

  West Anglia and Great Northern

  Inner (per cent.)

  4·8

  1·7

  -3·1

  2·3

  0·4

  -1·9

  3·6

  1·1

  -2·5

  Outer (per cent.)

  0·1

  0·5

  0·4

  0·9

  2·1

  1·2

  0·5

  1·3

  0·8

  Total (per cent.)

  2·7

  1·1

  -1·6

  1·6

  1·3

  -0·3

  2·2

  1·2

  -1·0

  London PIXC total (per cent.)

  3·0

  2·6

  -0·4

  1·0

  1·2

  0·2

  2·1

  1·9

  -0·2

  Passenger numbers

  382,244

  387,488

  5,244

  328,836

  336,972

  8,136

  711,080

  724,460

  13,380

  Passenger numbers (per cent.)

  100

  101·37

  1·37

  100

  102·47

  2·47

  100

  101·88

  1·88

  Number of passengers in excess of capacity

  11,532

  9,948

  -1,584

  3,222

  3,962

  740

  14,754

  13,910

  -844

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Pollution (South-East Asia)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department has taken in respect of the recent pollution incident in the Malaysian Peninsula, Borneo and Sumatra. [15047]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We reacted swiftly to the environmental emergency in South East Asia with a grant of £62,066 to the United Nations Department of Humanitarian Affairs to provide relief goods to those affected. We offered to send aircraft with infra-red reconnaissance capability to pin-point the location of fires but these were no longer required. We have also provided two experts to support the United Nations' disaster assessment and co-ordination role and a fire-fighting and logistics expert to lead the Technical Co-ordination Group established to co-ordinate international assistance for the provision of ground fire-fighting equipment and training.

  UNESCO
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development from where savings have been found in her Department's budget to fund membership of UNESCO. [14824]
  440
  Mr. Foulkes
  Our contribution of £5 million for the period 1 July to 31 December 1997 has been met from DFID's in-year contingency reserve. Future annual contributions are being considered in the current resources round.

  Delegated Legislation
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list all(a) secondary, (b) other delegated legislation and (c) all deregulation orders her Department made during the summer adjournment. [14383]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 5 November,Official Report, column 216.

  Windward Islands
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what technical assistance has been provided to St. Lucia, Dominica and Grenada to help diversify their economies; and if he will make a statement. [14995]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Current UK Technical Assistance aims to strengthen exportable food crop research, macro economic policy and public sector development. This
  441
  complements substantial EC resources, to which Britain contributes, to promote agricultural and broader economic diversification initiatives in these islands.

  Montserrat
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the UK's aid to Montserrat. [14989]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Since the start of the volcanic crisis some £45.8 million of emergency aid, development assistance and budgetary aid has been committed by Her Majesty's Government to the needs of Montserrat. We are currently working with the Government of Montserrat to develop a sustainable development plan for the north of the island and doing all we can to improve the services provided by Government of Montserrat for the people and the Island. We are also providing assistance to those who wish to leave Montserrat.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  E-Mail
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will place in the Library a list of the e-mail addresses of all Ministers; and if he will make a statement on whether Ministers are accessible by e-mail. [13767]

  Dr. David Clark
  A list of Ministers' e-mail addresses is not held centrally. However, if Ministers would like a central list set up then I would be happy to take this forward. Individual departments are responsible for providing their Ministers with e-mail addresses.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Employment
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has for maximising(a) employment levels and (b) employability across the European Union. [14421]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Unemployment is Europe's most acute problem. A special European Council (the "Jobs Summit") is to take place in Luxembourg on 20/21 of this month, and my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary will attend for the UK. The main challenge for the Jobs Summit is to produce agreement on the areas where Member States should be taking measures to tackle unemployment and to promote a high and sustainable level of employment. The Summit will discuss draft Employment Guidelines, which are required under the provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty. The Guidelines are central to the efforts of Member States and the EU in the field of employment. We shall want the agreed Guidelines to reflect the paramount importance of employability and job creation. The Commission's draft, published on 1 October, provides a good basis for discussion in it's key themes of adaptability, employability, entrepreneurship, and equal opportunities. We shall want the Summit to commit Member States to take positive action which can be realised during our Presidency and carried forward in the Presidencies that follow.
  442
  The UK Presidency of the Council in the first half of next year gives us a real opportunity to shift the European agenda in a new direction. Our intention is for the Presidency in the Social Affairs and Education fields to have employability as a key, shared theme. There will be a joint informal Council meeting in London next March of next year, formal Councils later in the Presidency and a range of key conferences. Education and Social Affairs Ministers across Europe will be working together and we will be looking to engage many people in our discussions and in taking work forward.

  The Presidency will encompass work on lifelong learning and on innovative ways of tackling unemployment and combating social exclusion. Following the Jobs Summit we intend to set the framework for the Community's new education and training programmes and to focus on the role of the member states and the Community in improving skill levels. During our Presidency we intend to shift the European agenda decisively and to make a concrete start in giving people the skills and adaptability needed for successful careers in the flexible labour markets which are a key part of ensuring the competitiveness of Europe.

  Welfare to Work
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he will take to ensure that black and Asian young people benefit from the Government's welfare to work proposals. [14402]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government are committed to ensuring that the New Deal will actively promote equality of opportunity for young people of all ethnic and racial groups. Delivery arrangements for each element of the programme—the Gateway, the four options and follow-through support—will promote racial equality and are based on detailed consideration of how best to deliver provision for young people from ethnic minorities, including consultation with the Commission for Racial Equality and encouragement to Race Equality Councils to be involved in local arrangements. Further details of the arrangements particularly relating to ethnic minority participants are set out in the New Deal Design document which has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what sanctions he proposes to impose on those aged under 25 years who are unemployed who refuse to take up any of the options offered to them under the Welfare to Work scheme. [14683]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 7 November 1997]We intend that young people who are judged by an Adjudication Officer to have refused a New Deal place without good cause will lose their Jobseeker's Allowance for two weeks. If they refuse a further offer at any time in the following twelve months they will lose JSA for four weeks.

  Delegated Legislation
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list all(a) secondary, (b) other delegated legislation and (c) all deregulation orders his Department made during the summer adjournment. [14380]
  443
  Dr. Howells
  The following items of secondary legislation were made during the period in question:The Education (School Leaving Date) Order 1997;
  The Education (School Inspection) Regulations 1997;
  The Education (Fees and Awards) Regulations 1997;
  The Education (Grants) (Music, Ballet and Choir Schools) (Amendment) Regulations 1997;
  The Education (Assisted Places) Regulations 1997;
  The Education (Assisted Places) (Incidental Expenses) Regulations 1997;
  The Nursery Education (Amendment) Regulations 1997;
  The Nursery Education (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1997;
  The Education (School Performance Information) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 1997;
  The Education (School Performance Information) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1997;
  The Education (London Residuary Body) (Suspense Account Properties) Order 1997;
  The Education (Grants for Education Support and Training) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 1997;
  The Education (Further Education Institutions Information) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 1997;
  The Education (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and Qualifications and Curriculum Authority for Wales) (Transfer of Property and Designation of Staff) Order 1997;
  The Education (Grant-Maintained Special Schools) (Amendment) Regulations 1997;
  The Education (National Curriculum) (Assessment Arrangements for Key Stages 1, 2 and 3) (England) (Amendment) Order 1997;
  The Education (Funding for Teacher Training) (Designation) (No. 3) Order 1997;
  The Education (Individual Performance Information) (Prescribed Bodies and Persons) Regulations 1997.

  No other delegated legislation or deregulation orders were made.

  Discretionary Grants
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his Department's estimate of the number of applicants for discretionary grants who have been refused by their local education authority in each of the last five years. [14561]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 6 November 1997]The information requested is not available centrally.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, what is his Department's estimate of the number of graduates who(a) earn too little to repay loans and (b) have defaulted on repayment; and if he will make a statement. [14560]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 6 November 1997]At 31 March 1997,(a) 314,378 (49 per cent.) borrowers due to repay were deferring repayment because their income was below 85 per cent. of national average earnings and (b) 34,109 (9.3 per cent.) borrowers due to repay but not in deferment were in default.

  Home Education
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children are currently being educated at home. [14921]
  444
  Ms Estelle Morris
  In January 1997 local education authorities in England were providing home tuition to 10,800 children under their duty to arrange suitable education for pupils who cannot attend school. It has been estimated that a further 10,000 children are educated outside the school system, under arrangements made by their parents.

  School Places
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to review the allocation of school places which prevents a local education authority giving children from its own area priority in admissions to its own schools, when pupils from other authorities live closer to the school. [14758]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We have no plans to reverse the "Greenwich judgment", under which LEAs may not give preference to children living in their administrative area over children living elsewhere. We do, however, believe that there should be greater co-operation and co-ordination between neighbouring authorities, and we shall encourage this in our proposed new Code of Practice on admissions.

  University Applications
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, what assessment he has made of university applications for 1997–98 and the levels of parental income of applicants compared with previous years; and if he will make a statement. [14559]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 6 November 1997]The latest information from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service indicates that, allowing for the extra Art and Design Admissions Registry applicants new to the UCAS scheme for 1997–98, the number of home and overseas accepted applicants is some 7 to 8 per cent. higher in 1997–98, than in the previous years. Information on the levels of parental income of applicants is not centrally available; nor have we yet received local authorities' annual returns showing the numbers of award-holding students for 1997–98 and the levels of assessed parental contributions, which reflect their income.

  Overseas Students
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary for Education and Employment, how many students who did not hold a British passport enrolled at United Kingdom universities from(a) other EU countries and (b) South East Asia for each of the last five years; and what are the projected enrolment figures for (i) the current academic year and (ii) the next two academic years. [14695]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 6 November 1997]The available data based on domicile rather than passport nationality are given in the table.

  Figures for 1997–98 are not yet available.

  445

  Higher education full-time and part-time student enrolments in Great Britain

  Academic year

  EU domicile

  South East Asia domicile

  1992–93

  36,128

  29,110

  1993–94

  43,850

  35,210

  1994–95

  61,090

  42,487

  1995–96

  76,794

  49,384

  1996–97

  79,904

  46,475

  The Department's forecasts for EU students are confined to those students who receive mandatory awards to cover the cost of their tuition fees. The Department's spending plans allow for a 1 per cent. per annum increase in these numbers. The Department does not make forecasts of the numbers of students from South East Asia who choose to study HE in the UK.

  Higher Education Grants
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, what is his estimate of the annual cost of returning to the full grant system for higher education. [14562]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 6 November 1997]The cost of returning to a full grant system would be about £29 million in academic year 1998–99 and £180 million in 1999–2000, at 1997–98 prices. This assumes that both student numbers and the levels of parental contribution remain unchanged; that the new arrangements would be introduced for all students; and that the existing loan entitlement would be replaced by a means-tested grant. The savings generated by the new higher education funding arrangements we have announced would also be foregone.

  Grammar Schools
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how the ballots of parents on the future of grammar schools will be triggered; [14938]

  (2) if a minimum turnout threshold will be set for ballots on the future of grammar schools; [14966]

  (3) how eligible parents will be defined in respect of ballots on the future of grammar schools. [14968]

  Mr. Byers
  The Department issued on 1 August a consultation letter setting out the principles of the government's approach in relation to ballots of parents on future admission arrangements for grammar schools, and inviting views on the issues arising and the procedures which might be adopted. The letter made clear that parental ballots will be triggered only where a petition seeking a ballot has been put forward by local parents. It sought views on which parents should be eligible to vote in ballots, and on the mechanism for conducting ballots. We have received some 1,100 responses to the consultation letter. These are currently being analysed. We shall announce as soon as possible our conclusions on the best way of carrying our proposals forward.

  Teachers
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, how many teachers other than those in further or higher education or independent 446
  schools (a) were made redundant and (b) did not have their contracts renewed for each month from September 1996 to September 1997. [14694]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 6 November 1997]The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his Answer of 29 October,Official Report, column 819, what proportion of teachers, other than those in further and higher education or independent schools, who retired under the age of 60 years in the period October 1996 to September 1997 retired (a) on the grounds of (i) ill-health, (ii) efficiency or (iii) redundancy and (b) aged (1) under 30, (2) 30 to 34, (3) 35 to 39, (4) 40 to 44, (5) 45 to 49, (6) 50 to 54 and (7) 55 to 59 years. [14702]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 6 November 1997]There were 19,310 retirements aged under 60 from the maintained schools sector in England and Wales between October 1996 and September 1997 on the grounds of ill-health, efficiency or redundancy. The number of retirements is provisional. The percentage breakdown by age group and type of retirement is given below.

  Percentages

  Age at retirement

  Ill-health1

  Premature

  Total retirements

  Redundancy

  Efficiency

  Under 30

  —

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  30 to 34

  —

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  35 to 39

  1

  n/a

  n/a

  1

  40 to 44

  2

  n/a

  n/a

  2

  45 to 49

  6

  n/a

  n/a

  6

  50 to 54

  9

  9

  41

  59

  55 to 59

  5

  4

  23

  32

  All ages

  23

  14

  63

  100

  —= less than 0.5 per cent.

  n/a = not applicable.

  1Provisional. Figures are likely to change because of late notifications.

  Tennis
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of schools and sixth-form colleges which have staff qualified to provide tuition in tennis. [15146]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This information is not collected by the Department.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of schools and sixth-form colleges which provide tuition in tennis, indicating the number of children receiving such tuition. [15145]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  None. This information is not collected or held centrally.

  Monitor Consultancy
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list(a) the nature and value of contracts his Department has entered into and (b) discussions ministers or officials have held with the Monitor Consultancy since 1990. [14945]
  447
  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 7 November 1997]There is no record of the Department having entered into any contract with Monitor Consultancy nor have any discussions been held with such a company.

  University Students
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the ratio of undergraduate students to teaching staff at(a) Oxford, (b) Cambridge, (c) Durham and (d) all universities in England and Wales. [14629]

  Dr. Howells
  The latest available information which relates to 1993–94 and covers all students (undergraduates and postgraduates) in all higher education institutions in England shows a student: staff ratio of 16·5.

  Because of changes in data sources in 1994–95 more recent figures have not so far been published. It is intended that the next Departmental Annual Report due to be published in March 1998 will contain more up to date figures.

  Student:staff ratios for individual institutions are not compiled by the Department. Figures for former University Funding Council universities were published up to 1993–94, by cost centre, in the University Management Statistics and Performance Indicators in the UK publication.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many mature students are currently studying at(a) Oxford, (b) Cambridge and (c) Durham Universities; if he will express that figure as a percentage of the total undergraduate student body of each university; and what is the average for all British universities. [14627]

  Dr. Howells
  The information is given in the following table:

  Mature1 home and overseas undergraduates in higher education 1996–97

  Mature undergraduates (thousands)

  Percentage of all undergraduates

  University

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Oxford

  2·7

  2·7

  24

  100

  Cambridge

  3·0

  2·0

  28

  99

  Durham

  2·0

  0·6

  26

  93

  All higher education institutions in the UK2

  446·3

  346·4

  45

  97

  1Those aged 21 and over in the current academic year.2 Including the Open University.

  Oxford, Cambridge and Durham Colleges
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the cost to his Department arising from the duplication of administrative functions at the constituent colleges of(a) Oxford, (b) Cambridge and (c) Durham universities. [14628]

  Dr. Howells
  The organisation of their administrative functions is a matter for the colleges concerned, having 448
  regard to the resources available to them. The Department does not have information about the cost of those functions, but has asked the Higher Education Funding Council for England to review college fees. We expect soon to receive the Council's advice on the mechanisms for setting future funding for universities and colleges at Oxford and Cambridge and on any implications for the three independent colleges at Durham, which also receive funding through reimbursement of college fees.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will establish the total assets of each constituent college of(a) Oxford, (b) Cambridge and (c) Durham universities. [14625]

  Dr. Howells
  The constituent colleges of Oxford, Cambridge and Durham universities are private sector institutions. The Further and Higher Education Act 1992 specifically debars Government, through the Higher Education Funding Council for England, from having regard to private income in distributing public funds.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of his Department's budget in each of the last five years went towards college fees for undergraduates studying at colleges within(a) Oxford, (b) Cambridge and (c) Durham universities. [14623]

  Dr. Howells
  In 1997–98 the net cost of college fees (taking account of the amount of grant clawed back in compensation from Oxford and Cambridge universities by the Funding Council) was –19 million for Oxford, –17 million for Cambridge and –0.6 million for Durham, representing just under 1 per cent. of the Department's budget of –4.4 billion for higher education institutions. The proportion was similar in previous years.

  Undergraduates (Private School Background)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of the last five years' undergraduate intake at(a) Oxford, (b) Cambridge and (c) Durham universities were from the private school sector. [14624]

  Dr. Howells
  The information is not available in the form requested. The latest information available shows that 52 per cent. of students accepted for entry to undergraduate courses at Oxford in Autumn 1996 came from private schools as did 48 per cent. of Cambridge's intake. Comparable information is not available for Durham.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the budget for 1997–98 for each grant-maintained school in England and Wales as funded by the Funding Agency for Schools. [14669]

  Mr. Byers
  The calculation of grants to individual grant-maintained schools in England is a matter for the Funding Agency for Schools. I have therefore written to Sir Anthony Tippet, Chairman of the Funding Agency, to ask him to provide the figures requested. Responsibility for education in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

DEFENCE

  Racism
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to combat racism in the armed forces. [14699]

  Dr. Reid
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have made clear on a number of occasions, it is our aim fully to embrace diversity in the Armed Forces and that they should better reflect the society they defend. We are determined both to provide a working environment that is free from any form of racial harassment or discrimination and to encourage more people from the ethnic minorities to join the Armed Forces. It has been made absolutely clear to all personnel, from all three Services, that we will not tolerate racism in the Armed forces and will be unremitting in our efforts to remove any racist attitudes, racially discriminatory practice, behaviour or language.

  Changes in attitudes within the Services and perceptions outside will, of course, take time, but we are determined to make real progress in this area. The recent public launch by the Chief of the General Staff of the Army's revised Equal Opportunities Directive gave an unequivocal commitment to upholding the principle of Equality of Opportunity for all Army personnel.

  Examples of the initiatives being pursued by the Army include:
  a booklet setting out a revised, and greatly simplified, complaints procedure designed to assist those exposed to harassment/discrimination, which will be issued to every soldier. The Naval Service and RAF plan to have similar booklets.
  a confidential support helpline service, effective from
  1 December, which will be outside the chain of command;
  an independent Investigation Team to investigate complaints of harassment/discrimination;
  a new Ethnic Minorities Recruiting Team to help increase proportions of ethnic minorities serving.

  The Chiefs of Staff in the Naval Service and the RAF are equally committed to ensuring equality of opportunity in their respective Services, a commitment exemplified by the success of The Royal Navy in being shortlisted by the British Diversity panel in recognition of its efforts to improve equal opportunities.

  All three Services have introduced many initiatives to help combat and eliminate all forms of racism in, and to improve ethnic recruiting to the Armed Forces. Each Service has issued Equal Opportunities Directives and leaflets, which are issued to all servicing and new personnel, spelling out clearly what equal opportunities means, harassment and complaints procedures and their rights and responsibilities. These are supported by individual Service Equal Opportunities Action Plans which allow us to monitor our policies and practice to ensure there is no discrimination. They will also ensure that awareness of both ethnic origin and gender issues are considered when forming new policy and initiatives.

  Each of the Services provide equal opportunities training for all new entrants, officers and NCOs promotion and management courses, Commanding
  450
  Officers, recruiters and equal opportunities advisers. We are looking at what more might be done on a tri-Service basis.

  The Chief of Defence Staff, and the individual Service Chiefs have accepted the CRE's Leadership Challenge and have given their personal commitment to promote racial equality, together with taking practical steps to promote change within their own Services. In addition, each of the Services is a member of the Race for Opportunity scheme.

  UFOs
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's investigations into alleged sightings of unidentified flying objects intruding into British air space. [14907]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department examines any reports of "unexplained" aerial sightings that are sent to us solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence significance, namely, whether there was any evidence that the UK Air Defence Region might have been breached by hostile or unauthorised foreign military activity. Unless there is evidence of a potential military threat, and to date no "unidentified flying object" sighting has revealed such evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each reported incident.

  RAF Menwith Hill
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the information collected at RAF Menwith Hill is available to the British Security Services. [14513]

  Dr. Reid
  I am withholding information on the operations of the intelligence and security agencies under exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information on the grounds of national security.

  Trident
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons consideration of the Trident system has been excluded from the defence review. [15026]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The retention of Trident was a specific commitment in the Government's election manifesto. The review is however examining all aspects of our deterrence requirements to ensure they reflect changing strategic circumstances. The Government will also press for multi-lateral negotiations towards mutual, balanced and verifiable reductions in nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what strategic factors underlay his decisions to spend an extra £100 million on the Trident system. [15002]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The recent decision on a long standing element of the nearly completed Trident procurement programme is in line with the Government's manifesto commitment to retain Trident to provide a minimum credible nuclear deterrent.

  Hunting
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria his Department has set for the registration of packs of fox hounds which hunt on their land; if such packs must also be recognised by the Master of Fox Hounds Association; and if he will make a statement. [14442]

  Mr. Spellar
  Foxhunting on the Defence Estate is regulated by the licensing of hunts which are officially recognised and accepted by the Committee of the Master of Foxhounds Association. The licence is issued to a hunt representative who must be a member of the Master of Foxhounds Association.

  The registration of packs of foxhounds in the foxhound kennel stud book is a matter for the Master of the Hunt.

CABINET OFFICE

  Millennium Dome
  28. Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what will be the total cost of constructing the millennium dome at Greenwich. [13455]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The overall cash budget for the Millennium Experience and associated national programme is £758 million. For that the Nation will get: the catalyst for the long-term physical and economic regeneration of a site that has lain derelict for over 20 years; the most famous new building of the year 2000; an Experience that will be the most original and inspiring Millennium event anywhere in the world; and a National Programme of events and activities that will extend right across the Country.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what monitoring he has undertaken of employees contracted to work on the dome. [13456]

  Mr. Mandelson
  It is for the individual contractors to monitor their own employees. NMEC's work contracts meet all relevant legal requirements.

  Contracts also reflect best practice in matters such as Considerate Contractor Scheme. All aspects of the contracts are regularly monitored by the company to ensure compliance.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what plans he has to move the millennium dome from Greenwich in 2001. [13457]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The Government are currently considering a range of possible, self-financing, uses for the Millennium Experience Dome at Greenwich or possibly elsewhere after 2000.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio how long the millennium experience will be maintained at Greenwich. [13458]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The Experience will, as presently planned, run on the Greenwich site for 367 days from 31 December 1999 to 31 December 2000.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio, pursuant to his answer of 28 July,Official Report, column 25, for what reasons he is unable to list the journeys he has undertaken since 2 May at public expense. [14509]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave on 28 July,Official Report, column 25.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio, pursuant to his answer of 31 July,Official Report, column 426, for what reasons he does not propose to disclose details of conversations, meetings or other engagements undertaken in pursuance of his duties as Minister without Portfolio. [14510]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Even if it were possible to keep universally detailed records of the kind the hon. Member appears to envisage, the cost of so doing would be quite disproportionate.

  Media Reporting
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will list the occasions since 2 May on which he or persons within his Office have complained to the media about the reporting of the Government's activities. [14516]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) on 25 June,Official Report, column 524.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Welfare-to-Work Programme
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much of the £195 million mentioned in her Department's press release of 29 October will be made available exclusively for the needs of disabled people within the welfare-to-work programme. [14680]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 6 November]The Government strongly believe that, for people of working age, work is the best form of welfare. We are committed to improving opportunities for sick and disabled people to work, up to £195 million has been set aside from the Windfall Tax to fund this important programme.

  Many people with disabilities or long-term health problems want to work and the aim of the Welfare to Work programme is to allow them to do so. We wish to develop ways to give each sick and disabled person the advice, help and support they need to achieve their aspirations and to move towards financial independence.

  The money set aside from the Windfall Tax will be used to actively explore a range of approaches, covering various illnesses and disabilities, to identify and pursue

  453
  the best ways to help people with disabilities and long-term health problems move into work or remain in work.

  Mr. Steve Reardon
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if she will publish the level of salary paid to Government information officers on the same grade as Mr. Steve Reardon; and what plans she has for a successor to be paid more; [15060]

  (2) for what reasons Mr. Steve Reardon ceased to work as Director of Information at her Department on 16 September; [15061]

  (3) if she requested Mr. Steve Reardon to leave his post; and if she will make a statement; [15062]

  (4) if she is seeking a replacement to the Director of Information at her Department from outside the Civil Service; and what is the maximum salary that her Department is prepared to pay an individual accepting that post or a post to replace Mr. Reardon; [15063]

  (5) if she will list the advertisements and internal memoranda relating to the vacancy to replace Mr. Reardon at her Department; and if she will publish the job description and duties of the post; [15064]

  (6) if the position of Director of Information at her Department as it existed up to 16 September has been abolished; and if she will make a statement; [15065]

  (7) if the successor to Mr. Steve Reardon at her Department will be of the same grade as Mr. Reardon; [15066]

  (8) if she will publish the job description and duties of the Director of Information at her Department prior to 16 September. [15067]

  Ms Harman
  The former Director of Information at the DSS left his post on 16 September. I did not request him to leave; he stepped aside after agreeing with the Department the need for a different style and approach in his Directorate. An advertisement for a new Director of Information was placed in The Guardian newspaper on 20 October and, shortly afterwards, was circulated to members of the Government Information Service. The job is open to people with the appropriate skills and experience whether or not they are existing civil servants.

  The level of responsibility, the pay range and duties of the post are unaltered. It is a Senior Civil Service post and the appropriate remuneration lies in the range £52,020 to £86,700 per annum. The job description is as follows:
  "The Director of Information is Press Secretary to the Secretary of State for Social Security and is responsible for advice to the Department on media handling and presentation across the full range of its responsibilities, including supporting the Secretary of State in her role as Minister for Women.
  The Director is Head of Profession for all Government Information Service staff with the department and provides advice to Agency Chief Executives on issues such as information standards, staff recruitment and propriety. He/she manages a team of around 40 professional and administrative staff and is responsible for expenditure of around £5 million a year.
  The postholder reports to the Head of Policy Group and is directly accountable to the Secretary of State".

  454
  The advertisement offers a salary of up to £70,000 per annum depending upon the experience of the successful candidate. The pay of other senior Information Officers is a matter for individual departments but is determined in the same way and by reference to rules laid down for appointments to the Senior Civil Service.

  The selection of a new Director of Information will be conducted under the Civil Service Commissioners' rules which ensure fair and open competition. The selection process will be chaired by a Commissioner.

  Benefits Fraud Inspectorate
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much money the Government are allocating to the Benefits Fraud Inspectorate; and how much money she estimates will be saved through tighter surveillance of benefit fraud. [15179]

  Mr. Denham
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) will play a vital role in driving up operational standards to maximise counter-fraud performance and minimise the risk of fraud throughout the Social Security system. This will be achieved by forward looking inspection reports with recommendations on how performance can be improved and by identifying and encouraging good practice.

  Under the spending plans of the previous Government, BFI was allocated an annual running costs budget of £2 million for 1997–98. We are now considering whether this is adequate for the BFI to carry out an effective inspection programme for local authorities and DSS Agencies.

  It is not possible to quantify precisely the impact of more secure systems and improvements in standards of counter-fraud activity in preventing and detecting fraud. Much will depend on the nature of the problems identified by the BFI inspections. We expect BFI, along with a range of other work, to deliver in due course permanent reductions in the amount lost to benefit fraud, although it may not be possible to isolate completely the effects of each initiative.

  Press Conferences
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what circumstances Government press conferences are shared with pressure groups. [15173]

  Mr. Field
  This Department invites Pressure Groups to attend press conferences when it is appropriate.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are her estimates of the yield to the Exchequer from extending(a) employee and (b) employer national insurance contributions to all taxable benefits in kind; and if she will make a statement. [14522]

  Mr. Denham
  It is estimated that the extension of Class 1A paid by employers to other taxable benefits at the current 10.0 per cent. rate would raise approximately £300 million. Extending Class 1 paid by both employers and employees to taxable benefits in kind, assuming that all contributions are paid at the main 10 per cent. rate, is estimated to result in revenue of around £850 million in
  455
  secondary contributions and £250 million in primary. However this would have to be offset against the loss of around £550 million Class 1A, giving a net gain of around £550 million.

  We have already announced measures to bring non-cash vouchers into liability for National Insurance. We will continue to keep pay practices and the case for extending contributions to other benefits in kind under review.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is her estimate of the effects on employment of a 1 per cent. reduction in the rates of employers' national insurance contributions; and if she will make a statement. [14518]

  Mr. Denham
  It is not possible to produce an estimate.

  The effect of changes on employers' National Insurance contributions cannot be isolated from other factors affecting the level of employment.

  Appeals Backlog
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment she has made of the extent to which the backlog of appeals will be reduced by the provisions of the Social Security Bill. [15172]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Social Security Bill contains measures which will address the backlog of appeals. For example, the powers for the Commissioners to return supported appeals. In addition, tribunals and the Commissioners will not have to revise cases following a decision of the Commissioners and Courts in a lead case as they will be processed by the Agency.

  Other measures will reduce the potential for backlogs to occur in the future. For example, the new disputes process will allow errors to be corrected quickly by the Department's Agencies and will reduce the number of cases that go to appeal. New powers to deal with meritless appeals and the more responsive composition of tribunals will speed up the handling of appeals as well.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take personal responsibility for the administration of the appeals system, set and publish demanding targets to shorten the time it takes for appeals to be heard, and report on the results.

  Mortgage Interest Payments
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many income support recipients with a mortgage are currently building up arrears because of the use of a standard interest rate; [15171]

  (2) what estimate she has made of the total mortgage arrears run up to date by income support recipients with mortgages as a result of the use of a standard rate. [15170]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is not available.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans the Government have for encouraging those currently claiming incapacity benefit to gain employment. [15175]
  456
  Mr. Denham
  The Government strongly believes that work is the best form of welfare for people of working age. We are committed to improving opportunities for sick and disabled people who want to work, including those receiving incapacity benefits, and have set aside some £195 million from the Windfall Tax to fund this important programme. We will use this money to explore a range of approaches to identify and pursue the best ways of helping people with disabilities and long-term health problems to move into work, and to avoid becoming dependent on long-term incapacity benefits.

  We are consulting with disability organisations and employers on our proposals. These include funding a number of innovative schemes to explore how best to help people move into work or stay in work; introducing personal advisers to help sick and disabled people to overcome barriers to work; an information campaign to improve knowledge of the existing help available to help people into work and to change attitudes of benefit recipients, employers and the public; and a programme of research and evaluation to develop our understanding of the client group and to determine the effect of our initiatives.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total spent on cold weather payments during the winter of 1996–97. [15178]

  Mr. Denham
  In the winter of 1996–97 almost five million Cold Weather Payments were made at a cost of £42 million.

  Supported Housing
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has for consultation on the long term funding arrangements for supported housing; and if she will make a statement. [14901]

  Ms Harman
  [pursuant to her reply, 5 November 1997, Official Report, c. 246]Securing stable, sustainable long term funding arrangements for supported housing will take time. The Government are keen to take the views of those working in the field before making any decision. I am therefore setting out our objectives for the long term.

  These are:
  A Government-wide approach;
  Clarifying responsibilities for controlling, targeting, and prioritising public expenditure on services supporting people in their homes—avoiding gaps and overlaps between budgets;
  Ensuring the funding system can respond to individuals' needs and enable support to be provided in different types of accommodation and tenures;
  Avoiding the possibility that accommodation choices may be distorted by the availability and interaction of different funding (this may result from the inter action of demand-led and cash-limited funding streams);
  Encouraging coherent and transparent planning, funding and accountability arrangements—at the appropriate level—for support services in the context of wider community care and related programmes;
  Compatibility with the Government's wider social policy objectives;

  457
  Encouraging the most cost effective approach across all sectors which takes account of all public expenditure costs; group and wider funding responsibilities, and links with other changes that authorities face;
  Giving landlords confidence to make accommodation available to vulnerable people and to develop new provision;
  Practicality—identifying solutions that are workable at central and local levels which could be implemented reasonably simply, considering what transitional arrangements might be necessary.

  458
  Departmental Officials will be contacting over two hundred individuals and organisations who responded to last year's Social Security Advisory Committee consultation. The Committee's report was published last week. We shall now ask respondents for their views on how best to translate these objectives into a modern, practical and sustainable funding system for this valuable social provision. Others who may wish to contribute to the debate are welcome to do so. Representations will be taken up to 5 December 1997.

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham.

Baroness Rendell of Babergh
Mrs. Ruth Barbara Rendell, CBE, having been created Baroness Rendell of Babergh, of Aldeburgh in the County of Suffolk, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Gould of Potternewton and the Lord Paul.
Lord Montague of Oxford
Michael Jacob Montague, Esquire, CBE, having been created Baron Montague of Oxford, of Oxford in the County of Oxfordshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Northfield and the Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill.
Lord Onslow of Woking
The Right Honourable Sir Cranley Gordon Douglas Onslow, KCMG, having been created Baron Onslow of Woking, of Woking in the County of Surrey, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Lane of Horsell and the Lord Jopling.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Organisation
2.49 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle The Earl of Carlisle asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to reform the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we have refocused foreign policy priorities. Staffing of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office should also reflect the diversity of modern British society by attracting more women, members of ethnic minorities and people with disabilities; and officials should be more open and accessible to the public generally. Steps taken to achieve these goals include the Foreign and Commonwealth Office mission statement, open days, work experience schemes and improved consultation procedures with interest groups, academics and businessmen.
In addition, as part of the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review, work is being undertaken to ensure that the organisation of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is structured effectively to achieve the objectives of the department's mission statement.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer, most of which appeared in her article in the Guardian on 12th June this year. However, is the Minister aware that the grave problems lie deeper? I refer, of course, to the obsessive secrecy of the Foreign Office, which leads more often than not to ill-considered policy which, combined with the enormous amount of paperwork with which the legations and embassies have to deal, makes what the Foreign Office regards as a Rolls-Royce machine appear like a rather antiquated penny-farthing.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am glad that my Answer at least has the merit of consistency. The noble Earl raises the question of obsessive secrecy. This Government are committed to a freedom of information Bill and, naturally, the Foreign Office will be covered by that legislation. In addition, access to officials has improved through the publication of telephone numbers and e-mail addresses and information that is offered on the FCO web site. That web site is visited every week between 10,000 and 15,000 times. The noble Earl has also raised the

3
question of bureaucracy. All government departments have a great deal of paperwork, but the Government are committed to improving efficiency. Staff numbers have been reduced by 23 per cent. since 1980, but there are now more overseas posts than ever. Currently, there are 222 Foreign Office posts abroad.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Diplomatic Service have initiated a very large number of reforms during the past decade? Does she also agree that the noble Lord, Lord Gillmore of Thamesfield, and Sir John Coles, the head of the Diplomatic Service, who retires in two day's time, deserve the warmest congratulations on the way in which, within a budget that has declined by 18 per cent. over the past five years, they have managed to meet the increasing demands of industry, exports and investment overseas and the vastly increased consular demands of the 43 million British subjects who now travel abroad each year and have opened 29 new posts since 1990 to protect and promote our interests in the new countries formed by the break-up of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am very happy to join the noble Lord in his congratulations to the former PUSS of the FCO to whom he referred. In particular, I should like to add my congratulations to Sir John Coles, who retires this week. Staff costs in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are now lower than ever. The current pay bill is £175 million compared with £221 million in 1991–92. It is important to remember that a number of policies have been introduced, notably by Sir John Coles in his recent pursuit of family-friendly policies, and those are policies which this Administration has been happy to adopt, focus upon and develop in the past six months.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the merger of the Foreign and Commonwealth Offices has had one disastrous consequence; namely, that Commonwealth citizens in Australia are inclined to regard the head of the Commonwealth as a foreigner?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that these issues were dealt with rather successfully at the recent Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference. All who attended that conference warmly congratulated Her Majesty the Queen and in particular were delighted to see her at the opening ceremony.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, can my noble friend elaborate on the steps that are being taken to improve the recruitment and promotion of members of the ethnic minorities in our community, bearing in mind the terrific opportunity they present to this country by virtue of their knowledge of different cultures and, in some cases, foreign languages?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am very happy to elaborate on those policies. We believe that insufficient numbers of young people from ethnic minority backgrounds have joined the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to reflect the make-up of the United Kingdom in 1997. Many noble Lords will be aware that the department held an open day in September to give many young people from different backgrounds across the United Kingdom a chance to see the FCO at work. It was an exhilarating day and because of its success more open days are planned. We also plan to produce a video to encourage young people from ethnic minorities and women to apply to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Before I am asked the question, let me say that the cost of launching that video is £95,000. We have also prepared new recruitment literature. In addition, Sir Herman Ouseley, chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, has come to speak to managers within the FCO. We also plan to recruit an officer with special responsibilities for ethnic minorities.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I welcome what the noble Baroness has said about making the Foreign and Commonwealth Office more open and widening its basis of recruitment, but does she agree that it is wise for a new Government, having spent 18 years in opposition, to take a fresh look at the operational pattern of the Foreign Office to take account of the fact that many of the new embassies referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wright, have totally transformed the responsibilities of the FCO in Europe outside the European Union while within the European Union old-fashioned Foreign Office bilateral diplomacy is pretty much out of date? Further, does the noble Baroness agree that with the departure of Hong Kong the whole of the dependent territory relationship with the Foreign Office requires a fresh look?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, indeed it does, and that is exactly what is now being undertaken. The four major initiatives announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State shortly after 1st May include concentration on security, prosperity, quality of life and mutual respect. As part of the comprehensive spending review, work is currently being undertaken to ensure that the organisation of the FCO properly reflects those priorities and that the structure can effectively deliver on those priorities in future. I believe that the point that is raised by the noble Lord is already covered by the work now being undertaken within the FCO.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that many people consider that the Foreign Office is by far the most efficient and the smallest department in Whitehall? As one who travels frequently abroad, particularly to Latin America, may I ask whether the noble Baroness agrees that far more, not fewer, diplomats are required? Whether that can be achieved by these cuts is open to doubt. Can the Minister reassure the House that there will be no further erosion of posts in that part of the world?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the diplomatic effort of the Foreign Office has grown. There

5
are now more Foreign Office posts—222—than there have ever been. I believe that the point that the noble Lord has raised is covered by the way in which we are pursuing the organisational issues. I wish I could say that the organisation of the Foreign Office was perfect, particularly as I have ministerial responsibility for it. I do not believe that it is anywhere near perfect as yet. More work is required to be done to ensure that we get closer to our goals.

Local Authority Expenditure: Capping
3 p.m.
Lord Evans of Parkside Lord Evans of Parkside asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to end the policy of capping local authority expenditure.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, yes. We are committed to ending as soon as possible crude and universal capping while retaining reserve powers to control excessive council tax increases.
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Does she acknowledge that if we are to hand back responsibility to local government, as the Prime Minister wrote in the Guardian last Monday, we must start by ending the capping of local authority expenditure? Does she accept that if councillors were given responsibility for fixing their own authority's council tax, coupled with annual council elections, the quality of candidates offering themselves for election would start to improve and councillors would become more accountable to their electorate? Finally, does she agree that if it is true that local government is the lifeblood of our democracy—I refer again to the Prime Minister's article—then it is the Labour Government's duty to rebuild and protect local government and not to seek to cripple it as the Tories did over 18 years?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I should perhaps declare an interest as someone who was a councillor from 1973 until May this year. I agree with my noble friend that local democracy is the essential foundation of true democracy in any country. By working in co-operation with the Local Government Association and the appropriate associations for Scotland and Wales, we can end crude and universal capping when we have also put in place our policies; for example, best value and local performance plans.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, as the Government have so wisely chosen to remain within the national budget, as laid down by their predecessor, do they include local authority expenditure within that commitment?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, local government expenditure has to be seen within the Government's overall policy, which is to remain within public expenditure plans but to adhere faithfully to our
6
commitment to priority services such as education. There is therefore no conflict. The £835 million of extra education money going to local government, backed by the appropriate level of grant, is within the expenditure plans because the money will be taken from the reserve fund, something to which we committed ourselves before the election.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is the noble Baroness saying that the Government are going to remove from the statute book the powers to rate cap? I should be interested if she can clarify her Answer. If that is the case, will she kindly tell her colleagues at the Scottish Office who say in the White Paper on devolution that the new Scottish parliament will have powers to control local authority current expenditure through capping?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's first question is yes. The Government will launch a White Paper next spring setting out their proposals for change. With regard to public expenditure and local government in Scotland, different rules apply with regard to Scotland at the moment. That issue will be dealt with during the devolution debate.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many people, certainly on this side of the House, will be delighted to hear that it is the Government's intention to remove rate capping? At the same time, will the Government ensure that the powers which were removed from local authorities are returned to them, including the power to raise money for local schemes which benefit people in those localities? Will we get away from the situation where local authorities fund only 15 per cent. of their expenditure from local funds, making them mere tools of central government?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my noble friend is right. It is important that all our policies for local government are seen in the context of freeing it to take up initiatives; for example, through the renewed emphasis on public/private sector partnerships at local level. We, too, are delighted that even at this early stage within our commitment not to exceed the previous government's public expenditure plans, £159 million has been given to health authorities. Where health authorities and local authorities deem that that should be spent on care in the community, it will not be affected by current capping limits.

Bangladesh: Bihari Refugees
3.5 p.m.
Lord McNally Lord McNally asked Her Majesty's Government:
What discussions have taken place in the last three months between British Ministers and Ministers from Pakistan and Bangladesh about British assistance to help solve the problem of the Bihari refugees in Bangladesh.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there have been no such discussions between British Ministers and Ministers from Pakistan or Bangladesh. But Her Majesty's Government have provided assistance to the Bihari community, including a contribution of £600,000 joint funding scheme grant to the international NGO concern for primary education and £160,000 to support maternal and child health, family planning, nutrition and STD prevention services for Biharis in Dhaka.
Lord McNally: My Lords, as the Minister is aware, we are about to have a long, broad-brush debate on overseas aid policy. Does she agree that part of an effective aid policy looks also at smaller problems that are curable? Surely the Bihari case comes into that category: 250,000 people who have been in refugee camps for a quarter of a century, where proper leadership could get some back to Pakistan and some assimilated into the Bangladeshi community. The fact that the Secretary of State for International Development went to Bangladesh and did not visit the Bihari camps was an opportunity missed; the fact that she did not raise this issue with Bangladeshi Ministers when she was there was a missed opportunity; the fact that the Prime Minister, when he had the prime ministers of Pakistan and Bangladesh at the Commonwealth conference, did not raise the issue was again a missed opportunity. Surely aid policy should deal with real problems as well as high-minded documents.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord touched upon two issues. One is a political issue. It is a difficult issue relating to the Biharis, who are originally from India rather than Pakistan. They moved to East Pakistan on the partition of India in 1947. They expressed a wish to remain in the state of Pakistan when Bangladesh separated from West Pakistan, perhaps because they are mainly Urdu speakers. There is also, as the noble Lord said, the aid question. I believe that my right honourable friend has already written to him about her trip to Bangladesh. There was considerable pressure on her time, and it was her first visit to Bangladesh. She was anxious to see development activities outside Dhaka as well as to meet as many people as possible concerned with development issues. The Secretary of State for International Development is happy for DfID's office in Dhaka to consider projects which will help reduce poverty among the Biharis as well as the people of Bangladesh more generally. I hope that that goes some way towards reassuring the noble Lord.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the policies of my noble friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey with regard to poverty reduction and human resource development contributed greatly to the warm relations that exist between the UK and Bangladesh? How did the Secretary of State for International Development successfully build on those relations
8
during her visit to Bangladesh in September? What new initiatives beneficial to the Biharis will result from that visit?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords will recall that when we last discussed this issue I was fulsome in my praise of the efforts of the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, in that part of the world. I have no hesitation in being so again on this occasion. I have already made it clear that my right honourable friend has said that she will take suggestions from NGOs from noble Lords and from wherever else they may come, about ways in which poverty in Bangladesh can continue to be alleviated. It is worth noting that Bangladesh is the recipient of £45 million of aid each year, which makes it the second largest recipient of UK aid.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister recall that the late Lord Ennals spent a great deal of time in trying to secure agreement on this issue between Pakistan and Bangladesh? At one point, he received an offer of £25 million from the Saudi Arabians to resettle some or all of the Bihari community in Pakistan. Does the Minister know whether that offer remains extant and the extent to which the problem between Bangladesh and Pakistan is one of money, which might be helped if the Islamic world made a bigger contribution than was offered by Saudi Arabia?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do indeed recall the efforts of Lord Ennals. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was kind enough to draw them to my attention when we last discussed the issue in your Lordships' House. I do not know whether the money from Saudi Arabia is still on the table in the way he suggested. I hope that I may be able to write to him with further information on that point. We must accept that the movement of the Bihari people is a matter primarily for the governments of Pakistan and Bangladesh to resolve.

Jubilee Line Extension
3.11 p.m.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the likely opening date of the Jubilee Line extension to Greenwich and Stratford.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, I understand that London Transport is planning to open the Jubilee Line extension at the end of September 1998.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I tabled the Question because last week I read in the Evening Standard that there was a chance that the Jubilee Line extension would not open until

9
after the millennium—in 2001—because of signalling problems. We all know what such problems can cause to railways. Does the Minister have a contingency plan in case the Jubilee Line is not open? Will everyone go to the exhibition by bus or car? If people cannot reach that destination, will not the viability of the dome be adversely affected?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we have investigated the reports to which my noble friend refers. I understand that the New Millennium Experience company received assurances from London Underground that the extended Jubilee Line will cope adequately with the forecast number of visitors arriving at North Greenwich Station to visit the Millennium Experience.
My noble friend and other Members of the House may be reassured to know that the Jubilee Line extension is being built with the traditional system of fixed block signalling, which will operate as a fallback, as well as the advanced signalling which will normally be in operation. Therefore, it should be possible to open in 1998 even if there are difficulties with the signalling.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, my question does not arise directly out of the Question on the Order Paper. Does the Minister's Answer mean that the part of the line between Waterloo and Westminster, which could be useful to some of us, must wait until the whole project is completed?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, London Transport is planning to open the line in September 1998, but it must have in mind a number of contingency plans aimed at achieving that under various circumstances. There have been difficulties around Westminster Station, which is extremely deep and constricted in construction terms. Therefore, there is a possibility that the Jubilee Line extension may open initially without the sections at Westminster Station.
Lord Luke: My Lords, delighted though one is to hear that the Jubilee Line extension will be ready for the millennium, the problem with regard to other access has not been answered. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked what contingency plans there might be. With 12 million visitors expected, would it not be better to accelerate plans for car parks in Barking and Thamesmead so that the river can be used to ferry people to the site
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, there will be an excellent public transport network including, but not exclusively, the Jubilee Line extension, offering a variety of ways to travel to the millennium exhibition. In addition to the JLE, there will be new river boat services, new riverside walking and cycling facilities, a new transit link to the north Kent rail line, secure cycle and motorcycle facilities, a purpose-built coach park and, possibly, a cable car across the Thames.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, allowing for what the Minister has described, does she agree that all parts of
10
all Underground networks break down from time to time? The Millennium Dome is virtually dependent on the link for the bulk of its support. What contingency plans are in place should there be an Underground breakdown, to which we in central London are perfectly accustomed?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I repeat that London Transport has been made aware of the importance of the Jubilee Line functioning. It is due to open at the end of September 1998, which is in plenty of time for the millennium exhibition. Although the noble Lord said that the majority of people are expected to travel there on the Jubilee Line, I understand that approximately half of all the visitors in 2000 are expected to travel on the line. As I said previously, the fixed block signalling is being installed as a contingency measure because the moving signalling can cause problems.
Baroness David: My Lords, must we wait until the end of 1998 for the final version of Westminster Station?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am afraid that the import of my earlier answer is that it might be beyond the end of 1998 before we see the final version of Westminster Station. It is a complex construction adjacent to the Palace of Westminster. The JLE sections are being constructed around the working District and Circle Lines. Difficulties in relation to that have resulted in delays in completing the station.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, in view of the comments about Westminster Station, will the Minister acknowledge the remarkable civil engineering work which is being undertaken there? It is managing to keep the District and Circle Lines working while major activities are taking place in creating a new station. It is a remarkable achievement, and, while it is disappointing that the opening may be delayed, that is not surprising in view of the complexity of the project.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, for his helpful comments. It is true that the whole project has been undertaken with the District and Circle Lines in operation. That is a challenging engineering task.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for answering so many positive questions and I feel comforted by her answers. Does she agree that Members of this House and another place having to walk to Waterloo in order to travel to the millennium exhibition is a small price to pay for having a wonderful station at Westminster which will be open in a year or two?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it is a small price and probably one that is beneficial in terms of cardiovascular systems.

Business
3.18 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the current situation in Iraq. It is expected that that will take place before the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham.

Supreme Court (Offices) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Competition Bill [H.L.]
Lord Carter: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Simon of Highbury, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Competition Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 3,

Clauses 17 to 19,

Schedules 1 to 4,

Clauses 4 to 16,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 20 to 24,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 25 to 44,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 45 to 48,

Schedule 8,

Clause 49,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 50 to 52,

Schedule 10,

Clause 53,

Schedule 11,

Clauses 54 to 70,

Schedules 12 to 14,

Clauses 71 and 72.—(Lord Carter.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

British Nationality (St. Helena) Bill [H.L.]
The Earl of Iveagh: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(The Earl of Iveagh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

International Development
3.20 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Deanrose to move, That this House takes note of Her Majesty's Government's proposals on international development: Eliminating World Poverty: A Challenge for the 21st Century (Cm 3789).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I welcome this debate, which could scarcely be more timely. Last week my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development made a Statement in another place, which I repeated in your Lordships' House, announcing the publication of a White Paper on international development, Eliminating World Poverty: A Challenge for the 21st Century. Noble Lords will now, I hope, have had a chance to study the White Paper and I am sure we will have a rich and constructive debate.
Our manifesto made clear that we would give much greater priority to international development than our predecessors. The creation of the Department for International Development, which my right honourable friend heads as a Cabinet Minister, reflects that. So too does the publication of the White Paper. It is the first White Paper on development since that produced by the late Judith Hart over 20 years ago. It sets out the range of the Government's policies on international development, including aid, trade, investment, debt and the environment.
The White Paper was prepared on the basis of wide-ranging consultations within government over the last several months, and extensive consultations with outside interests. We received more than 150 detailed written submissions from outside groups, many of them from NGOs. All have been taken into account in the preparation of the final document. The Government are eager for their policy on international development to be debated and examined. We attach importance to the process of dialogue and consultation. That process will not end simply because the White Paper is now published. I hope other noble Lords will echo the welcome, given by my noble friend Lord Judd in questions on last week's Statement, to the fact that we have published the White Paper so early in the Parliament.
The White Paper is squarely focused on what we can do to eliminate world poverty. The last few decades have seen great advances. On average, people live longer and are in better health. Child death rates in developing countries have been more than halved since the 1960s. People are better fed. Per capita food consumption has increased by 20 per cent. since the 1960s. Malnutrition rates have declined by almost one-third. The percentage of people with access to clean water has doubled to 70 per cent. More people are literate: adult literacy has risen from less than half to about two-thirds. As the White Paper notes, more people have escaped from poverty in the past 50 years than in the previous 500 years. But because of population growth, extreme poverty remains an evil blighting the lives of nearly a quarter of the world's

13
people. Some 1.3 billion—70 per cent. of them women—live on less than a dollar a day. Women in poor countries are at least 100 times more likely to die in childbirth than women in Britain and the US. Their lives are characterised by hunger, sickness, lack of opportunity and, all too often, violence, crime and civil conflict.
We are committing ourselves in the White Paper to refocus our international development efforts on poverty elimination. This can be achieved only through economic growth which benefits poor people and through improvements to education and healthcare services and measures to increase the opportunities poor people have to improve their lives. We shall support poorer developing countries which are committed to those objectives and pursue policies which will achieve them. The Government have already established their credentials in that respect. The Prime Minister made a specific commitment at the Denver Summit in July to raise by 50 per cent. our bilateral support for basic healthcare, basic education and clean water in Africa.
The White Paper makes clear that we shall chart our progress against clear, internationally accepted targets that have been agreed at UN conferences and by the OECD. The key target is to halve the proportion of people living in extreme poverty—on less than a dollar a day—by 2015. The targets also cover environmental conservation and human development; for example, making primary education universal and reducing infant and child mortality rates. The targets are challenging, but they are both affordable and achievable if we all work together. The achievements of the past 50 years bear witness to that. The question is whether we have the collective political will. Britain, under this Government, does. The White Paper includes a new statement of purpose for the Department for International Development, built around the contribution we can make with others to the elimination of poverty. We shall measure the progress we and others make towards the international targets, and report systematically on that progress.
We shall pursue the targets in partnership with developing countries who are also committed to them. We shall offer such countries a longer term commitment of support, more resources and greater flexibility in using those resources. Our aim is to ensure that good governments succeed. The nature of our partnership will depend on the circumstances of each partner country and how we can best help. The White Paper sets out in detail the whole range of the Government's financial and technical assistance to developing countries, including education, health, food, water, infrastructure, jobs, gender inequalities and good governance.
The White Paper recognises that a variety of partnerships will be appropriate with different countries. We shall wish to concentrate our development resources on countries in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia where a large proportion of people in extreme poverty live. But we have other responsibilities too. We have, for example, responsibilities for the dependent territories, which the White Paper reaffirms. Their reasonable assistance needs will continue to be a first call on the development programme. Although the focus
14
of our assistance must be on the poorest countries, there are also many poor people in middle income countries—110 million of them in Latin America alone. We shall therefore seek appropriate ways—for example, technical assistance and working within the multilateral system—to contribute to poverty elimination within those countries. Countries in transition to full democratic societies and market economies face particular difficulties. We shall reshape the Know How Fund to give greater emphasis to protecting the poorest and enabling the widest number of people to share in the fruits of change.
As last week's Statement on the White Paper made clear, eliminating poverty is not just a task for Britain. We shall work also in partnership with other donors and international institutions in pursuit of the targets. The White Paper sets out detailed proposals for our collaboration with the multilateral agencies, including the European Commission, the World Bank, the UN and others. The Government's record in their first months is testament to a commitment to multilateral collaboration—witness our support for the UN Secretary-General's reform package, and our decisions to rejoin UNESCO and to reverse the decision of the previous administration to leave UNIDO. We shall work also with the Commonwealth, where close historical relationships provide a strong basis for mobilising political support for poverty elimination across a large percentage of the world's population.
Your Lordships have asked where the money will come from to fund our contribution to UNESCO for de-mining and other initiatives. Costs this year will be met from the Department for International Development's contingency reserve. Costs in future years will be met by reallocating resources within the Department for International Development's agreed budget as expenditure is brought into line with the Government's objectives and policy priorities.
British business, voluntary agencies and our research community have a vital contribution to make to the eradication of poverty. We have held discussions with all those sectors, which are keen to make a greater contribution, and we shall develop new relationships with each of them.
Much of our programme is already directed towards helping poorer countries to establish the policy and administrative framework which will encourage trade and investment, and facilitate private sector development. But we can do more, together with British business, to help eliminate poverty. The White Paper makes clear the Government's commitment to developing a stronger new partnership between the relevant government departments and the private sector. It announces details of an important new initiative to that end. The proposals include new measures to consult British business on country and other development strategies; to improve the information available to business on trade and investment opportunities in developing countries; to see whether ways can be found to reduce the initial costs and perceived risks for investments which support the aim of poverty elimination; and to ensure that multilateral development projects make full use of the skills of UK business.

15
The White Paper also announces that the aid and trade provision, which lacks poverty elimination as its central focus and was the means of funding such notorious schemes as the Pergau dam, will close. But the White Paper also makes clear that that does not preclude deploying development assistance in association with private finance, including in the form of mixed credits. In order to avoid the abuses of the past, any mixed credits will be managed within agreed country programmes and will be subject to the agreed strategy and sectoral focus for each country, which would have the primary aim of reducing poverty rather than subsidising exports. I recognise the interest of your Lordships' House on this point, so perhaps I may say in more detail how the new arrangements will work.
Annual resource allocation rounds establish the level of funds available for each of our country development programmes. Country strategy papers set out how poverty is to be tackled in each case. All the activities we support will be set within the framework established in each paper. There will be no separate allocation of funds for mixed credit projects, as was the case with the aid and trade provision. The Department for International Development will consult widely in developing country strategy papers, including with the private and voluntary sectors as well as recipient governments.
The White Paper also confirms our intention to transform the Commonwealth Development Corporation into a public/private partnership which will increase the flow of private investment to the poorer countries. CDC currently has £1.6 billion invested in 404 projects in 54 countries. It is one of the world's leading development finance institutions with 50 years of commercial success in pre-emerging markets and an extensive global network. As the Prime Minister announced last month, we will seek to enlarge the resources at CDC's disposal by introducing private sector capital, with the Government retaining a substantial minority holding and a golden share. CDC will act as an ethical and socially responsible investor in poorer countries, with the proceeds from the sale being ploughed back into the development programme.
We wish also to strengthen our partnership with voluntary organisations and the research community. We will continue to support voluntary agencies, including through the joint funding scheme under which many NGOs receive a substantial proportion of their income and through our support for the volunteer organisations, including VSO. The White Paper makes clear that we will discuss with NGOs how to re-orient our collaboration in the light of our new policies. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development met heads of leading NGOs last month to begin this dialogue. We have also set out new proposals for working with the research community so that the benefits of new knowledge and technology can be extended to poor countries and poor people.
The White Paper is not simply about aid. It covers the full range of government policies affecting poorer countries. We shall ensure much greater consistency across the range of government policies, including
16
environment, trade, investment and agricultural policy. All will take account of our sustainable development objectives. We wish to ensure that future international agreements on these issues take better account of the developing country dimension. The White Paper sets out, in Section 3, our detailed intentions across the range of those policy areas. Responsibility for this agenda does not rest with any one government department. Many departments have an interest, including the FCO, the DTI, the Treasury, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as well as the Department for International Development. The White Paper represents collective government policy in these areas. The Government will work collectively to implement the policy.
We will give particular attention to human rights, transparent and accountable government and core labour standards, building on the Government's ethical approach to international relations. The White Paper sets out rights which all people are entitled to enjoy.
Political instability and conflict are today impoverishing many countries. There are now some 28 major and more than 100 minor armed conflicts affecting some 70 countries, mostly poor ones. We will use our influence to promote political stability and social cohesion, and, wherever possible, to resolve conflict. Progress over the past few years on the landmine issue demonstrates what can be achieved if political will is mobilised effectively on an international scale.
The White Paper stresses that economic and financial stability is also essential for sustainable development. It makes clear that we will do more to reduce the external debt of developing countries. It reinforces the Government's commitment in the Mauritius Mandate launched by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in September. We are providing a lead by contributing around £6.5 million towards reducing Uganda's debt to the African Development Bank. We are cancelling, at a cost of up to £132 million, aid debts still owed to the UK by those lower income Commonwealth countries which are committed to pro-poor and transparent policies. We are pledging, without condition, around £20 million to the IMF to help it meet its share of the cost of implementing the heavily indebted poor countries initiative.
The Government attach great importance to increasing development awareness in Britain. We have published a shorter summary version of the White Paper which is being widely distributed through supermarkets, development groups and other interested bodies. Every child should be educated about development issues so that he or she can influence the shape of the world that they will inherit. The national curriculum provides for this, and we will work to ensure that relevant teaching materials are available. Every adult should have the chance to influence the Government's policies. We will establish a working group of educationists and others, to be chaired by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development, to improve development education. Your Lordships' House has substantial expertise in the area of development education, not least through the noble Earl,

17
Lord Sandwich, who plays a prominent role in the Development Education Association. I wish to assure him and others that in taking forward our work in this area our approach will be characterised by the wide consultation we undertook in preparation for the White Paper.
We will also establish an annual development policy forum to bring together the many strands of society with an interest in international development. We will publish an annual report explaining how we will secure the objectives described in the White Paper and what progress has been made against the international development targets.
It is essential for public confidence that there is a clear and unambiguous framework for the use of our development funds. The abuses of the previous administration not least the Pergau dam affair—have reinforced this. The White Paper therefore announces that we will consult on the case for a new international development Act.
The White Paper is clear about our commitment to provide resources for the development programme. Let me re-state what we will do. The Government will start to reverse the decline in UK spending on development assistance. We also reaffirm our commitment to the 0.7 per cent. UN target. This year and next, our aid spending is being re-directed to ensure that all our resources are used effectively and in accordance with our policy priorities. Having done so, we can justify increasing our development assistance budget from the year 1999–2000.
The White Paper sets out our policy on international development in substantial detail. I am all too aware of the expertise in your Lordships' House on these issues; and I look forward to hearing noble Lords' comments on, and reactions to, the White Paper. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of Her Majesty's Government's proposals on international development: Eliminating World Poverty: A Challenge for the 21st Century (Cm 3789).—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
3.38 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for initiating today's debate. I believe that I learnt a great deal from her speech, mostly, I suspect, because of my own ignorance on the subject. Indeed, she will have little to learn from my experience. Moreover, when I look down the speakers' list and see the length and breadth of experience reflected there, I tremble at the thought of making this, the second speech in the debate, and being exposed to the critical appreciation of so many noble Lords.
I look forward, in a happier vein, to hearing the three maiden speakers. We have a lot of new blood in the House and I am delighted that so much of it is taking to its wings early.
I learnt a great deal today from the clarity of the speech of the noble Baroness. She is putting in a Stakhanovite effort today with five appearances at the Dispatch Box. I look forward to the other two. I learnt
18
a great deal from her speech because of the opacity of the White Paper. It is worth contrasting the White Paper with the 1997 ODA annual report, published in March this year, which was a model of detail, specific suggestions and specific remedies for the problems that the DflD has to deal with. The White Paper is something akin to a mission statement written with its head in the stars and its feet in the clouds. It is a long way from connecting with any sort of reality of the world which the DflD has to face.
I believe that the Minister and I approach this problem from different directions. Our approach is that we wish countries in the developing world to become like us. We want them to be drawn up to our level of wealth and to our standard of culture. We want to help pull them up in that direction. That is what has informed our effort in aid over the past 20 years. However, early on we recognised the difficulties. You may pull a country up in that way but it tends just to pull up a few people at the top and make them rather rich. Any money which filters down tends to become dissipated in a population explosion and the whole economy ends up pear-shaped. That was something which my noble friend Lady Chalker and her predecessors put a great deal of effort into dealing with over past years. One sees from the 1997 ODA statement the great effort that was put into campaigns of poverty elimination and dealing with the hardship and difficulties experienced not just at the economic centre of countries, but also out in the country, in the poorest parts of the world.
It strikes me that the White Paper is written from a different perspective—a belief that the world can be changed not by pulling up these countries from above but by pushing them from underneath. It is the old Labour dictum that making the poor a little less poor and a bit more comfortable is the solution to the world's problems, providing us with the moral comfort that we desire. I was greatly comforted by the noble Baroness's speech which seemed to go much wider than that. There seems to be a recognition of the importance of industry, of government structures and of education at the higher level. But none of that is really clear in the White Paper. I refer to page six where the Government set out to,
"create sustainable livelihoods for poor people".
That is a pretty limited ambition. As I said, keeping the poor poor but comfortable, and ideally not too disruptive, seems to me an old Labour way of looking at the world. I hope that the Minister will tell me that the Government's thinking goes further than that.
I am not encouraged by some words of the noble Baroness last week when I contrast them with what we wrote in the 1997 ODA statement on the subject of education. Our ambitions on education were to help to ensure that people,
"are sufficiently well educated to realise their social and economic potential".
I might speak those words about my own children. They are words of ambition without limit. They are words which express the hope that we shall manage to raise countries to the standard of living that we enjoy.
The noble Baroness, in her reply to me last week, spoke of the importance of educating women about cleanliness, hygiene and clean water. The limit of that

19
ambition I find depressing. As I said, it reminds me very much of the way the Labour Party used to think. It reminds me of the depressing state that we found this country in, and of the depressing state of education still in Islington and in other parts of this country where the Labour Party holds sway. I hope very much that the noble Baroness will disavow this and say that her ambitions are greater and that the Government are looking at a policy which seeks not merely to make the poor more comfortable but aims to raise countries to a level of prosperity we would hope they could enjoy. That would be little different from the policy that we pursued, perhaps slightly different in emphasis.
As I said, the White Paper strikes me as opaque and extremely short on detail. I hope the noble Baroness will be able today to give us more solid foundation as regards what is proposed to be done. One of the most important ideas in the White Paper is co-operation between ministries. I believe that the White Paper mentions MAFF, the DoE, the Treasury and, perhaps most importantly of all, the Department of Trade and Industry. How is a country in the developing world to succeed if our terms of trade with it are structured so that it can export raw materials but not manufactured goods? How are we to succeed in improving the ecology of the world and the state of preservation of the natural world we have inherited if we do not find ways of working between the DfID and the DoE in both directions to ensure a consistent policy in this country which can link into policies in the developing world? We need a structure behind the fine words in the White Paper: we need an interdepartmental working group. Perhaps the noble Baroness will confirm that such a group is proposed and, if so, who is to serve on it and what its mandate will be. The noble Baroness will know full well from her career that ministries do not talk to each other and that we have a Civil Service structured on vertical lines where bitter rivalries and stupid disputes characterise relationships between ministries. Unless there is a structure which imposes the authority of politicians across ministries and makes sure that this fine objective is pursued, it will be as nothing.
It will he as nothing also to aspire to a target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP as a total aid budget. The Minister has spoken fine words on that matter. It is an old target and it is one that we are all familiar with. It is nice to know that the direction will be reversed on this matter, but how fast will that occur? If the Government had any real commitment to that target, they would say, "The expected growth of this country over the next five years will be 2.5 per cent. a year. If we take 5 per cent. of that growth, that will fulfil the increase in overseas aid necessary to meet the target." That is a simple thing to do. If the Government had any real ambition to meet that target. they could commit themselves to it now. However, they place no timescale on it at all. I fear again that we are faced with empty words.
I note a pie chart on page 10 of the White Paper which illustrates how the extremely poor are distributed around the world. I compare that with the way in which our aid is distributed. If we, as a country, are now to concentrate our aid on the very poor, it seems to me to
20
flow from that that distribution of our aid ought to change. For instance, sub-Saharan Africa accounts for 17 per cent. of the world's very poor but 30 per cent. of our aid. Is that an imbalance which the Government intend to correct, or is there some other priority, unstated in the White Paper, which will continue the current level of aid for sub-Saharan Africa or perhaps increase it? That should be made clear so that we can understand how the Government are living up to their targets. It would appear that the Caribbean is likely to see a great reduction of aid under the Government's change of policy and the move towards a simple and entire focus on extreme poverty. It is a question of who the losers will be and who, as it were, will be short changed.
The Government propose to focus their aid on partnerships between this Government and individual countries. Where will that leave individual projects? In past years individual projects have been the source of innovation—of new ideas and how they are implemented. At present our aid programme is full of such projects. Will those now become orphans? Will they be neglected? Are they to be the losers?
We have also been keen on developing regional projects. I noted in several speeches of the noble Baroness's right honourable friend a reference to steel bridges required in west Africa having to be imported from this country. If the position were to be changed and we were to support the building of steel bridges in west Africa, we could not do so in one country alone. It has to be done on a regional scale because that is the size of market required to make such a project viable. How does that fit in with the single country partnership idea? Will those projects be the losers?
Of the individual projects now being pursued, which will no longer be pursued? Under the new guidelines, which trade and aid projects put in place since, let us say, 1993 will no longer be pursued? Which individual projects now in place would not be pursued? For instance, shall we see a diminution of aid to universities? How can one argue that aid to universities is dealing with poverty in the country? Does TB eradication deal with poverty? Alternatively—I pick an item at random out of the last ODA annual report—will the theatre group in Vanuatu called Wan Smol Bag be left high and dry? What will be the practical effects of the policy? Nothing in the White Paper tells us who will be the winners and losers. Nothing in the White Paper tells us how large a change we are considering. I hope very much that the noble Baroness will be able to fill us in.
We are looking either at a reaffirmation of all that we have done over the past 20 years, of all that my noble friend Lady Chalker achieved in her time in office, or at a return to the inefficiency and corruption of the old Labour way of doing things. I hope that the former is the truth.
3.51 p.m.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, in contrast to the previous speaker, perhaps I may begin by congratulating the Government on the production of an excellent White

21
Paper. I do not say that as a matter of course because, of late, government White Papers have often been either extremely obscure or simply propaganda exercises. This White Paper is immensely readable. It contains graphics which are comprehensible even by people like me. It is notably devoid of padding such as the ritual photographs of Ministers behind their desks; and for all those matters we give thanks. It is an excellent production. I believe that the Secretary of State for International Development, Clare Short, deserves full marks for a very good start in her term of office, and we wish her well.
I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, is not able to he with us today—and, in particular, during the last speech. I pay tribute to her record in office. But we recognise the difference between the two eras. The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, was not a member of the Cabinet, although in my view she should have been both on personal grounds and because of the office she held; and, as we know, her department was specifically overruled in the Pergau Dam case by the forces of the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry. I much welcome the specific registration by the Government that we shall not have any more Pergau Dam episodes masquerading as aid to the underdeveloped world. That will cease under the new policy. That is welcome indeed.
Having given such a strong welcome to the White Paper, which is good on analysis and aspiration, it is a little short on targets and specifics. In my brief contribution I wish to mention three areas where I believe that the White Paper could and should be stronger and where I press the Government for further consideration.
First, as regards the aid question, everyone knows—it is well in the public mind—that our supposed target for aid is the UN target of 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product. In the White Paper the Government state that they will reverse the decline in the aid programme. When considering the table on page 79 of the White Paper, this country has a lamentable record. But we are entitled to ask when that target will be reached. The Government have not set themselves a target. In our election manifesto, my party suggested that there should be a specific aim of 10 years. That is not a particularly high aspiration. If no date is set, how are we to know when the target will be arrived at? I press the Government to be a little more specific on achieving the laudable aim which they set out in the White Paper.
Although the target of aid is a matter about which the public is conscious, I agree with the noble Baroness that the level of aid is by no means the most important item in this paper. Indeed, there is a commitment in the White Paper to use our presidency of the EU in order to assist the renegotiation of the Lomé Convention and secure better terms of trade for the less developed world. If achieved, that would make a far greater contribution to the welfare of those countries than even modest increases in the aid budget.
What I say about trade applies even more to debt relief. I welcome what the Government have done as regards the poorest Commonwealth countries. The graph
22
on page 72 of the White Paper indicates that the appalling total debt burden, international as well as bilateral, in sub-Saharan Africa amounts to 80 per cent. of the gross national product per annum. That is a horrific figure. We are talking about countries of very little substance having to spend 80 per cent. of their resources each year repaying debt. That is surely morally unacceptable in this day and age. I very much hope that the Government will press even more strongly through the international agencies for greater measures of debt relief. Those debts are often incurred by autocratic rulers who have since lost office and have left behind a terrible legacy for their democratic successors.
The second area about which I wish to see greater emphasis in the white Paper is the conventional arms trade. There is again a welcome reference to using the presidency of the European Union in order to do something about the illicit trafficking in conventional arms. That is an important question. However, I am more concerned about the legal trafficking in conventional arms. In the past year we have seen great progress on landmines. The late Princess of Wales did much to raise public consciousness on this question. I pay full tribute to the Government of Canada. They have given a strong lead towards securing an international agreement on the banning of landmines. But let us resolve to make that a start: to achieve a reduction in the trafficking in conventional weaponry. Not only are the traditional manufacturers engaged in that process, but relative newcomers on the scene such as Brazil and South Africa are adding to the quantities. That is not to mention the tremendous trade now in second-hand weaponry which causes so much havoc around the world. Surplus weapons from the disintegration of the Soviet Union, from China, the United States, France and even from Britain are to be found all over the world. Not only do they help to fuel conflict but they are also a major contributory factor to urban crime in the poorer parts of the world.
At this period of the year we have Remembrance Sunday and the various commemorations for those who fell in the two world wars. In particular, we think of the horrific slaughter of the First World War. But, as I reminded Members of another place in my last speech, there is one fundamental difference between the casualties in the First World War and those we see in war today. In the First World War 90 per cent. of the casualties were servicemen and women, whereas in today's conflicts 90 per cent. of the casualties are civilians—women and children. I believe that the conventional arms trade has been somewhat overlooked in the international politics of the past two or three decades because of our understandable concern about nuclear proliferation.
While talking of conflicts and concentrating on sub-Saharan Africa, since that is the part of the world that I know best, perhaps I may ask whether the Government will respond to the suggestion made by Oxfam that they should take a lead in convening a conference on the future of the Great Lakes area following the conflicts there. There is a danger that we simply allow the four or five countries in that region to fester in the wake of the tragic conflicts.

23
My third and last point relates to the need for greater emphasis than is demonstrated in the White Paper on the spreading of democracy in the poorer regions of the world. The only bulwark against the corruption mentioned frequently in the White Paper is the full accountability of governments to their people. There is no substitute for that. It is interesting that the league table produced in 1996 by Transparency International of countries with the greatest levels of corruption as perceived by their business associates put Nigeria first, Pakistan second and Kenya third. All are countries where democracy is either suspended or undergoing some deterioration.
There is no surer fight against corruption, drug-trafficking and money laundering—subjects mentioned in the White Paper—than a thoroughly accountable system of government. I recognise that that is easier said than done. That is why, while I welcome the provision in the White Paper indicating that aid provisions will be tilted favourably towards those countries that engage in economic reforms, it is just as important that the same favouritism should be demonstrated towards countries that engage in democratic reforms as well.
I believe that there is a change of heart in the IMF and the World Bank. When I visited them both in Washington earlier this year, I detected a change of mood to one that is more willing to accept the fact that we cannot isolate economic reforms from democratic and civil society reforms at the same time. Therefore I hope that our own financial efforts will be unashamedly favourable towards those countries that demonstrate a genuine commitment to democracy. It is very sad when countries such as Kenya or Zambia, which we had hoped to see on the path to multi-party democracy, tend to retrench from it. We must be disturbed by reports from both countries of shootings and disruption of opposition activities. It is important that we make it clear that such retrenchment from democratic institutions and traditions will not be viewed favourably by this country or by the international community.
It is not enough to go through the exercises in which I have been involved so many times in monitoring elections. We have to be willing to act when elections are stolen or corrupted, as for example happened in the province of Zanzibar during the Tanzanian elections. The former president of Tanzania, Julius Nyerere, gave an interesting lecture at Edinburgh University last month which I was able to attend. He talked, quite rightly, about not trying to impose what he described as Coca Cola democracy on the developing world. We cannot simply pick packages of democracy and insist that something like the Westminster pattern has to be followed. We must be tolerant of systems of democracy which are adapted to meet the needs of particular countries.
The fundamental accountability of government is what matters, whether at local or national level. That is why I am disappointed that in the White Paper there is not even a passing mention of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. The organisation has done very useful work, albeit limited by its budget. It
24
deserves greater prominence. I declare an interest as a member of the board of International IDEA, the new Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, based in Stockholm. It was founded three years ago and now includes 14 member governments—sadly, not Britain, because the previous Administration decided that Treasury constraints prevented them from making a contribution. That is a false economy. Such institutions, whether domestic or international, which promote notions of accountability, are essential if we are to be successful in combating corruption and helping to alleviate poverty. Only when governments are responsible, accountable and answerable to their people can we be sure that their programmes will be geared towards the needs of ordinary people—that means the mass of the population, those who suffer most from all the indicators of poverty referred to and clearly described in the White Paper.
I conclude with a quotation from President Nyerere's lecture. Referring to Zaire, he said:
"The late President Mobutu … was the biggest and the most notorious of the looting leaders of Africa. He rose to power and stayed in power for more than thirty years only because he received unstinting external support from America and Europe despite his ruthless exploitation and suppression of the peoples of Zaire.
He has now gone. But he has left the country in a state of destitution as well as economic and social collapse".
That is true: and while President Mobotu may be the most notorious of those African leaders, he is by no means alone. We have to face up to our own responsibility: during the whole period of the Cold War we were too inclined in the West, including in this country, to give support to those African leaders who were perceived to be "on our side", whether they were democratic or not. That era has passed. There ought to be a greater emphasis in the White Paper not only on alleviating poverty and creating a more just society in those countries, but on making sure that they have the sustained constitutional system that enables all their governments to be answerable to their peoples.

Iraq
4.6 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given to a Private Notice Question which has been asked in another place on Iraq. The Statement is as follows:
"Saddam Hussein is once more defying the clearly expressed will of the United Nations and the international community by refusing to allow the UN special commission, UNSCOM, to carry out weapons inspections.
"It is essential for the region and for the rest of the world that UNSCOM should be allowed to carry out its work. We know that Saddam Hussein still has the capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction. UNSCOM is crucial to ensure that these are all destroyed.

25
"It is clear that Saddam Hussein has misjudged the will of the United Nations. Security Council unanimity was demonstrated in the presidential statement issued the day the threat was made.
"The Government are determined to stand firm against Saddam Hussein. He is a dictator who has demonstrated a total lack of interest in the welfare of the Iraqi people. He has shown by his past actions that he is a threat to regional peace and security.
"The Government are consulting closely with other members of the Security Council to explore to the full diplomatic means of resolving this situation. We remain hopeful that Saddam Hussein will realise that co-operation with UNSCOM is the only way for Iraq to progress towards a lifting of sanctions".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement
4.8 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, on behalf of the Opposition, I thank the Minister for the Statement. It has our full support. We share the Government's deep concern about the current situation in Iraq, which can be seen as a naked challenge to the authority of the United Nations by Saddam Hussein. We also share the Government's alarm at evidence that Iraq is rebuilding its capacity to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and ballistic missiles.
Likewise, we, too, deplore Iraq's failure to comply with the UN Security Council resolutions. In government and now in Opposition, we supported United Nations efforts to end President Saddam Hussein's programmes for the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction and to enforce the UN no-fly zones over Iraq. These were the conditions laid down by the UN if international sanctions were to be lifted. Today, Saddam Hussein is blatantly flouting these conditions and, in doing so, he is defying the will of the international community. We hope that the talks of the Deputy Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz, in New York today will prove productive and will result in a peaceful resolution to the current stalemate.
However, faced with the current unacceptable situation, we welcome the Prime Minister's support for the position of the US Government and President Clinton's call for strong and unambiguous action to make it clear that Saddam Hussein has no choice but to comply with the United Nations weapons inspectorate in Iraq.
Does the Minister agree with us that the inspection exercise has been, and continues to be, carried out—until recent events inhibited its activities—in a non-political way? Can she assure the House that, if diplomatic methods fail, non-diplomatic methods, including military force, should not be ruled out? Can the Minister tell the House whether Russia, France and China still oppose the proposed travel ban on senior Iraqi military and intelligence officers? What effect do the Government believe such a travel ban would have?
With your Lordships' permission, I should like to ask the following questions. What discussions have the Government had with Russia. China, France and the Arab League concerning the possible use of British
26
forces and the rules of engagement in order to enforce the will of the international community? Do the Government have information regarding the security situation in the north of the country? Can the Minister confirm reports of fighting among the various Kurdish factions? How does she see that affecting the security situation in the region as a whole?
The previous Conservative Government, in which I was proud to serve, supported the then United States Government. In 1991 Britain and the United States were united in purpose and stood firmly together against these same forces of tyranny and aggression. We welcomed support from the Benches opposite at that time and, on behalf of the Opposition, I assure the Government of our committed and unconditional support in the action they take to ensure that Iraq co-operates fully with the United Nations
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness will be aware that two years ago the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester and I visited Baghdad to try to assess for ourselves the effect of sanctions. We came to the conclusion that, if the purpose of sanctions had been to cause an uprising among the people in order to get rid of Saddam Hussein, they had failed—not surprisingly, since Saddam Hussein controls all the means of propaganda within the country, far more so than do the United Nations or the United States. Nevertheless we were concerned about the suffering of ordinary people as a result of the sanctions.
However, if the purpose of sanctions is to secure compliance with UNSCOM, that has the full support of these Benches. The UNSCOM operation is highly creditable and highly skilled and I believe it deserves full support.
If diplomatic means are now being considered to resolve the impasse, can they include the possibility of a progressive lifting of sanctions in return for compliance and satisfaction by UNSCOM rather than waiting for a magic moment in the distant future when all sanctions might be lifted at a stroke? I believe that that is an area worth further consideration. In the meantime, it is right that we stand firm and united in resolve against threats from Saddam Hussein
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Steel, for their warm support.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that UNSCOM has been acting in a non-political way. The noble Lord pressed me on several issues, including some fairly sensitive ones about the way in which we are currently negotiating with our colleagues in France, China and Russia. As he would expect, we are pursuing every channel available to us to find a diplomatic solution to the problem. In answer to the specific question about a military option, we are not ruling out military action at this stage; indeed, we are not ruling out any options at this stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. asked particularly about the situation in Northern Iraq. The situation there remains tense. The UK and the US continue to attempt

27
to broker peace negotiations between the PUK and the KDP. We have heard reports of further activities in Northern Iraq and are looking into those.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Steel, the purpose of sanctions is to secure co-operation with UNSCOM. In relation to the progressive lifting of sanctions, nothing is ruled out in the discussions we are having. However, I hope that the noble Lord and all Members of your Lordships' House will recognise that the international situation is tense and serious. In the interests of arriving at the right solutions to some of the issues, it is probably sensible not to go into great detail at the moment.
Perhaps I may quote from the letter that the Prime Minister sent yesterday to President Clinton which expresses the support of Her Majesty's Government for the UN Security Council position with regard to Iraq and the need for allies to support each other:
"I have no doubt that, as in the past, we must stand absolutely firm and absolutely together".
I am delighted that your Lordships' House is standing absolutely together on this issue
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the policy of brokering peace between the KDP and PUK has been overtaken by events, in that the Turks have intervened massively on the side of the KDP in the intra-Kurdish struggle and that yesterday, for instance, 250 Turkish tanks crossed the border and engaged in hostilities against the PUK and the civilian population east of the River Zab, causing hundreds of casualties and displacing hundreds of families from their homes? Are the Government still committed to securing an agreement between the KDP and the PUK under those circumstances?
With regard to Iraq's defiance of the Security Council, is the Minister aware that not only is there a threat by Iraq to shoot down the U2s but also that Iraqi forces have been massively collecting opposite the cities of Arbil and Dohuk and that it is expected that those forces may well cross the frontier and occupy those cities within the next 48 hours? Has she noticed that the Turkish tanks occupied a number of cities in the region, including Sulaymaniyah and Salahuddin but conspicuously left Arbil free for the Iraqi troops to come in? What would be the response of the international community to such a development? In the use of the military option, does the noble Baroness include the deployment of ground forces in the region
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are aware of the reports of Turkish activity over the course of the weekend in northern Iraq. The details of what is happening are not entirely clear and Her Majesty's Government are looking into these matters in the way that the noble Lord would expect.
As to where the Iraqi forces are massing and the international response to the situation, for the present
28
noble Lords would expect me to say only that Her Majesty's Government and our colleagues on the Security Council are being briefed on these matters. We are pursuing a diplomatic solution. The United Nations Secretary General's delegation returned to New York over the weekend following its investigations in Iraq and the Secretary General will brief the Security Council later today on the results of that visit. I believe that it is probably not helpful to the end that we wish to pursue to speculate on what will happen later today in the Security Council
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, because of the United States' prominent involvement with UNSCOM, Saddam Hussein appears to be suggesting that UNSCOM is a United States' operation rather than a United Nations' operation; so can my noble friend confirm that personnel of other nations are involved in UNSCOM? In order to ensure that the world can see that UNSCOM is a United Nations' operation rather than a United States' operation, would it not be useful if all members of the Security Council had personnel involved on the ground in UNSCOM operations
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am unable to give my noble friend details of exactly who is operating UNSCOM in terms of their national origins. I do not know if such information is available or if it is subject to security requirements. If it is not so subject, I shall be happy to write to my noble friend. The important point is that UNSCOM is not an agent of the United States Government; it is an agent of the United Nations. It is operating under United Nations control. It is important not only for us to remember that, but also for Saddam Hussein to remember it
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, the success of the Gulf operation depended greatly upon the support of the neighbouring countries to Kuwait. If, unhappily, we were once again to find ourselves contemplating military action, can the Minister assure us that that continuing support from the neighbouring countries would be forthcoming
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that all interested parties will be consulted before any action is taken. At this stage I am unable to say exactly who is being consulted about what in relation to this extremely difficult situation. However, the noble and gallant Lord is quite right that on the last occasion when these unhappy matters arose, the United Nations operated on the basis of consulting as widely as possible. I am sure that the diplomatic efforts will seek to do that again. To a certain extent we must wait to see what happens on the ground. Let us hope that it will reach a peaceful conclusion over the course of the next few days
Lord Geddes: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House what advice, if any, has been given by Her Majesty's Government to British nationals who presently find themselves in Iraq
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure such advice is being drawn up at the moment in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It is the practice in the Foreign Office for advice to be issued on a daily basis, particularly when international relationships become somewhat tense. I imagine that that advice will be revised today, and it is likely to be revised in the light of the Secretary-General's report back to the Security Council. The advice is freely available from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Lord Ewing of Kirkwood: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a search of the records of another place at the height of the Gulf War would reveal that I expressed the strongest reservations about this country's involvement in the whole affair? I still have the strongest reservations. Will my noble friend accept that it is difficult to avoid the feeling that Saddam Hussein dangles the United Nations at the end of a string? This will be the fifth or sixth time since the end of the Gulf War that Saddam Hussein has taken the world to the brink and then pulled back. My guess, for what it is worth—it is not worth much—is that that is what will happen this time.
Can my noble friend say whether or not Her Majesty's Government are contemplating the use of British troops? If so, does my noble friend agree that in the use of troops of any country—we are only concerned with British troops—it is essential that they are technically equipped, and they are; that they are expert, and they are. But one of the other major factors in operations of this kind is troop morale. What effect does my noble friend feel the Gulf War syndrome has had on troop morale for those who may be contemplating that once again they may be deployed to an area of the world that gave rise to the whole question of Gulf War syndrome? It has caused immense sadness to so many families since the end of the Gulf War
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my noble friend referred to the last engagement. It is important for us to remember that Saddam Hussein is not defying the United States, the United Kingdom or any other country in the region; he is defying the United Nations. The United Kingdom is part of the United Nations. Her Majesty's Government believe that it is important that the United Nations speaks with one voice; that we remain firm and unified in insisting that Saddam Hussein resumes co-operation with the UN Special Commission and that Iraq complies with the relevant Security Council resolutions.
My noble friend refers to British troops. I indicated that no options were being ruled out at this stage. Of course, any army should be properly trained and properly equipped. In relation to the specific point raised by the noble Lord, the way in which our Armed
30
Forces rise to every challenge that is placed before them is admirable. Let us hope and pray that they do not have to rise to such a challenge on this occasion

International Development
Debate resumed.
4.26 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, the White Paper on eliminating world poverty is greatly to be welcomed. It starts implicitly, if not explicitly, from the basic premise that as human beings we are interdependent and irreducibly so. It is part of being human that we are responsible to and for one another both as individuals and as communities. If ever we find ourselves asking the question, "Am I my brother's keeper?", we should remind ourselves that Cain, the man who first asked it, was his brother's murderer.
The White Paper set ambitious goals such as halving world poverty by the year 2015. Those are targets which we can and ought to meet. There are three goals in particular that I should like to commend. First, there is the commitment to focus all our efforts on the fight against poverty. It goes without saying that that is what our aid programme ought, above all, to be about.
Secondly, there is the promise of greater coherence across a range of government policy. Aid is important, but there is a whole range of policy areas which impact on developing countries. The Treasury will be key when discussing debt relief; MAFF will have a role in food supply; the DTI can open opportunities for trade and investment. This is a government White Paper and securing the co-ordinated involvement and commitment of a number of ministries will be a considerable achievement.
Thirdly, we should welcome the idea that we need alliances in order to meet the challenges we face. As the White Paper says, in the 1970s we thought that the state would deliver everything; in the 1980s we wanted to leave it to the market. The paper recognises that the answers are much more complicated. It calls for a new alliance between governments, the private sector and non-governmental organisations in order to deliver development.
The White Paper sets ambitious goals together with a framework to guide our policy into the next millennium. The challenge now is to turn those bold ideals into reality. As well as the big global goals for 2015, we need to set some interim targets to see how we are progressing. For example, what are we going to achieve by the year 2005? We also need to set clear and measurable targets for the areas that are directly under our control. For example, the White Paper sets targets for educating people overseas. But where are the targets and resources for development education here in Britain?
I broadly welcome the White Paper but should like to suggest three areas where it could have gone further. The first is debt relief. If poor countries are to develop then, as the White Paper acknowledges, we urgently

31
need to solve the debt crisis, not merely to alleviate it. Let us mark the millennium with a comprehensive package of debt remission. Here we cannot help noticing echoes of words which Christians use every day: "Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors". Christian Aid and the Jubilee 2000 Coalition are asking for a one-off cancellation by the year 2000 of the backlog of unpayable debt owed by the world's poorest countries under a fair and transparent process. I should like to remind your Lordships that the Church of England's General Synod has already endorsed the main aims of Jubilee 2000.
The issue of debt release has been identified by the African bishops as a key issue for next year's worldwide meeting of Anglican bishops—the Lambeth conference—in Canterbury. Archbishop Desmond Tutu's successor, Archbishop Ndungane of Cape Town, is playing a leading role in promoting this concern for debt relief. The House has already debated this specific initiative, in a debate on 9th July introduced by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford.
Secondly, I refer to aid volume. The Government remain committed to the United Nations aid target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP, but so far they have declined to set a timetable to reach that target. It will take a number of years to increase the aid budget from its current level of 0.27 per cent. to the UN target. Can the Government at least promise that by the end of this term they will have met the European Union average of 0.37 per cent.? Setting and meeting this kind of achievable interim target would help convince us that the Government are truly committed to translating the fine ideals of the White Paper into the kind of action which will make a real difference.
Finally, I underline everything that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, about the conventional arms trade, a trade whose victims are, above all, the poor people of poor countries
4.31 p.m.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, this occasion brings vivid recollections of the nervousness I felt almost exactly 33 years ago when I first rose to my feet in another place, so I hope your Lordships will forgive my similar nervousness today.
Having read the White Paper, I feel—and I hope I am not being controversial—that one cannot but come to the conclusion that a good deal of it is a reaffirmation of the work of my noble friend Lady Chalker, to whom, quite rightly, the Minister and the Secretary of State have paid tribute in recent times.
Moving next to the generalities of the White Paper, I have a great deal of sympathy for what the noble Lord, Lord Steel, and the right reverend Prelate said with regard to the need for the Government to be rather more specific about their targets over the immediate period ahead. We realise that public spending is sterilised at previous levels for the next two years, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Steel, said, we are entitled to know more precisely what the Government mean when they say they are going to move positively to the 0.7 per cent. of
32
GDP referred to in the White Paper. I should also like to hear what the Minister feels about the point raised last Wednesday by my noble friend Lord Howell when he pointed to what I believe is a much more important and realistic target of 1 per cent. of GNP for both public and private investment in the developing world. The United Kingdom exceeds that figure very considerably at the moment. I hope the Minister will give an undertaking that the Government will do everything they can to maintain that current commendable level of public and private aid.
I come now to the core of what I want to say. I am disappointed by the absence from the White Paper, except for one small mention in paragraph 3.55, of any reference to the universal problem of landmines. It is one of the great scourges of today and contributes so much to world poverty in areas where millions of landmines lie dormant. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness the Minister for taking an interest in the all-party group on landmines of which I have had the honour of being vice-chairman since its inception. She attended one of our meetings before the summer Recess; her visit was very welcome. However, I am disappointed that there is not more reference in the White Paper to what is a terrible scourge.
It was, I believe, the current Secretary of State for Defence who pointed out the other day that every hour around the world three people lose either their lives or limbs through stepping on landmines. But it does not stop there. So often the people maimed or killed through landmine accidents are the breadwinners of the family and, as a consequence, a whole raft of extra people are affected and brought back towards poverty. Far too little is done for people maimed by landmines around the world. I was associated for a number of years with Sandy Gall's appeal on behalf of Afghanistan, which does wonderful work providing artificial limbs for those who have suffered these tragic accidents. I hope that the Government will do everything possible to encourage that type of assistance and aid.
The principal point I wish to draw to your Lordships' attention is the fact that, by the very existence of those millions of mines, huge tracts of land become totally unusable for agriculture and food production. Hence, huge numbers of people are pushed further towards poverty. Anyone who has flown over the Zambezi delta in Mozambique will have seen vast tracts of highly productive land which cannot be used, partly because it has been mined and partly through the activities previously of that wicked organisation, RENAMO, which was financed by the most malevolent people in southern Africa. They have a great deal to answer for because all that wonderful land is lying sterile.
It is vital—I hope that the Government will apply their attention to this point—to increase efforts to find better ways of detecting and clearing mines and so restore more quickly land to the local population, enabling them to sustain themselves and drag themselves away from poverty. I refuse to believe that, in an age when we can manipulate the genetic components of a living cell or land on the moon, it continues to be the situation that the only way we can detect mines is by wonderful and brave people crawling

33
about on their hands and knees, poking steel rods into the ground and hoping they will detect these terrible weapons. It is a poor reflection on the ingenuity of man. Anyone who has seen the work of the Halo Trust, among others, in clearing land in a painstaking way will know precisely what I mean.
Surely the Government realise that great strides would be made in relieving world poverty if we could achieve a breakthrough in detecting mines much more efficiently. I know that some work is being done in the United Kingdom at the Defence Equipment Research Agency and that a good deal of work is also being carried out in the United States. A number of us who are members of the NATO Assembly visited the Lawrence Livermore Laboratories in California last year. I believe that there is great potential, through various techniques such as ground-penetrating radar or microwave impulse radar, among a good many other techniques, for finding and clearing mines more effectively. Again, last week, we saw in the press some publicity as regards a device called AARDVARK, which I believe is made near Aberdeen. It seems perhaps to be more efficient to continue techniques which were used through flails on the front of tanks during World War II.
But there is much to be done. I hope that the Government recognise the importance of such work in eliminating world poverty. I believe that huge strides would be made if only mines could be cleared more effectively. I hope that the Minister will look again into these issues and that she will join those of us who regard this as a personal crusade. I wish the Government well in the discussions in Ottawa next month, and I hope that we can make real progress
4.41 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I know that I speak for the whole House in saying how much we have appreciated the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. I had the joy of knowing him quite well when I was a Member of the other place. I know in what high regard he was held by colleagues in all parts of that House. I also know, as what is called in that part of the world "a recent offcomer" to the north, that he is held in immensely high regard in the north of England, as represented by his honorary doctorate from the University of Newcastle. He is also held in great respect and high regard in the international community. That is no mean record. It stems from his inherent decency, integrity and compassion. What we have heard today is a model of how he approaches politics: he does not speak in airy-fairy, theoretical terms about the principles which concern him deeply; he speaks of them practically, in a dimension which affects millions of people in the world. We look forward to hearing the noble Lord frequently informing and improving the quality of our debates in the many years that lie ahead of him in this House.
As I said in the defence debate last week, I have been working professionally and voluntarily for most of my life with NGOs and humanitarian agencies concerned with security and development issues, and I still do so.
34
Oxfam, ODI, Safer World and International Alert are examples. It is therefore necessary for me to declare an interest.
The strategy described in the White Paper is unambiguous. The unequivocal objective of the Secretary of State is the war against poverty, and that provides a refreshing challenge, demonstrating that New Labour can be as rooted in the conviction about the moral imperative of the fight for social justice as old Labour ever was. But social justice cannot be achieved without some redistribution of wealth, whether it be in the United Kingdom or the third world. One key test of all that the White Paper aspires to achieve is whether it helps to close the gap which is so disturbingly widening between the excessively wealthy and the desperately poor.
Equality of opportunity becomes hollow aspiration unless greater equality of outcome is demonstrably the outcome. It is self-deceptive to suppose that the grotesquely disadvantaged will be able to take advantage of the opportunities unless the handicaps which hamper them are removed—bad health facilities, homelessness, unemployment, urban or rural squalor, dreadful environmental pollution, violent conflict and, above all, grinding poverty are obvious examples. That is why I believe that the argument about where to strike the dynamic balance between the market and intervention for the common good with well resourced public services remains and will always remain as central as ever. It matters in the United Kingdom and it matters in the world. "Cannot afford" is not the same as "Choose not to afford". In so far as it goes, the promise to reverse the downward trend in expenditure is to be heartily welcomed, but we shall need to know a good deal more about what that really means.
We live in a time of revolutionised communications. Nobody can plead ignorance of the grim reality of deprivation and poverty. To know how people suffer and then to turn our backs on it is to build some hell on earth. It not only stunts our own qualitative development; it literally locks us into our own prisons as we build our walls higher, make our grills stronger and deploy more security paraphernalia and personnel to keep the threatening consequences of our selfishness from invading our selfish enclaves.
We know that to be true with the security systems which increasingly clutter up our homes in Britain. We know it to be true as we ponder the dangerous mix of millions of people with nothing to loss,--including perhaps as many as a 100 million refugees and displaced people by the year 2000, and all the nightmares presented by the accessible techniques for modern international terrorism. It is ominous that 15 of the 20 poorest countries in the world have experienced significant violent conflict in the past 15 years.
Social justice and the war against poverty are not to be relegated to the moral appendices of political manifestos. They are central to any prospect for a decent, viable future for our children and grandchildren. We are increasingly anxious about the environment. We proclaim our refrains about sustainable development. But every time we speak of sustainable development it

35
raises the most immense issues of access, distribution and justice. If, as they climb out of poverty, the poor of the world are to play their part in managing the global environment successfully, it will be because they do as we should have done but did not. And that will cost them a great deal of money. As the Secretary of State for the Environment mounts his international crusade, it will, frankly, lack credibility unless he leads a campaign for increased resources for the poor world to do it right. We simply cannot ignore that 20 to 25 per cent. of the world's population has an approaching 80 per cent. share of the consumption of the world's resources and has been responsible for the lion's share of pollution. Nowhere is the imperative for redistribution better illustrated.
If I have learned anything in my years of work on so-called third world issues, it is that it is not a matter of whether macro-economic strategies are the priority or micro-economic projects are the basic essential. Both are badly needed. They are complementary. And I believe that this White Paper establishes that very clearly. There is its emphasis on directing aid into primary education, not least for girls, into primary and preventive health care, and the provision of clean water. At the same time there is recognition of the indispensability of trade in development, with the paper's support for fairer trade and market access for developing countries to developed markets.
In this respect it will be essential to see a closer alignment between the terms of the Lomé agreement and those of the GSP. Real and substantial progress on debt relief, and still more relevant policies from the World Bank and IMF, will also be indispensable. There is a good deal of evidence that the spirit is willing in these spheres. The reportedly good rapport between the Secretary of State and the President of the World Bank is good news. But the muscles of enlightenment in the financial institutions still need a great deal of strengthening. It is disappointing that the White Paper does not say more on the untying of aid. Tied aid can play havoc with instilling sound economic disciplines in government: it is often counter-productive. This issue has to be tackled. However, in the shadow of Pergau, helicopters for India and the rest, the resolve of the Secretary of State to ensure that development is about development and that aid funds will never again be misused as short-term sweeteners for commercial contracts—let alone sinister arms deals—is altogether wholesome.
The abuse of the Aid Trade Provision by the previous government was legendary and depressing. That had to be put right. But it is imaginative that in the White Paper we see a re-emphasis of the sound and extensive ethical contribution that British business is capable of making to development and of the need for government and the private sector to work out what should be their mutually reinforcing roles.
On that front, the Commonwealth Development Corporation must not be abandoned to the conventional world of merchant banking. It has a special function in bringing investment to less attractive target countries and in building management capability. The
36
Government must use their influence to keep CDC firmly committed in that direction. It is reassuring to read of the Government's determination to consult both the private sector and the NGOs, with their often unrivalled insight, based as it is on their front-line engagement, when country and other development strategies are being prepared.
The values and commitment of political leadership in any country are fundamental to the prospects of development. I am glad that the White Paper recognises that. The partnership principle is a good one. The Government are right to give priority to co-operation with those governments who are committed to international poverty eradication targets, pro-poor economic growth, sustainable livelihoods, good governance, human rights and, within this context, environmental sustainability.
Accelerated debt relief should be available to such governments. Support for good governance, decentralisation, the rule of law and enhanced legal strategies in partner countries are also certainly appropriate. But this means that, where governments are bad and the people are consequently suffering, NGOs will have a crucial humanitarian role to play. The Government must understand this and support them.
Many of us will welcome the recommitment to development education here at home in the UK. At the heart of our education system there should be a constant recognition of our inescapable involvement in the world. Any learning which is not based on that will be irrelevant to the century ahead. The Development Policy Forum, building an interactive constituency of informed and, I hope, constructively critical support for development, also makes a great deal of sense. The annual report, with an annual debate on it in Parliament. is clearly right.
When I completed my time as Director of Oxfam, more than 50 per cent. of our work worldwide was conflict related. In Africa it was more than 70 per cent. I was mesmerised by the awful statistic that, whereas in the Second World War some 50 per cent. of the casualties were civilian, the proportion is now over 90 per cent—and the poor, not having the means to escape, often get hit hardest. Indeed, it was this concern that took me into work with Safer World and International Alert. Conflict resolution, pre-emptive diplomacy and firm control of the arms trade are imperatives of any coherent humanitarian development strategy. So, too, is post-conflict reconstruction.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will forgive me if I put several specific inquiries to her in this context. What effective and meaningful part is DfID playing in the current foreign policy-led strategic defence review? If the New Labour Government are really facing up to all that is involved in international security, why is the Secretary of State for International Development not on the Ministerial Committee on Defence and Overseas Policy? What are the Government doing to ensure that conflict prevention is fully integrated into the entire range of the Government's international policy? How can the Government ensure that development assistance for

37
post-conflict reconstruction is dovetailed with FCO or MoD assistance for demobilisation and demilitarisation? How will DfID fulfil the role it has been given in the arms exporting licensing process?
I believe it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, who said we should learn to think of—I believe the words were—"all ministries as development ministries" with a role to play in reducing poverty and promoting sustainable development. He was right. The Department for International Development and its Secretary of State are the catalysts: but they must mobilise agriculture, health, environment, education, trade and the others and, above all, the FCO, the Treasury and No. 10 itself. If the Government are serious—and on international security grounds no less than humanitarian grounds they simply have to be—what is required, as the White Paper so rightly indicates, is the orchestrated input of the Government as a whole. Their leadership and commitment in the European Union, not least on the reform of the CAP, and in the multilateral organisations, will be every bit as important as their bilateral programmes and priorities. The two should complement each other.
I believe the White Paper sets out an urgent agenda. The Government are to be congratulated. But they will now have to provide the means. Fifteenth in the OECD league table of the proportion of GNP committed to overseas development by Development Assistance Committee member states is not an overwhelmingly convincing place to be for a nation whose new Government is on record as wanting to play a lead role in international responsibility. The downward trend has to be reversed. It is good that the White Paper says that, but it cannot be said too strongly
4.56 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, it is a great privilege for me to be able to make my maiden speech on a subject of such importance as international development and in particular the reduction of widespread poverty across much of the globe. It is a double privilege to be able to speak in a debate initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, because many moons ago, as a humble principal in Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, I was also an active member of the First Division Association, of which the noble Baroness was such a distinguished general secretary. This debate, for me at least, is therefore something of an FDA alumni reunion.
It is not, however, as a result of my experience of attempting to harmonise European Community customs law or worrying about the structure of tobacco taxation that I wish to speak in this debate. For almost 20 years I have been a trustee of a small charitable trust, the Allachy Trust, the purpose of which is to support sustainable development projects in the poorest parts of the developing world. I therefore strongly support the central thrust of the White Paper and the statement by the Secretary of State for International Development that
"the challenge of development is to apply the lessons of success to enable the poor to work their way out of poverty"
38
and that that can be achieved only by enabling
"the poor to develop their talents."
If one accepts that the key aim of development policy is, indeed, to enable the poor to develop their own talents, the type of project which should receive support is vastly different from those which have often been funded in the past. The Allachy Trust is inundated with increasing numbers of increasingly well thought-out proposals which enable poor people to undertake sustainable economic activity which sits squarely within the priorities of the White Paper.
I wonder whether I may refer to just one such project which can serve as an example of the best. The Adivasi Forest Produce Programme is a new project in which funding from the UK, from both the Government and the voluntary sector, is being used to give the indigenous Adivasi people the means to collect and market forest produce in a systematic and economically viable manner. The project is set in a large area of protected forest in Tamil Nadu, India. The five-year cost of the project is £250,000. Thereafter, it becomes self-sustaining and profitable. The UK end of the project is being managed by the highly impressive charity Find Your Feet. This project has the great advantages of being targeted at the very poor, and of being small scale, replicable, involving women as much as men (to the extent of requiring that 50 per cent. of the management board comprise women—a proposal incidentally which could not secure support even within the Liberal Democrat Party). The project is sustainable economically and environmentally. It empowers entire communities which traditionally have had few rights and economic independence. It is also unashamedly unglamorous; it will never hit the headlines. How different it is from a dam or a fleet of helicopters, but how much more intrinsically worthwhile.
When one thinks of development in the world's poorest countries one tends to think principally of rural development, because in the past these countries have had overwhelmingly rural economies, and some still do. But the flight from the countryside has caused an explosive growth in cities across the third world. The physical and social infrastructure of those cities cannot begin to cope. The imagination that has gone into the development of appropriate projects in rural areas is largely lacking when considering how to tackle these horrendous urban problems. In that context I have a suggestion to proffer to the Minister and her colleagues. In looking at ways to motivate poor people in cities, particularly young people, to undertake a range of socially and environmentally beneficial activities, she should not overlook the role that sport can play in the development process. That is a role which VSO, for example, has recently recognised. Those who attended the CHOGM Sports Conference a few weeks ago were privileged to hear about the Mathare Youth Sports Association which is based in a huge poverty-stricken shanty town on the outskirts of Nairobi. That association not only runs footballing activities but also contributes to every aspect of the development process. For example, before anyone is allowed to play football they must help to collect garbage or unblock the perpetually blocked drainage ditches. Each has to receive AIDS

39
counselling and stop taking drugs. Furthermore, their footballing heroes tell them to stay at school, and by and large they do so. The association encourages girls to participate in sports activities and in decision making. The association runs itself, encouraging the concepts of good governance and accountability among its largely teenage members. They are also extremely—and worryingly—good footballers.
The imagination, maturity and success of those who run the Mathare project challenge the perception of many people about the ability of the poor and the young in the most unpromising circumstances to help themselves. It also demonstrates that sport is not simply a frivolous adjunct to real life but can be a very powerful force for personal and community development.
The White Paper should make it easier for the Government to support the type of project that I have described this afternoon. In doing so it offers the prospect of empowering some of the world's poorest individuals and communities to haul themselves out of poverty on a sustainable basis. Therefore, it deserves our strong support
5.3 p.
Lord Rea: My Lords, what a privilege it is to be able to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Newby, on a highly professional, very relevant and pleasantly witty maiden speech. It was an affable speech, which made it appear that he had been here for years. In his curriculum vitae as a civil servant in Customs and Excise, as a political administrator, and property developer his extensive knowledge of the developing world does not appear. Who knows what other wisdom we can expect from the noble Lord? We look forward to his contributions on a wide range of topics in future.
Like many other noble Lords, I should like to give this clearly written and clear-sighted White Paper a big welcome. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, should realise that it is more a statement of principles than a detailed description of the future work of DfID. It may therefore seem to be a little short on how the aims are to be achieved rather than what those aims are, and why they need to be achieved. The style is a little grandiose, particularly the purple passage on the back of the front page. This kind of language may be suitable for a pre-election speech but it is an embarrassment in a White Paper. The last sentence of that passage reads:
"and we will give back to our children what they deserve—a heritage of hope".
At the present time that is a rather unfortunate statement in relation to paragraph 3.42 of the White Paper, which reads:
"We are working with other governments towards a global ban on tobacco advertising. In the meantime we will support an international code of conduct … covering the content and exposure of children to advertising".
Children are avid watchers of Formula One motor racing. They know the logos and colour schemes of tobacco companies on racing cars without any writing being displayed at all. With the leave of the House, for a further moment I should like to diverge from the theme of the debate to say how mistaken the
40
Government have been in reneging on their promise to phase out the tobacco sponsorship of sport. Not only the health professions, in strength, led by the British Medical Association, but a large part of the electorate are dismayed by this decision. Eighty two per cent. of the "Question Time" audience last Thursday believed that the Government had been wrong to submit to the tobacco industry on the issue of sponsorship of Formula One motor racing. The Secretary of State for International Development, Clare Short, who was on that panel, was clearly uncomfortable in her defence of that decision which nevertheless she carried out loyally as a member of the Cabinet. Perhaps my noble friend can suggest to her right honourable friend the Secretary of State that this matter be further discussed in Cabinet. It may already have happened. Something can be saved from this humiliating government surrender to a powerful lobby if a date in the near future for the phasing out of this form of tobacco promotion can be fixed—and a good deal nearer than the 10 years mooted in the Guardian this morning as a possibility. I am glad to say that this issue is very much in the news, and I hope that it will continue to be so until the Government—my Government—reverse this quite unnecessary departure from an electoral undertaking.
Having got that off my chest, it is time to take a selective look at the White Paper itself. First, to consider the old chestnut of the division of funds between bilateral and multilateral development assistance. I am concerned about the diversion of large parts of our bilateral aid to the European Development Fund. This is nothing new. But perhaps my noble friend can inform the House how the new department will increase its involvement in monitoring and improve the effectiveness of this aid. How many staff from the DflD will be located in Brussels? What influence can they exert? What are the arrangements to ensure proper linkage between member governments and the commissioners responsible for European aid policy? Perhaps more important, what is the linkage at the lower levels of decision making?
In the second section of the White Paper the content of our development assistance is set out clearly in nine panels. Much of this continues and further develops the work of ODA under the previous government. I am pleased that there will be continued support for essential healthcare and population activities which were high on the priority list of the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker. I ask my noble friend whether the expenditure on health and population activities will remain level or perhaps even rise in the budget plans of the department. Is the calculation of that proportion of expenditure inclusive of activities under these headings that are funded under the joint funding and volunteer schemes or is it additional to that expenditure?
In addition, in the second section of the White Paper the concept of development partnerships is put forward. In theory this is an excellent idea; but, as is recognised in paragraph 2.24, it may run into the difficulty that many governments profess that they are committed to pro-poor growth and conservation but pursue policies that favour an elite or a particular ethnic group. In other cases governments may be so poor and corruption or

41
human rights abuses so great that official assistance must be withdrawn. Yet, as my noble friend Lord Judd pointed out, poor people in those countries need help desperately. Paragraph 2.24 recognises that assistance will be provided through a number of alternative channels and will be tightly focused on the victims of neglect and oppression. That is an important use of aid, but a difficult one because some governments could regard that as letting them off the hook.
As my noble friend the Minister, and many other noble Lords know, that is where the local knowledge and connections of locally based NGOs, and the links that they have with international organisations are so important. So it is good to see in paragraph 2.40:
"The Government wishes to strengthen its partnership with voluntary charitable and non-profit making organisations".
It was while my noble friend Lord Judd, as director of Oxfam, was visiting some of the projects funded by Oxfam under the nose of the Pinochet regime that he and I first met. I, too, was visiting Chile 11 years ago. I expected no less than that the Government would be supporting the NGOs, but it is good to see it stated clearly in the White Paper.
In the debate on the environment on 5th November I queried the effect that trade and investment policy had on the environment. In particular, I asked about the multilateral agreement on investment which is being developed by the OECD at the moment. That subject is discussed in paragraphs 3.29 and 3.30. That states:
"We recognise that the MAI is not designed for the economic and constitutional constraints of poorer developing countries. We arc exploring how their needs can be taken into account".
It also mentions a future WTO agreement on investment which may be developed. How far are representatives of the least developed countries and NGOs, which are particularly aware of their needs, being consulted during those discussions on future investment policy? Some of the provisions of the MAI which I read out during the debate on the environment seemed to be so severe that they could undermine the independence of countries which signed up to them, and would appear to confirm the dominance of trans-national corporations and other foreign investors as virtual neo-imperialist.
I shall not weary your Lordships by discussing the rest of the interesting section on trade, agriculture and investment, but it is an important section of the White Paper. It has 17 subsections, covering many areas in which DfID will have to collaborate closely with other departments of state, particularly trade and industry, the EU, and UN financial institutions.
Another section entitled "Responding Effectively to Conflict", which was discussed by my noble friend Lord Judd covers another important area. It is discussed in paragraphs 3.48 to 3.55. There will be, as he said, a need to collaborate closely with the MoD as well as the FCO.
I mention those areas briefly to demonstrate that the decision to make international development an independent department. headed by a Cabinet Minister, was amply justified and long overdue. By having the status of a Cabinet Minister, it will be much easier for my right honourable friend to have high level discussions with other departments of state.
42
To sum up, this is an excellent plan of campaign, drawn up by a dedicated and enthusiastic Secretary of State with a clear sense of direction. The programme should ensure that the people of Britain and the developing world obtain good value for money from DfID where it is needed
5.15 p.m.
Lord Cromwell: My Lords, I have spent the past 10 years working in the international development sector, but in making my maiden speech I am all too painfully aware of what a tiny drop in the ocean of experience and knowledge that is in this House. I am grateful to your Lordships for allowing me to participate in the debate today. I should also declare an interest in that I am currently working on a number of such projects around the world.
The Government's proposals have been widely welcomed in the development community because they focus on human rights, democratisation and the eradication of poverty, which must form the basis of a safe, equitable and sustainable planet. I should like to add my welcome to those proposals. There are practical issues surrounding the implementation of those proposals about which we shall need to be vigilant. However, I believe that we are pointed in the right direction. It is now a question of having the energy, the resources, the opportunities and the international co-operation to attain the targets that the document sets out.
Having said all that, I should like to add one cautionary note about eastern Europe and the states of the former Soviet Union. The still relatively recent changes in that part of the world have shown us what benefits can be derived by those countries from the technical assistance that Britain does so well. The Government Know-How Fund and other members of the international donor community have achieved substantial and sustainable results in those countries. I remember when aid to that area was first announced. There was considerable adverse comment along the lines that it would divert resources from what might, depressingly, be called the traditional areas of aid in Africa and Asia.
I am sure that it is not necessary in this House to detail the strategic, economic and cultural importance of support to that part of the world. What is perhaps not so widely part of our thinking is the extent to which the issues of democratisation, human rights, and the eradication of poverty are relevant there. Anyone who has seen old women begging in minus 20, 30, or 40 degrees in that part of the world will know what I am talking about. Indicators of health, life expectancy and social welfare are showing a downturn rather than an upturn, particularly in the less visible areas—the rural areas, the economically depressed areas—and for vulnerable groups such as the elderly.
To illustrate my concern about the Government's proposals I hope that noble Lords will forgive a slightly pedantic approach to the document, in that I could not help but notice that Africa or African countries are mentioned 12 times, Asia or Asian countries five times,

43
but Russia just once—as an aid giver. No other countries from central Europe, eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union or the central Asian republics are mentioned by name at all. More generally, the document refers repeatedly to support for and partnership with developing countries, something which I am sure we would all wish to support. The huge areas and populations of eastern Europe and the CIS, however, are specifically excluded in the document from that category. They are referred to as "in transition" in two short paragraphs and one panel.
I hope that the House and the Government will continue to recognise the merit of support and engagement with that part of the world. We have an immediate interest in its progress and stability, but perhaps more fundamentally, in the spirit of the humanitarian objectives within this set of proposals, there is much to be done.
To conclude, I should like once more to welcome these valuable proposals which point us all in the right direction. However, I suggest that it would be unwise politically and unfair from a humanitarian perspective to sideline, run down, or in some way to consider as secondary, our assistance to eastern Europe, central Europe and the former Soviet Union. They have recently re-emerged in our national consciousness. We have much to learn about them and from them. I believe that they are worthy of our support, not only for political reasons but because they fall squarely within the issues which the White Paper seeks to address
5.20 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, this has been an impressive debate on a significant and important White Paper. I wish, first, to congratulate the maiden speakers, the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell, Lord Newby and Lord Jopling. They have contributed in every way to the excellent standard of the debate and have revealed their profound knowledge of various parts of the world. That will add greatly to the understanding of this House and to the enlightenment of the Government as regards world development.
The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, addressed a part of the world with which 1. too, have been greatly involved. I declare an interest as director of the Harvard-based project, Liberty, which has worked mainly in transition countries. I was moved by what he said and wish to underline to the Government the importance of not neglecting totally that part of the world which has moved so rapidly from being within the communist bloc to trying to establish stable democracies, though not having yet done so
Perhaps I may bear out the noble Lord's comments in two ways. First, it is a terrifying fact that since 1989 the expectation of life among men in Russia has fallen by six years. It now stands at 58 years of age. considerably lower than the expectation of life of a man in India. Secondly, perhaps I may tell not a fact but a story. Earlier this year I was in a workshop in Romania and I do not forget what was said to me by one of the women there. She said, "We are very grateful to your people for
44
sending us pillows and sheets for our orphanages. The only trouble is that children can't eat pillows and sheets".
It is difficult to describe the depth of the poverty in some areas of Russia and eastern Europe. It is largely disguised by GNP figures which hide discrepancies between the small number of people who have benefited hugely from "jungle capitalism" and the large number of elderly people, large families and those living in rural areas who have gained nothing from the transition and who in consequence, sadly, all too often vote for the devil they used to know rather than the devil they are now encountering.
Furthermore, I wish to comment on the two previous maiden speeches, both made by noble Lords whom I am proud to call friends. As my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood said, the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, has a distinguished record as a former Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I know that he will contribute to the expertise sought by Members of this House with regard to agriculture in developing countries. But perhaps I may pay him the tribute of saying that he was one of the few Chief Whips who managed to maintain his humour, compassion and balance despite holding such a truly terrible job. I commend his experience to the present Chief Whips of both the governing and opposition parties.
My noble friend Lord Newby addressed the House movingly on two schemes which he commended to our attention. The House will learn a great deal from him; his modesty belies his outstanding talents. We are delighted to have heard from him today.
I do not wish to detain the House long but I wish to make a few points relating to the White Paper. Its aspirations are great and therefore it demands careful analysis. My first comment underlines what the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, importantly told this House. The White Paper reflects a growing realisation on the part of international financial institutions, in particular the World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development—a growing awareness that what happens to aid resources is directly related to the goodness and efficiency of governments. One can pour money into a badly governed country and it will be spent on prestige projects which enhance the standing of what are sometimes paranoid leaders but it will do little to benefit the country.
The World Bank in its most recent development report points to "collapsing" states— I would describe them as "hollow" states—in Africa. Asia and more developed countries than either continent can boast, where the leaders rip off their people and in some cases have escaped from their responsibilities with millions of dollars, pounds, francs and marks which they have stowed away in Swiss bank accounts. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to President Mobutu, who was one of all too many examples. The world must find a way of penalising such leaders rather than penalising innocent people for their excesses and corruption and the misuse of development funds.
The understanding that what matters is good government is reflected in the current report of the World Bank. Perhaps I may quote one striking sentence:

45
"An effective state is vital for the provision of the goods and services and the rules and institutions which allow markets to flourish and people to lead healthier and happier lives".
My noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood pointed to the fact that this is the most neglected and underfunded area of development aid. We pour many millions of pounds—and other countries pour in their own currencies—into creating free markets, but we pour only the crumbs from a rich man's table into the creation of efficient, accountable and responsible governments. If your Lordships look at the articles of association of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development you will find that they are unamended from their first establishment and that in some cases those bodies are prohibited from putting money into constitutional and civil development. Yet we now know that that is crucial to the creation of an effective battle against poverty.
My first question is: can the Minister assure the House that some part of the aid for which Her Majesty's Government are responsible will continue to be devoted to the building of civil societies and responsible governments? Without that our money is going down the drain. Secondly, can she tell us that the Government will continue to support bodies such as those mentioned by my noble friend Lord Steel—the Westminster Foundation and the Know-How Fund—for their splendid work in this field? I repeat that it is the field into which much richer institutions put no money whatever.
The project, Liberty, which I have directed since 1989, has tried to spend small sums of money on providing workshops for civil servants in eastern Europe and for people thinking of entering national and local government in Russia, including the Moscow School of Political Studies which we strongly support. But, frankly, those sums are drops in an ocean of ignorance, unfamiliarity and often frustrated aspirations to try to create better governments. It is uniquely an area to which Britain is singularly able to contribute. It would be imaginative for us to work hard on setting up perhaps Open University-type structures which encourage democracy and civil society throughout the developing and, dare I say, some parts of the developed world.
The second point I wish to make is one which many noble Lords have made already. It concerns the extreme importance of concentrating on social infrastructure, primary education and primary healthcare. The right reverend Prelate reminded us of the importance of those matters in creating the basic structures to deal with poverty. In that context, I should mention that today 130 million children are without even primary education. More of those are girls than boys, but that does not matter. They are all being seriously neglected. Even some relatively poor countries, by investing in public health rather than curative medicine, can make a huge difference to the prospects of their country.
In that regard, it is remarkable that South Africa, in the first few years of its free existence, has established a primary medical system for one to six year-olds and for mothers expecting babies which is free, while the United States—one of the richest countries in the world—is still struggling to try to achieve the same end.
46
Finally, I wish to refer to the only non-grace note to which I am bound to return in the debate. We commend the Government for their emphasis on poverty and the Secretary of State for her emphasis on social infrastructure. But I must conclude with a second question in addition to that which I asked about supporting democratic governments and civic societies. I wonder whether the Government are suffering from what I believe is now known as the "millennium syndrome". That means a profound reluctance to address dates because dates can mean ruination for certain enterprises.
The Government were anxious to avoid any date in relation to the euro, and still tell us firmly that a date would be a bad idea. But as a former Minister I must say that my heart sank when the noble Baroness, in an otherwise extremely encouraging and illuminating speech, referred to that dreaded phrase, "changing the priorities within the Budget". In ministerial-speak, we all know that that means, "No more money; just take some money from Peter to pay Paul". If that were true, it would be a breach of the promise which the Government made clearly during their campaign, and have repeated, without dates, in their White Paper, to return to the UN target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP in what is now known in ministerial and other circles as the foreseeable future. Will the Minister tell us just how long is the foreseeable future? Can we at least look forward, as in the case, I understand, of the euro, to the foreseeable future being broadly equivalent to the lifetime of the current Parliament
5.33 p.m.
Lord Acton: My Lords, I was brought up on a farm in colonial Southern Rhodesia. After Zimbabwean independence in 1980, I returned to that country and for several years worked for the new government. Most people in Rhodesia and Zimbabwe were very poor but the full horror of African poverty was really brought home to me during the drought of the early 1980s. People in one area of Zimbabwe were managing to stay alive only by eating grass.
With the background of a love of Africa and an inkling of the poverty which exists there, I join the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, and virtually all other noble Lords, with the exception, I think, of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in welcoming the White Paper—a tremendous statement of aspirations. I refer not to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, but to the White Paper.
I wish to concentrate on paragraph 2.37 of the White Paper which outlines plans to enable the Government's chief instrument in investing in the private sector of the poorest countries—the Commonwealth Development Corporation—to increase its capital and thus its investment in those countries.
After Mr. Ian Smith's unilateral declaration of independence in 1965, my parents left Rhodesia and went to live in Swaziland. I visited them there in 1969 and on my second day my father showed me the magnificent pine forest at the quaintly named Pigs Peak. He said with admiration, "This is all the work of the Commonwealth Development Corporation". That was my introduction to the CDC.

47
Today in Swaziland its wholly-owned subsidiary, the Shiselweni Forestry Company, has 2,950 hectares of pines, 6,200 hectares of eucalyptus and 670 hectares of oil-bearing eucalyptus. The company began harvesting the eucalyptus in 1977 and produces eucalyptus oil in its own mill. Previously, the land was undeveloped grassland. That forestry is but one example of the fine work of the Commonwealth Development Corporation.
As my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean said, the CDC has £1.6 billion invested in 404 enterprises in 54 of the world's poorest countries. Of that sum, the corporation has £485 million invested in 23 sub-Saharan African countries. From its own resources, the CDC finances about £300 million of new activities each year in the poorer countries—more than 30 per cent. on projects in sub-Saharan Africa. The enterprises in which the CDC invests there range from large agricultural businesses to manufacturing industry and venture capital companies.
While the CDC has clearly been a great success, the Government stress in the White Paper that they believe that the corporation is an under-utilised asset. Accordingly, they propose to introduce private sector capital, creating a public/private partnership and enabling the CDC to raise further capital to increase its investment in the private sector of poorer countries.
The plan is that the Government will form a company selling the majority of the shares to private investors but retaining a long-term substantial minority holding and a golden share. The Government will thereby ensure that the CDC remains a development organisation, which should comfort my noble friend Lord Judd. At the same time the CDC will be enabled to raise funds on the capital markets to invest in the poorer countries.
The CDC will make a strong commitment to ethical principles. When the time comes for the majority of shares to be sold, many individuals concerned with development may wish to invest in the CDC. Similarly, churches and ethically-minded pension funds may wish to invest. Furthermore, some institutions, anticipating the future emerging markets, may wish to participate.
We must bear in mind that it is the Commonwealth Development Corporation with 70 per cent. of its investments in the Commonwealth. Individuals and institutions in Commonwealth countries like Singapore, Australia and New Zealand may well wish to invest.
The Government plan to plough back the proceeds of the sale into the development programme and, as my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean said, the amount involved could possibly be a few hundred million pounds. Thus, the poorer countries would gain twice over: the sale proceeds would go to them as well as the investment funds raised by the CDC. Clearly, the sooner those admirable plans are put into practice, the better. Moreover, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development has said that the CDC is absolutely delighted with the proposals and is keen to take them forward.
I appreciate that much financial and legal preparation will need to be done for the new public/private partnership. I urge the Government to make it their goal
48
to complete that work within the next year so that the legislation required can be foreshadowed in the gracious Speech in 1998. In 1948, a Labour government launched the corporation on its first 50 years. Now, let another Labour government, with high hopes, launch the second 50 years of the Commonwealth Development Corporation
5.40 p.m.
Lord Holderness: My Lords, I should like to begin by adding my congratulations to those already expressed to the three maiden speakers and, in particular, to my noble friend Lord Jopling. I must express my pleasure that I did not immediately follow him: otherwise, he might have been embarrassed by my fervent and enthusiastic congratulations not only on his speech this afternoon but also on all his work during the past years in the other place. I apologise for expressing my congratulations less eloquently than the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, but equally fervently. The other thing that gave me great pleasure was to hear the tributes being paid to the Minister's predecessor. the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, for the work that she carried out in overseas development.
As has already been made clear, criticism of this White Paper is all too easy, and to some it is irresistible. Not only my noble friend but also the noble Lord, Lord Steel, and others expressed doubts about the White Paper which can certainly easily be seen as a catalogue of hopeful and optimistic aspirations. But, on reflection, I believe that that criticism can be made of any long-term policy of any government. I find myself among hardened politicians and former politicians: but it is rather refreshing to be given a vision—very literally an alarm call—rousing us up again to the world's greatest challenge and pointing to ways in which Great Britain, with the co-operation of other nations, can possibly do something to help.
I have never had the pleasure of meeting the right honourable lady, the Secretary of State. Rumour has it that, from time to time, she unfortunately has the habit of putting her foot in it. But more relevantly in connection with today's debate, I believe that she has succeeded in putting her finger on a situation which is bound to cause all of us a very great deal of concern. It causes us the greater concern because of the improvements and the economic advances which the noble Baroness told us about in her opening remarks. Because of those advances, I believe that we are all the more alarmed at the prospect of their likely erosion by the almost certain vast increase in the world's population in the next decade. Therefore, that possible erosion of the economic advances which have been made compels all of us who are in a position to help to run ever harder and harder in order to try to remain in the same place.
When I was Minister for Overseas Development (which I am sorry to admit was a very long time ago) I naturally considered as soon as I arrived in office all the needs of all the developing countries. But it was only too obvious then—and it has remained obvious since—that the potential for development was far greater in

49
some of those countries than in others. I am sorry to make almost a platitudinous remark, but for those reasons it was tempting to offer aid more readily to countries which appeared to be much closer to what I call the "take-off ' from the grinding poverty of the past.
The incentive for industry to invest in those countries is similarly greater than in countries where the investment appears to have very little chance of bearing fruit. Yet, as a number of other speakers have pointed out, these are the countries where, by definition, poverty is often more insistent and the economic need more pressing. In any case, I always believed that the most important function of any aid programme was to act as a catalyst, as I believe my noble friend Lord Howell very clearly pointed out in our debate last Wednesday, to prepare the ground so that further help—whether provided by governments or international agencies or commercial undertakings—can produce the most abundant fruit.
In the last section of the White Paper, which is a very important part of it, the Secretary of State faces the challenge at home in this country. She says that,
"international development cannot succeed without the necessary political will in the developed countries".
I believe that the Minister repeated that thought in her opening remarks. Therefore, the right honourable lady points to the need for educating public opinion. I believe that she is right and that there is a more caring attitude in this country than there was a generation ago. However, I do not know whether that is a universal view or whether the acute anxiety felt by many about the world's poverty is concentrated mainly in the hearts and minds of a relatively small minority.
Nevertheless, this is the moment when I perhaps ought to suggest the following warning. Soon after my arrival at the Overseas Development Administration, I was greatly cheered by the very positive answer to a question recently asked in an opinion poll; namely, "Would you support an increase in overseas aid?" The answer to that was an enthusiastic "Yes". However, when the poll subsequently asked, "Would you support it if it involved an increase of 2p in income tax?", the response, sadly, was rather less positive. Therefore, in this connection, it is important that we should ask about the ability of the right honourable lady and the department to increase very substantially the current programme to between two and three times its present size, which is what is required by her acceptance of the UN's 0.7 per cent. target.
In common with the noble Lord, Lord Steel, and other speakers, I do not necessarily consider the actual size of the aid programme to be the most important question that the right honourable lady addresses in the White Paper. However, it is an important yardstick against which the progress towards those government aspirations can be measured. Therefore, I must express my hope that the right honourable lady and the Government will succeed. I also hope that, at the same time, she will be able to merge the very real public concern felt by many in this country after earthquakes, famines or other disasters, which temporarily cripple a developing country, with the even more necessary day-to-day support of the country's ordinary
50
programme. My own disappointing memory of the 1970s was that public concern after such disasters tended rapidly to fade when the crisis was overcome.
In conclusion, I wish the right honourable Lady well in her necessary education of public opinion. 1 wish her and the Government well in the struggle against poverty. I profoundly hope that the aspirations of the present will become the realities of the future. Today it is inevitable that doubts remain. I know that my whole duty is to support the right honourable Lady in her efforts to work for success
5.51 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, like all noble Lords, and I believe even the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I very much welcome the sentiments expressed in this remarkable document. As someone who has been interested and personally involved in these matters over many years, I read it and I was stirred. I felt like cheering when I read the declarations. However, that is not enough. I felt that I also wanted to examine the detail and to examine precisely what is the commitment of the Government in real terms.
It is relatively easy to make a generalised declaration in favour of the elimination of world poverty, but we must examine in greater detail what it means. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, asked in her peroration: what about the dates and the timescale for arriving at the 7 per cent. target? As one presidential candidate said to another in a notable debate in the United States, "Where is the beef'? I think we are entitled to ask precisely that question because, after all, throughout this document we are not only making a commitment as a country; we are talking about a multilateral commitment to achieve these aims. Without multilateral agreement these aims will never be achieved because we are relatively small in the total picture. We cannot ask countries to agree to our propositions and our strategy in this field when Japan spends 14.5 billion dollars a year on overseas aid, France 8.4 billion dollars and Germany 7.5 billion dollars. In the United Kingdom the figure is 3.1 billion dollars. Who are we to command other nations to participate in this great effort if our commitment is so small and our influence so limited in this area? I hope that we shall command leadership. I hope that we shall command admiration for the sentiments expressed in this document. But we shall not do that unless we make a much more formidable commitment as a nation.
I wish to ask one important question which relates to the abolition of the aid/trade provision. Overhanging all the discussion on this matter is the Pergau Dam. It was to the credit of the ODA that it opposed the granting of aid in the great scandal of the Pergau Dam. However, because this Pergau Dam was a proposition which should never have been supported, the whole area of aid/trade provision is prejudiced. I spent some time working in a London merchant bank on international project finance. With our clients we travelled all over the world bidding for contracts for British companies, largely heavy engineering companies which provided important jobs in the depressed engineering industries in the Midlands and elsewhere.

51
One must realise that when countries were placing contracts they were not simply concerned about the efficiency of an engineering company. They were not simply concerned about the ability of a Babcock boiler or a GEC generator to perform its work. They asked about the financial package to encourage them to place contracts with a British company. In travelling abroad one frequently found oneself in the same hotel as Mannesmann. Siemens or some other major competitor. The question that was asked of these companies concerned the financial package. Frequently an element of aid/trade provision was vital to attract major contracts for British companies. I notice it is stated that the credit mix element will not be totally discarded and that each case will be judged on its merits. However, I must tell my noble friend that this matter is important to British industry. British industry should not be left hanging in the air on this matter. There should be some reasonable commitment that aid will also play a part in contracts for worthwhile projects for developing countries.
I make that minor criticism but I wish to deal specifically with the question of debt as it is a great burden in these countries. I do not suggest that a reduction in debt will cure all the problems but it is an important immediate objective. Many of the matters that are discussed in this document involve long-term strategies, multilateral agreements and achieving a contribution to aid of 7 per cent. of GDP. All of those matters will take time to achieve but debt is an immediate and pressing problem which, if it is dealt with, will have an immediate impact.
Noble Lords may recall that these debts were accumulating in the 1970s when the price of oil rose and we were awash with petro-dollars. We were anxious to lend even at negative rates of interest to encourage investment. That was fine then but interest rates rose against these countries, raw material prices fell and the children of people who contracted the debts now face the consequences of this terrible debt burden. I suggest that we spend time looking at how we can contribute to the reduction of the debt burden.
It is good that the public is becoming aware of this issue largely by the encouragement of Jubilee 2000 which seeks to reduce poverty-stricken nations' debts as part of the celebration of the millennium. I regard that as a more significant, desirable and welcome proposition than the building of a plastic dome for a large sum in Greenwich. A substantial reduction of debt can be achieved; and what an appropriate Christian celebration that would be. What an important gesture it would be in what should be an essentially Christian celebration. I welcome the fact that Jubilee 2000 is stirring up concern in this field. I have its excellent literature here. I hope that the Government will recognise that and become strong allies.
Some actions have been undertaken towards the elimination of debt. The provisions of the World Bank and IMF have taken growing cognisance of this problem. But their provisions for dealing with poverty-stricken countries take a long time to mature.
52
The country concerned has to have a six-year track record before it can qualify for the provisions of the IMF and the World Bank.
Similarly I much welcome the Mauritius initiative by Her Majesty's Government. It is welcome but relatively small. I hope therefore that the Government will take this matter on board as being a more immediate issue in which they can play a role.
I have one final point. It was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Steel. We must face the burden of armaments. In some of the debt we are discussing, it is a large factor. We provide generous ECGD assistance on the exporting of arms. Britain uses export credits to subsidise arms sales to the South. In 1993-94, 50 per cent. of all export credits provided by the DTI to exporters were for arms sales. Ninety-six per cent. of the debts owed to Britain by poor countries are owed to the export credit department of the DTI. We cannot preach moral gestures to the world. We cannot go around the world asking people to follow our leadership if that is evidence of how we regard these matters. I much welcome the statement in the Government's White Paper stating that they will take cognisance of this important issue. I hope that it will be pursued with vigour and urgency
6.4 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, the White Paper is clearly an occasion for all-party enthusiasm, even celebration. It is not a time for carping or for platitudes which so easily creep into debates on this subject. The document sets out realistic objectives not just for Britain but for all the OECD countries. Its ideology takes us hack to the fundamentals of the Brandt Report. It is no coincidence that the World Bank has taken decisive steps towards poverty alleviation. It is an international idea whose time has come, and we should and do congratulate the Government for taking this bold first step.
In another place the Opposition Front Bench did not greet the White Paper with much enthusiasm. I wish that they could have heard the positive tones of the noble Lord, Lord Holderness. As has been pointed out, some of the ideas in the White Paper are a development of the pragmatic policies of the former Minister. One would have thought that that would be an occasion for suntan, not dismal umbrellas. I hope that the Opposition Front Bench will be gracious enough eventually to acknowledge that and bring back some of the Tory sunshine. After all, there is a lot of continuity in the White Paper. I refer, for example, to renewed co-operation with non-governmental organisations, which I welcome. I thank the noble Baroness for her remarks. I refer, too, to the search for a new level of investment which will help the poorest directly. There are also many areas of common ground on issues such as landmines, as has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, and the special needs and advantages of countries like Mozambique.
I believe that the Conservatives have misread the mood of the country as regards international development. As the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, said, there has been a growing awareness of injustice in the

53
world among young people and an impatience to redress obvious inequalities. Many who see extreme poverty and exploitation on our TV screens would like to see aid money used more directly to help those who are suffering. We need more not less accountability in the aid programme. That is where the tone of the White Paper is so important, even if the targets seem ambitious. It gives the younger generation an opportunity to see that the Government are attempting to tackle those problems head on, not just through a mist of multilateral agencies and company contracts. The new Secretary of State has just the right mould of character to achieve that. I am sure we shall see results. I know that the noble Baroness, too, understands that those policies are not just morally right but will attract popular support. That is what I sought to say during debate on the Statement last week.
I have a strong hunch that the Secretary of State means what she says in section 4 about development education. It is the strongest government statement that we have had so far. I questioned her about it at an all-party meeting last week. The Secretary of State and her friends at the DfEE have a real chance of influencing the national curriculum. It is not easy to ask teachers to find more space in the core subjects, but there are many methods of giving children more direct access to world affairs and citizenship through selective IT, more creative RE and language teaching, and better value from overseas visits and exchanges.
Another means which could be used more is the greater involvement of schools with their ethnic minorities who can so easily bring a global dimension to the classroom. In so many ways children are well ahead of adults in understanding the world and we have to acknowledge and build on that by equipping them better for the future. We have a good track record among European countries in this field. I hope that the Government will maintain that position.
The emphasis on development education extends to the wider community and much is expected of the supermarket chains in purveying more information on third world products while improving their trading standards. Having chaired a meeting on commercial prawn farming between a South Indian association and English supermarket buyers, I know how difficult it is to bridge the gap between human rights and sheer greed which is politely known as demand. Having heard the noble Lord, Lord Rea, I am also glad not to be arbitrating between the medical association and smaller tobacco growers in the developing world.
Companies are responding to the challenge of fair trade because they see that it as part of a new culture that will attract younger customers. Ethical standards, social clauses and codes of conduct, cumbersome though they may be, are helpful if they can be applied. However, in my judgment, it is pure economics which is drawing companies into the more politically correct areas of fair trade and investment.
Some of our large companies have a considerable influence on patterns of trade and investment in individual developing countries, and they need to reflect concerns at both the producer and the consumer end of
54
their operation. Some have an excellent track record of helping in some of the poorest areas, as demonstrated by the annual Worldaware Business Awards. Perhaps the DTI will now put more weight behind initiatives of that kind in various sectors of business.
The White Paper says a lot about building partnerships in the delivery of aid and the mobilisation of private finance in poorer regions. It stresses the role of the private-public partnership, although it is not clear to what extent that will actively involve the NGOs. I should be grateful for clarification from the Minister.
This is an area that will need more working out, as some more businesslike MPs have already commented in another place. It is one thing to proclaim the abolition of the ATP, and quite another to define the "mixed credits" which are designed to support the least developed societies. The CDC is certainly one channel to try out and amplify. However, I am not so sure about eucalyptus. When it comes to eucalyptus plantations, the trickle-down theory sounds rather more like the soak-up theory. It may not be the most appropriate forestry.
My limited experience suggests that we should do more to create jobs at the micro-level, and that even where entrepreneurial skills are lacking loan repayment rates through credit schemes among poor communities are often remarkably high. It is not easy to find good schemes unless the local partner or non-governmental organisation carries respect and confidence in the community. Micro-credit is undoubtedly a good buzzword but there is a limit to the capacity of local organisations to deliver credit at this level—on the scale, say, of the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh.
The Government know that they will have to tread very carefully here because direct intervention outside state institutions can have dire social and political consequences. A lot can be learnt in that regard from the eastern European programmes. That may be the reason why the White Paper, despite its emphasis on the private sector, is fairly reluctant to abandon the state altogether, even where human rights and local interests are being flouted.
The DfID has nevertheless built up a lot of expertise in people-based development and can demonstrate valuable experience of working both with governments and with voluntary agencies. That extends to the strengthening of democratic institutions, emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, which is a vital task taking place in parallel both in eastern Europe and in the developing countries. But even that process must be rooted, wherever possible, in the life of the people themselves, not just in the smart cars of the officers. That has more often been achieved through the non-governmental sector.
I wish some of this experience could be more widely explained and publicised since it is at the very nub of development, the "difficult" area to which the World Bank has also now committed itself. Inevitably there will be more competition between donors for the better projects because it is difficult to spend money effectively while avoiding bureaucracy—but perhaps that is healthy.

55
The DfID, alongside British NGOs, has already taken a lead and can influence the other international/ multilateral agencies in finding the most effective partnerships in development. There are some remarkable successes to build on. To mention only one example, the PUSH programme of CARE International in Lusaka has grown from two to 11 large urban compounds, affecting the lives of thousands of people and with DfID participation. In the public sector the Government's Andhra Pradesh primary education project, mentioned in our debate on India, has now achieved many of its stated targets. Those are successes to build on and to publicise. The rebuilding of civil society, even in the poorest, most war-torn areas such as former Yugoslavia or east Africa, is another stated priority. It goes hand in hand with the development of small business and the capacity-building of those vital economic institutions that bring communities back to life.
Here the White Paper comes full circle. If the successful experience of delivering aid to the poorest can be assessed, recorded and explained to the public, the sooner the benefits of aid will be understood by the taxpayer and the easier it will be for Gordon Brown to reach the 0.7 per cent. target—or even the 0.37 per cent. European Union target—as we must assume he would like to. After all, in the long term, stable and expanding markets overseas will surely bring benefits back to the British consumer as well.
I hope that the Government will therefore now move positively towards the UN targets—with the caveat mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, that the public has been fickle on the subject of providing public as opposed to private finance. Incidentally, the National Lottery Charities Board has completed its first £25 million international grants programme, helping 130 UK voluntary organisations with overseas projects and some development education. That is to be warmly welcomed, but it must in no way be allowed to let DfID off the hook.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, at this stage of our debate there is little new to add to the excellent speeches that have gone before. I therefore have no intention of detaining the House long. I should like to raise just a couple of points.
Tackling poverty requires a combination of measures which are reflected in the long-term approach that British governments have taken to overseas assistance. That approach must take into account the link between poverty and political instability. I should hate to think that the Government do not adequately appreciate that link.
Secondly, a point not so far raised, in attacking the dire poverty that exists today we must be careful not to create additional poverty elsewhere by other actions. I have in mind the Caribbean countries that depend to a high degree on the export of bananas, from which they can make a living. At the instigation of the United States, the World Trade Organisation recently
56
condemned special measures applied by the EU to make those sales possible. The EU, with the approval of the Government, accepted the WTO ruling. Do the Government accept the Conservative Government's target of achieving world free trade by the year 2020?
In her opening remarks the noble Baroness mentioned the problem of population growth. It is indeed a genuine problem. However, the White Paper places little emphasis on reproductive health. Surely the two go hand in hand. Continued emphasis on reproductive health in the poorest regions will help reduce population growth.
I was interested to read on page 44 of the White Paper, in a section relating to disasters and emergencies:
"Our objectives in assisting countries to deal with disaster are not only to save lives through emergency relief, but also to protect and rebuild livelihoods and communities, and reduce vulnerability to future disasters".
I am sure that that quote would impress the people of Montserrat, with statements about golden elephants being particularly helpful. Speaking of golden elephants, I note that the Government intend to maintain a golden share from the privatisation of the CDC.
My final point relates to the need for new legislation. We are constantly told that room cannot be found for legislation. The White Paper clearly states that all the actions proposed in it can be put in place under the existing Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980. Surely all that is necessary is a clear definition of objectives, with a short statement as to how they can be achieved
6.20 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, like most noble Lords who have spoken, I welcome the White Paper. I also welcome the statement by the Government, reiterated this afternoon by my noble friend, that they will reverse the decline in the percentage of GDP spent on development assistance. That, together with their reaffirmation of the commitment to reaching the UN target of 0.7 per cent. of GDP, is most important. I hope that the target will be reached well within the lifetime of the present Parliament. One has only to look at the range and depth of the problems in developing countries to recognise how essential it is for the developed world to increase its commitment. The White Paper sets out to do that.
During the debate on the environment in this House last week, many speakers referred to the growth in world population as being one of the greatest threats to sustainable development. In my contribution this afternoon, I wish to concentrate on population problems and the role of women in development, including the importance of women's access to education and health services, especially reproductive health services, which I—unlike the noble Lord, Lord Chesham—think is addressed in the White Paper.
The contribution of women is critical not only to controlling population but also to eradicating poverty and ensuring development. That is so in many connected ways. For example, women who have access to education are more able to contribute to economic development; to demand and make effective use of

57
health services, particularly reproductive health services; to understand the advantages of limiting the number and frequency of their pregnancies; and consequently to have fewer but healthier and better educated children, who in turn can contribute more to the economy and to development.
Experience has shown that the most effective contribution to controlling the growth in world population is through the education of women—a view shared by the previous Minister for Overseas Development, the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker. I am glad that the role of women is not only recognised by the Government but is given prominence in the White Paper. I was pleased that my noble friend the Minister referred to the fact that, of the 1.3 billion people in the world living on less than the equivalent of one dollar a day, 70 per cent. are women. That means that the poor, but particularly women, feel excluded from decision-making, and that makes them vulnerable to all sorts of violence and abuse.
I was somewhat depressed at the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—who unfortunately is not in his place at the moment—that the Minister's reference last week to such matters as water and health depressed him. It seems to me that he does not understand the basic problems that have to be addressed: the fact that millions of people have no access to clean water; that untold hours are spent daily by women collecting water for their families; that 150 million children of primary school age do not go to school because there is no school for them to go to; that over 900 million adults, two-thirds of whom are women, are illiterate. Those are basic problems that must be attacked if we are to eliminate poverty and improve development.
I wonder whether it is recognised that some 585,000 women die each year as a result of pregnancy, 99 per cent. of them in developing countries; that 20 million unsafe abortions occur yearly, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths and millions of disabilities; that 120 million women do not want to be pregnant but have no access to contraception; that 15 million girls aged 15 to 19 give birth yearly; and that pregnancy and childbirth are the main cause of death of young people in that age group. Those are difficult problems that need to be addressed urgently.
United Nations figures indicate that in 1996 the world population was 5.77 billion. Its medium-term projection estimates that by the year 2050 the world population will be 9.46 billion. Despite the gigantic nature of the problem, there is an improving trend. Between the years 1990 and 1995 the growth rate of the world population was 1.4 per cent. per annum; but in the years between 1985 and 1990 it was 1.7 per cent. per annum. That decline in the growth rate—but not of course in total numbers—is largely due to the increase in family planning programmes worldwide, indicating that growth can be controlled.
However, for that to happen it is essential for the developed countries to meet their aid targets in this area. Studies from UNFPA suggest that this might not be happening—not in the developing countries themselves, which are now making tremendous efforts, but in the developed countries.
58
The UK currently spends £70 million per annum on its sexual and reproductive health programme—some 3 per cent. of the aid budget. In November 1992 the European Council of Ministers called upon its members to allocate 4 per cent. of aid to be spent on these programmes. I hope that the Government will move quickly to achieve and maintain that target.
I turn briefly to the role of NGOs. Like my noble friend Lord Rea, I welcome the Government's reference to strengthening ties with voluntary bodies. That is particularly relevant in the area of reproductive health. NGOs have made a significant contribution over the years. It is still a sensitive area and one where the less bureaucratic projects of the NGOs and non-governmental bodies are important. Therefore I hope that the Government, in developing their plans, will make greater use of the expertise in that important area
6.30 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, my perspective in this debate is as someone who, for the past eight years, has been chairman of the National Committee for the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) in this country. That is a position from which I have just retired. In that post I naturally had a good deal to do with the official aid programme and its supervising department, now the Department for International Development. I have no hesitation in giving a hearty welcome to the command paper before us today, which was the subject of the ministerial Statement last week. It is a worthy successor to Statements on the same subjects made in the past by the noble Baroness, Lady Castle of Blackburn, and Mrs. Judith Hart when they occupied the same ministerial chair.
I particularly appreciate the commitments made to multilateral endeavour in the command paper and the emphasis placed on helping women and children in developing countries. That is very much in line with the approach adopted by UNICEF in recent years and is associated with our visionary director, James Grant. It is thanks to his inspiration and guidance that we have the two fundamental texts which guide our work; namely, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the policies and targets adopted by the World Summit for Children. I find it refreshing to see the Government adopting the same programmatic approach in so many of the same key areas by setting specific targets for health, nutrition and child survival and development. That has been UNICEF's style for some years and we know that it works.
I hope that the Government will shortly be able to restore the cut of £1 million made by the last administration from their regular annual contribution to the UNICEF central budget. Such a decision could conveniently coincide with our return to the UNICEF Executive Board in January next and strengthen our ability to play a significant role in the world's largest organisation for international child welfare. In the last resort, development depends on spending money wisely; it also depends on spending it in sufficient quantity. The promise in the White Paper to spend more is the most significant part of the White Paper. It is time for us to

59
do that now. I agree with other speakers in the debate such as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, and the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, who drew attention to the importance of living up to our commitments.
While I give my full support to the Government, I should like to mention one or two problem areas. First, in this extremely practical document there are occasional passages of what one might call "grand" language which look a little out of place. Other noble Lords may not agree with me, but I find it disquieting to read references to the "virtuous state" and to "moral duty". We know from sad experience that few states are really virtuous and that those states which see their activities in that light are hoisting a warning signal to the rest of us. Certain of their righteous intent, they may be capable of acts of truly awful barbarity. I recollect what happened in southern Africa in our lifetime.
I would prefer our policies to be based on less elevated ground and to rely instead on clearly stated principles which can be explained and justified in detail rather than on some sense of moral superiority. Those expressions can also be deeply offensive to others. Happily, the bulk of the text of the paper adopts a more rational and quieter approach which makes the passages to which I referred all the more more striking as exceptions to the general tone.
Next I should like to mention Third World debt. That has been a major preoccupation for developing countries in the past decade and is cause for real concern. Our national policy on government debt was founded on an excellent idea; that is, the so-called "Trinidad Terms" proposed by John Major when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He suggested that government-to-government loans—the so-called "official" debt—could be written off in cases where there was little or no real possibility of payment. That was an enlightened and practical suggestion but, sadly, did not attract much international support.
I am intrigued to read in this paper of the "Mauritius Mandate—a similar policy which may perhaps be regarded as "son of Trinidad". I hope that we may be able to muster good international support for it from our partners in Europe and in the OECD. If generally applied it would help a great deal at little real cost to the donors.
However, the larger and more intractable problem is commercial bank debt—typically loans advanced by the international banks to finance a project. That is a much heavier burden on the recipient countries and needs a major effort by the donor community. In UNICEF we developed a programme which could perhaps be adopted more widely. It consists of what are called, "debt swaps for development" and works in this wise.
A lender's debt is sold to a development agency—in our case UNICEF—at a significant discount, so the lender recovers some of his original outlay in a hard currency. The development agency then surrenders the loan to the borrower, whose debt is thus eliminated. But the borrower pays an agreed sum in local currency which is applied to the agency's own programme in the
60
developing country. The process is rather complicated and time-consuming, but has worked in half a dozen cases in which we operated, thanks to support from the World Bank in facilitating the transaction and to colleagues in other UNICEF national committees who contributed substantial funds to it.
From the UNICEF angle, we were thus able to purchase counterpart funds for development at a discount. We always spent far more in the development fund than in buying the original loan. It does therefore work out at a profit. Governments may be able to develop other programmes of that kind in their own bilateral way. The Government might also take a look at the way in which tax laws operate in those circumstances. There are fiscal rules which control the amount of debt which a company or bank may write off against its own tax liability. If the tax rules could be adjusted to encourage that activity—which we may describe in the Government's language as "truly virtuous"—it would certainly help.
Another financial matter is the ending of the aid and trade provision to which a number of noble Lords referred. We were told last week that ATP is to be terminated, but that it may be possible to continue to fund some mixed credit schemes. That may be a bit misleading. My understanding is that mixed credit—a blending of government aid with a commercial loan—was an art form worked out originally in France. It was successful in winning orders for a large number of French exporters. ATP was conceived in this country as a device to enable us to follow the French example under another label. However, mixed credits were, and so far as I know still are, anathema to the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD as offending against the basic aid principles because this was tied aid and amounted to a form of export subsidy. If the Government abolish ATP—I understand their reasons for doing that—it may be difficult to continue with mixed credit. Some clarification on that point would be in order.
An issue I should like to mention briefly was mentioned by other noble Lords also. I refer to the environmental aspects of our aid programme. There is a panel—number 22—in the White Paper on this subject and its contents amount to a strong case for including the environmental issue as a basic element in our aid programmes.
The Government's decision to rejoin UNESCO has some relevance to the outlines of aid policy. UNESCO could and indeed should have a larger and more clearly defined role in the development process. At present, it is my understanding that UNESCO plays only a very modest role in helping primary education—the literacy business—in developing countries, as it regards the educational part of its mandate as being more to do with higher education. That is no doubt a worthy cause, but it is not what is most urgently needed in Africa south of the Sahara, or in southern Asia, the two areas demanding priority attention. Indeed UNICEF, believing like our own government that education of the girl child is a priority target in such regions—I very much sympathise with what the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has just said on this subject—has been

61
obliged to spend money and resources on primary education in the developing world as a precondition for progress. Some refocusing of the UNESCO mission would seem to be called for.
Another aspect of education, which the Secretary of State mentions in her White Paper and which I find very encouraging. is development education in this country. We in UNICEF heartily agree, and we have our own programme for development education in British schools. One aspect of this which may be of interest to noble Lords is our so-called "National Non-uniform Day". usually held on the first Friday in February throughout the country, when participating schools allow pupils to attend school wearing clothes other than their normal uniform. This is thus marked out as a special day. for which we provide education packs designed to illustrate the lives of children in a particular developing country, as part of the regular curriculum of the school. Pupils are invited, if they wish, to make a small voluntary contribution.
In recent years we have covered Colombia—projects involving street children there—Tanzania—children with disabilities—and Indonesia—clean water and sanitation projects. This year the focus will be on India—schemes to eliminate child labour. We later provide reports to the children showing how the sums raised have been spent.
We agree with the Government in believing that education for development is extremely important, and we think we have found a way of enlarging the knowledge and understanding of young people and engaging their interest as well as assisting the work in progress. Our programme does, I think, coincide with the Government's own intentions in this field.
I like the emphasis in the White Paper on helping other nations to improve their programmes of public health, education and child welfare. It is important, I suggest, that developing countries have ownership and control of these programmes, although others can help and assist in their preparation and execution. This approach will help us to achieve our common ambition to create societies which are committed to social harmony at home and peace among the nations internationally. We need to beware of blueprints, however well intentioned, devised to mould others in our own image. The more we are able to help developing countries to become what they wish for themselves, the greater will be our chance of success
6.43 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, for introducing the debate so clearly and for summarising the White Paper for us. It has been a most interesting and informative debate. I particularly thank the three maiden speakers for their expert contributions. I found my noble friend Lord Jopling on landmine clearance, and also the noble Lord, Lord Newby, on the Mathari project in Nairobi, most interesting. The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, who spoke from his obvious experience in eastern and central Europe, was also most interesting and informative.
62
I warmly support the White Paper. It continues many of the previous government's commitments to assist developing countries, a matter on which I have had many consultations in the past, and it provides evidence of the present Government's intention to continue and expand their support for the developing countries.
Many noble Lords have mentioned grandiose themes in this area. The only point that has slightly stuck in my throat is the title of the White Paper, Eliminating World Poverty. In fact, it is only intended to eliminate half the world's poverty. I would have preferred the title. "Towards Eliminating World Poverty", but that could rightly be said to be a quibble and does not affect the content of the White Paper.
Poverty—or rather extreme poverty—is described in paragraph 1.9 as being where people suffer through receiving less than the equivalent of one dollar a day. That is financial poverty, but the White Paper rightly looks at other aspects of poverty, of which there are many. Lack of opportunity for work and employment is one. Lack of water has been referred to. That is extremely important in my experience. Lack of food, shelter and access to medical facilities, lack of the right to self-determination, lack of education and access to information, and lack of religious freedom are other signs of poverty. Many of those aspects are dealt with in the White Paper.
I wish to touch on consistency and coherence between government departments, a matter to which paragraph 1.22 refers. Quite often, over the past 10 years, I have asked the government for more co-operation between different departments. I realise that it is difficult in practice, but I wish to ask the noble Baroness what mechanisms have been put in place to achieve this laudable target.
A great deal is said in the White Paper about partnerships, particularly partnerships between different countries. I was talking about this to some young professional international colleagues of mine over the weekend. They said, "You cannot talk about partnerships. That was the language of 10 years ago. You now have strategic alliances between countries about any project you want to name." Perhaps the Government should be more up to date in talking about strategic alliances rather than partnerships. That, again, is a matter of terminology, but I do not like the White Paper being rubbished because of that. I support the White Paper.
I wish to mention the World Bank and the IMF. Paragraph 2.10 states:
"Both institutions will be at the centre of the efforts to pursue the international development targets".
I was very glad to read that in the White Paper. I appreciate the fact that both organisations are changing from where they were even two or three years ago. The third world has often been critical of the two organisations and their policies. The White Paper does not address those criticisms. Whether the Government now consider them to be irrelevant and to be history as opposed to current practice, I do not know. I wonder whether, in development education, there is a place for educating people in this country more about the World

63
Bank and IMF changes and also about how the third world criticisms of their policies will be dealt with in the future.
Paragraph 2.34 of the White Paper deals with untying aid from trade, a matter to which other noble Lords have referred. It states that,
"we will pursue energetically the scope for multilateral untying of development assistance".
The phraseology for dealing with bilateral aid is much less strong. After mentioning one or two aspects, the White Paper says that the Government,
"will not otherwise unilaterally untie our bilateral aid".
I believe that some of the NGOs are questioning that difference of terminology at the present time. If untying aid is government policy, should they not energetically be persuading other countries also to untie their bilateral aid so that we can do so at the same time? It is a complicated question because, as many noble Lords have rightly said, we do not want to shoot our own businesses and manufacturing industries in the foot at the same time. Perhaps this is a matter that needs further thought and greater clarification in the future.
I have looked at paragraph 3.23 on CAP reform. I laud the Government's intention in the general field of CAP to press on with reform, as the previous government endeavoured to do. I hope that they are ready for the battles in Europe on that question, which I am sure will be very strong.
Paragraph 3.36 speaks about the abuse of child labour. Again, I strongly support the words on removing that problem. Perhaps I may put in one caveat. If the child is the only worker in the family, the loss of that job may make the position both of the child and of the family worse than it was before. Therefore, I hope that the Government's plans for removing the abuse of child labour will form part of a supportive package which will cover the needs of the whole family.
Perhaps I may now turn to debt, as many other noble Lords have done. The Mauritius mandate is welcome, but I wonder whether there is going to be further commitment from the Government before the year 2000 for the cancellation of unpayable debts. Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham, I listened to the General Synod debate on Jubilee 2000, which I found extremely encouraging. Do the Government accept all the measures being called for by the Jubilee 2000 coalition and are they supporting those aims more fully than I have read of their doing? The cancellation of unpayable debt is, as many noble Lords have said, an extremely important point. On visits to Africa it is a matter which is hammered at me whatever country I am in. It is stifling progress.
Can the Government say what pressure they are going to put on other governments and donors to support them in the work they are doing? The previous government were often blazing a lonely trail internationally on the issue. I hope that the present Government will get much greater support now. For instance, are the Government going to bring forward specific proposals at the G7 Summit in Birmingham next year?
64
I endorse what has been said about the need for some interim targets, which I would like to see included by the Government. How have they measured the effect of their proposals to ensure that their policies will eliminate 50 per cent. of extreme poverty by the year 2015? I warmly support the White Paper. However, the test for the future will not be the words contained in it, but the actions that flow from it
6.55 p.m.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, as the final speaker before the Front Bench speeches, I hope that the House will not mind me pointing out that we have had an extremely long list of distinguished speakers and, slightly to my surprise, the attendance in the Chamber throughout the debate has been extremely good. It may be that it has been 21 years, I believe the noble Baroness said, since we previously had a White Paper on the subject. But the prospect of having an annual debate on it—if I have this right—might lead to similar debates in the future rather than the matter being consigned to the late shift, which has often happened in the past.
I hope that I shall be able to be constructive and encouraging about the White Paper. Before I comment generally, I turn first to my particular interest. It is a subject which gets fairly small mention in a panel on page 27 headed "Population". In the context of the whole White Paper that virtual sole mention on a single page may seem rather insignificant. Although valuable, it is largely factual, together with a restatement, which is much welcome, of past commitments. However, I am then led to try to elucidate further aspects of the Government's attitude to population by looking at speeches on the subject by both the Secretary of State and her deputy, from which I shall shortly quote.
I believe that population matters will be taken seriously by this Government and will be an essential part of their emphasis on sustainable development and the attack on poverty. If I am right, I welcome that. We have had the benefit of a full and authoritative exposition by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, on the subject. She has made the substantive points. I am trying to understand the present position of the Government slightly by trying to read between the lines.
Perhaps I may first return to the White Paper generally. As in other areas of the Government's programme. we may want to give a fair chance to new ideas and to a new approach. At the very least the approach of the White Paper is ambitious, and none the worse for that. But the chance of anything approaching success requires the co-operation of partners on all sides as well as the generation of more good will than has been seen in this area before. It may be that it will be the more mundane facets of human nature that might defeat this heroic attempt in front of us. What worries me about the ambitious scope of what is intended is that so much depends on the good will of those on all sides. especially outside this country and outside our direct influence. As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, pointed out, we are going to need multilateral agreement.

65
I now come back to population in particular. I quote a sentence towards the end of the Secretary of State's foreword to the White Paper. She says:
"The combination of population growth. environmental degradation and the conflict and disease to which this will lead could impose catastrophic pressures upon the planet".
I commend the Secretary of State for being prepared, as she has been elsewhere, to make explicit the general assumption that population growth above the level of economic growth leads to an increase in poverty.
I have said many times before, including in this Chamber, that in this field we should not be satisfied with talking about numbers but rather about the quality of life. The theme of attacking poverty and the provision of some sort of economic decency and security represent the same target. I believe that the implicit assumption is that we should realise now that any decent economic existence generally can only be possible with an early stabilisation of the world population.
We had a number of references to the debate on the environment last week. I should like to refer anyone interested in the point I have mentioned to an excellent and detailed argument put to this House in the speech I heard last Wednesday by the noble Lord, Lord Ashburton, (at col. 1414 of the Official Report). It reinforces what the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, was trying to say.
In July this year, on the eve of World Population Day, the Secretary of State gave a characteristically forthright speech at a reception downstairs in this House, organised jointly by the charity Population Concern and by the all-party Group on Population, Development and Reproductive Health, of which I have the honour to be vice-chairman. We were told then that the early stabilisation of the world's population is the only way to offer a decent future to the generations to come. The Secretary of State talked of, and accepted (as had her predecessor), the massive unmet need of those presently without access to contraception and the necessity of providing genuine choice in reproductive health.
The Secretary of State also raised one of the biggest issues before us in shaping the eventual size of the world population—the statistical fact that one-fifth of the current population of the world comprises adolescents almost entirely from the less developed countries, with huge potential for present and future reproduction. The support, information and services that are to be available for those young people are crucial. That is one of the most important areas which the Government need to address. I know that the charity Population Concern is concentrating particularly on that area, which is a difficult one for many reasons.
On the more general point, I believe that it is too early to press the Minister for resources, but in terms of value for money I hope that in the area of population, the shortcomings and the quality of the programmes deriving from the significant proportion of funds allocated through the EU will be urgently examined.
Perhaps I may conclude by mentioning a more recent and excellent speech made a few weeks ago by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the department, Mr. George Foulkes, to a group at the
66
Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Edinburgh, on women's health, population and development, with the subtitle "Time for Action". That gave a similar message to friends in Commonwealth countries whose partnership and sympathetic co-operation might be more readily forthcoming. Mr. Foulkes strongly advocated the benefits of women's choice and of improved access to family planning. He said that the most important matter of all will be the decisions made by today's generation of young people. Finally, Mr. Foulkes, addressing himself and the department as well as his audience—as I do now—said that now is the time for action. I agree with his final words when he said that we have to match fine words with even more energetic and effective actions. We simply cannot afford to fail.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I add my voice to this debate, but I have only this morning returned from the Caribbean where I have been working on urban upgrading projects. I must also declare an interest as one who, with his company, has worked for international agencies over many years.
This debate is on the particularly important subject of eliminating world poverty. I agree with the aims and objectives of the White Paper and particularly with the methodologies which it proposes for implementation. There is an admirable breadth of economic, social and political balance in the White Paper.
I agree particularly with the statement made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, about the international agencies which do not include in their articles of association the ability to adjust. and to contribute to, the host countries' institutional, administrative, legal and other capacities. As I shall seek to explain later, they are often the critical components which limit effective implementation of policy and the effectiveness of the aid that is given. I also agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Steel, said about accountability. That is of critical importance.
It is in the field of implementation that I should like to make some remarks. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I am brief at this late hour. I believe that effecting change requires the objectives of any aid programme to build upon a deep understanding of the ideologies, aspirations and anthropological character of the host country. Policy that incorporates a cross-cultural judgment is a great danger as it is merely ignored by the host community. At an economic and technical level, in the past investment by international funding agencies has often been limited by the imposition of standards of operation, maintenance and economic burden unrelated to the capacities of the host community.
I attach great importance to the achievement of sustainability by investment policies and programmes that ensure the ownership, involvement and partnership of the people in the carrying out of developments and investment policies. Governments throughout the world often find it difficult to promote this "bottom-up"

67
approach which we in Calcutta spent much time promoting with the host community. Sadly, it is often much easier for governments to dictate policy from the top down, yet management of the implementation requires the ability to latch on to the anthropological conditions of the host community and to involve the population from the bottom up. With regard to the case of the future government of London, I believe that that principle applies equally to our considerations in any future debate.
In my experience, policies for assisting countries in their development must take care to deal with the whole problem in a balanced and multi-sectoral way. It has sometimes been my responsibility when commissioned by the World Bank or some other international agency to find a way of correcting projects in which there has been a single sectoral approach and where the balance of that solution has been inappropriate. Often, the problem arises not because of the consultants' perceptions but because of the terms of reference, if any, and their limitations. Surely that indicates that the international agencies should get their terms of reference right.
I strongly commend the summary of policy objectives on page 30 of the White Paper. Implementation often requires adjustment of institutional, administrative, legal and educational arrangements within a country if aid packages are to be effective and to lead to sustainable projects and policies in the host country. Governments and aid agencies are often shy of interfering in the local political situation, but problems with institutional arrangements are often the principal obstacles to change. I return to my first remark: the World Bank's emphasis on trying to ensure implementation by that principle is to be welcomed.
Implementation often requires capacity building in the institutions of the host nation. The development of local skills is essential to avoid dependency on the public sector. Therefore, I believe that the management of implementation is as important as the objectives which any particular aid package is trying to fulfil. It is essential that we take note of implementation policy if we are to fulfil the intentions behind this excellent White Paper.
I also commend a review of past investment to assess its effectiveness. The international agencies often fail to review whether their policies and projects have fulfilled their original terms of reference. I say that with 25 years' experience. But on the important subject of spending public money I believe that transparency in this field is as important in the area of international aid for development. I commend the Government for the aspirations in this White Paper
7.10 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I welcome the White Paper, as I welcomed the Statement. However, I must be a little more reserved than the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I have some reservations but I do not believe it can be said that the White Paper has its head in the stars and its feet in the clouds. I believe that that was the noble Lord's unreserved judgment on the White Paper.
68
I very much enjoyed the maiden speeches today. The other day my noble friend Lord Newby said that he did not believe he should speak on the subject because he had only 15 years' association with it. I learn today that he has 20 years' association with it. The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, spoke about landmines. I share his abhorrence of them. I have seen the effects of landmines in Mozambique. I once found myself trapped on a landmined road in Mozambique. The fear and inability to get out of the car that it creates cannot be understood until one has experienced it.
I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and congratulate him on an interesting maiden speech. I echo what he said about the know-how fund. I declare an interest as a member of the advisory board to that fund. I commend the work of the Minister the right honourable Clare Short in modernising the work of the know-how fund. It began with set views on the market and how to reform the banking system in eastern Europe. It is now looking carefully at the civil society sector and is introducing the concept of local NGOs, a totally alien concept to many former eastern bloc countries.
One comment that can be made about the White Paper—the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, made it very clearly—is that for the first time in a long period it has led to a very upbeat debate in this House. To look at an issue on international development in such a positive light is very welcome. There is perhaps one lurking spectre that needs to be addressed: the question of funds. I should like to put one question to the Minister. I believe that she answered it earlier but I should like her to reiterate her response. Although the Government have decided to reverse the trend, which we thoroughly support, can she confirm that it will not start until 1998 when the present spending requirements can be altered? Many of us believe that this reversal has gone on for too long. If there is still a freeze on the level of finance until 1998, does it not mean that in real terms there will be a shrinkage of the aid budget under the present Government, although it is to be hoped that that will be reversed in 1998?
We can be proud of the fact that the United Kingdom has the sixth largest aid budget in the world. We spend an enormous amount of money on aid but we lag behind France and Germany. At least for this year we do not appear to be taking that first step. The problem about failing to increase the amount of money is one that we have heard before. One welcome addition to the debate is the absence of the word "efficiency". I have not heard that word used. One of the key indicators of cuts in spending is "increased efficiency", as used by the previous government. I understand that the present Government are refocusing the aid budget, which means spreading the money around. However, UNESCO's contribution of £11 million and an extra £5 million to be spent on mine clearance, both of which aims we thoroughly support, means that money will come from other projects. Although I hope that the Minister will look carefully at, and make available, the details of where that money will come from in an open and

69
accountable manner, some people may feel that they are under pressure because the aid budget has been under such pressure for a long time.
The aim to reduce world poverty by half is achievable, but if one is looking at 1998 and 2015 one has a very tight timetable in which to achieve it. I appreciate the predicament in which the Government find themselves. I looked at Liberal Democrat policy on achieving a 0.7 per cent. target and fought through our conference system to increase the timetable from five to 10 years. When one looks at the real figures, to achieve 0.7 per cent. GNP means an increase in the aid budget of about £3.5 billion to £4 billion a year. That is a staggering amount. Of course, that is only a drop in the ocean when compared with the problems that the world faces, but that aim will be quite difficult to achieve. My calculations, which must be extremely rough, are that it represents 2p on income tax. Although we do not believe that the Government can achieve 0.7 per cent. tomorrow, there must be a stage at which the ball starts to roll. Perhaps the Minister can at some stage provide an indication of when the agenda will be set. To beat the world poverty target the first and probably the most bloody battle that Ministers face is the battle with the Treasury.
I should like to go on to deal with the more positive aspects of the White Paper. As regards education, its prominence in the White Paper is one of the highlights, but I believe that a rather interesting problem is developing. Perhaps I am being pedantic, but I believe that with the UK's signing of the Convention on the Rights of the Child—I agree with UNICEF it is disappointing that the Government have attached provisos to their signature—a problem associated with the IMF may arise. Universal primary education is now to be seen as a human right. However, the IMF. through its structural adjustment programmes in Africa, especially in Uganda, has caused the Ugandan Government to cut down their provision of primary education. In one respect one can say that since the signing of the convention the IMF is now breaching human rights. In the past when I broached this subject with certain people their response was that the IMF was not a signatory to the UN convention. However, Britain has signed the convention. If that is the case, the IMF is in a bit of a predicament because it is infringing the human rights of a vast number of people. That involves the whole question of the debt crisis. The multilateral institutions say that they must have their debt burden repaid, but to do that governments must infringe the rights of their own citizens which will cause a problem. Perhaps the Minister can raise this subject with our director on the board of the IMF. It may be an interesting way of pointing out that the IMF must finally ring-fence the money for the provision of primary education.
This brings me to another question. My noble friend Lord Steel and I tried to work out how contact could be made with the director. We could not think of a way of doing it. It is a full circle. I believe that there is no accountability and no transparency in the IMF at present. In future we must look at the question of making the IMF and the World Bank more accountable.
70
They are the institutions that really should be looking at development. Rather than being a hindrance to development perhaps they should fulfil their primary function. We should perhaps also look at other institutions set up for one purpose that may handicap development in the future.
I shall speak about the WTO and its provisions as regards the banana regime. Although I believe that the WTO is looking in the right direction on world trade, according to the letter of the law there seems to be no way in which it can mitigate the results of its rulings and there seems to be no conscience attached to its viewpoint.
The White Paper is a great feast. The Minister has been answering questions for five hours so I shall have to limit myself. I wish to look at the multilateral/bilateral argument. Under a shrinking budget that was always seen as a point of conflict because what was taken from the bilateral budget to go into the multilateral budget was seen to be wrong. With an expanding budget in the future that argument may become obsolete. We have a role to play in the multilateral institutions. I find it unbelievable that we were not shouting from the tree tops about the positive roles we have taken. We are a country that always pays its debts on time and whose contributions are always up to date. That is something we never seem to expound upon.
Perhaps I may press the Government to take a lead role. They have been positive with regard to the aid and trade provision. Could not our presidency of the EU be an opportunity for the Government to say, "We are the president of the EU for this period. Could we not do something about tied aid? Could we not form an agreement in which tied aid is abandoned?" The argument against abandoning tied aid has always been that if we do not do it the Germans and Italians will jump into our place. Could we not have a European agreement on that?
With European agreements being looked at, I almost feel obliged to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rea, in his remarks about tobacco advertising and Formula One. I shall refrain, I promise, from doing that. However, I should like to flag up an issue which is of greater importance than the advertising on Formula One; it is the whole policy that tobacco companies are now undertaking. With falling sales and greater restrictions in the developed world, they are looking to market directly to the emerging countries. That is morally outrageous.
I speak finally on development education. I must declare an interest. I am a vice-chair of World Aware which does great work promoting development education, especially in primary schools. The great importance of development education is that although we seem to have access to all forms of communication—everyone is on the Internet—if one travels the world one sees things, but if one stays at home, with the great wealth of information that is available, one rarely sees poverty on the international media. Foreign news coverage in most newspapers today is shrinking rapidly and is of little value. If we are to achieve our objective of raising international

71
development on the political timetable, people must be aware of it. To increase the amount of money available to DfID, it has to be a popular issue.
7.24 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, we have had an interesting and stimulating debate. I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, for giving your Lordships this early opportunity to debate the White Paper on Eliminating World Poverty, which has attracted such a long and star-studded cast of contributors in your Lordships' House.
As many of your Lordships said, today's debate has provided us with three outstanding maiden speeches. I know that it is not the custom for later speakers to congratulate the maidens in a debate, but I am sure that your Lordships would agree that my noble friend Lord Jopling and the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Cromwell, gave impassioned contributions, with obviously deeply held convictions on a very serious problem. I support fully what my noble friend Lord Jopling said about landmines. It would be wrong if I, too, did not add my congratulations to all three. We greatly look forward to further speeches from them not just on this subject, but many others.
We welcome the White Paper, as my noble friend said so clearly at the start of this debate, but naturally with caveats. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, who is so knowledgeable in this area, has misunderstood our views. I hope that I shall be able to reassure him on some of them.
We would all agree that the fight against poverty is a moral imperative. I, too, pay tribute to all the dedicated work done by my noble friend Lady Chalker in this area.
I am astonished that a government who purport to pursue an ethical foreign policy make promises dramatically raising expectations, which they are unlikely to fulfil. This would be highly unethical.
In 1992 the Labour manifesto said that it would raise commitments to aid to 0.7 per cent. within five years. In its 1997 election manifesto the target date was dropped. Now the Minister tells us that commitments will only start to rise in the financial year 1999 to 2000 aiming "ultimately" at that target.
Does that mean that the Government are going to raise over £3 billion in three years—a question asked also by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale? Can the Minister tell us how? The smiles of the Chancellor of the Exchequer do not reassure me: they are at best Delphic, at worst condescending. If, on the other hand, the target is pushed back in the distant future what good is the promise to the people living in absolute poverty now? Is it just a ploy to appease our own conscience? Being strong on words, the White Paper is very weak on detailed costings.
The White Paper in general does not appear to have shed some old Labour assumptions: that people's requirements are fundamentally the same everywhere; that the agenda of this Government is necessarily the agenda of those of developing countries; that the linchpin of development is the state, overlooking the
72
very substantial flow of private investment at around $100 billion last year, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said so forcefully last week. It dwarfs all official aid and assistance.
The White Paper acknowledges that trade and investment are key to sustainable development—a point covered in detail by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who is so experienced in this area through his work with Oxfam.
The commitment to further comprehensive trade liberalisation is welcome. I should have liked to have seen trade and investment receiving a higher priority on the Government agenda. Will the Government commit themselves to the target for achieving world free trade by 2020?
In Section 2, what will the Government do to encourage partner governments to create the conditions which will help to attract further private foreign investment rather than just straight aid?
My noble friend Lord Bauer wrote in Equality: the 3rd World and Economic Delusion:
"Aid is like champagne: in success you deserve it, in failure you need it".
I fear that aid may be addictive, and that too great a reliance on aid rather than trade, private foreign investment and economic growth, would be a disservice to those whom we seek to help.
The White Paper rightly recognises that economic growth, and political stability, as was said by my noble friend Lord Chesham, are crucial to development. I welcome wholeheartedly the emphasis on environmentally sustainable development. However, as the Financial Times pointed out,
"much of its emphasis is on social objectives."
Here the Government,
"needs to recognise that there is little point in wishing such an agenda on poorer countries unless they first have the prosperity needed to implement it."
The Government should include in their criteria for partnership sound policies as shown in Latin America, in countries such as Brazil, which only today has had the courage to implement its fiscal adjustment programme for its economic austerity package. In particular, the Government have to be careful to promote universal primary education hand in hand with promoting both employment opportunity in towns and in rural areas. Otherwise they risk creating a mass of disaffected youths who do not fit any longer in the rural communities and do not have a job in towns. I should have liked to see greater emphasis on training, providing sometimes basic more often intermediate level skills to local people in areas such as crop management, reforestation, mother and child healthcare and sanitation. I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, on population control. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, mentioned healthcare. Section 3.42 states that we are working with other governments towards a global ban on tobacco advertising as said by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. Does this include Formula One car racing?

73
I am disappointed however that higher priority was not given to the fight against corruption and to strengthen accountability. The Government emphasise greatly "the people". The White Paper smacks very much of a top down approach, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, in which the people are largely passive beneficiaries. I suggest the opposite. I urge the Government to study closely the superb work of organisations such as Intermediate Technology and the Westminster Foundation, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Steel.
I should have liked greater priority on measures to train people to promote and effect their own development. I should like to see a much greater reliance on local voluntary organisations. Independent organisations, like Seva Mandir in rural Rajasthan, seek to build up the ability of village groups to make local authorities more responsive, more accountable and fairer.
The White Paper, in paragraph 2.15, as the Overseas Development Institute has pointed out, primarily advocates changes to the UK bilateral aid which now forms less than half of the government expenditure, whereas roughly a third of our aid goes through the EU which is also responsible for trade matters. Perhaps the EU merits more than a few paragraphs in the White Paper, especially on the eve of the British presidency. When are the Government going to publish their position on the Lomé renegotiation?
Finally, I welcome the Government's proposals building on the Trinidad terms originally proposed by my right honourable friend John Major regarding debt relief. That was also mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford.
I also welcome the acknowledgment of the particular situation of countries in transition. That was ably covered by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. In the government agenda for support of these countries, however, except for Russia nothing is said about debt relief which remains acute in a few of them, particularly Bulgaria.
I hope that the Minister will be able to address all the very important points made so succinctly by so many of your Lordships. She has a difficult task and has my full sympathy. I wish her luck and look forward to her reply
7.34 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, this has been a good debate and I am grateful to all those who have taken part. International development has long been an issue upon which there has been a good deal of agreement across party lines. I hope that that will remain the case and that the White Paper will command wide support.
I am particularly delighted that the noble Lords, Lord Jopling, Lord Newby and Lord Cromwell made such excellent maiden speeches on this important issue. All the speeches were extraordinarily knowledgeable and demonstrated the concern and commitment of all three noble Lords to the subject matter with which they were dealing. They had the added advantage of being
74
extraordinarily eloquent and in the finest tradition of your Lordships' House. We all look forward to future contributions from all three noble Lords.
Debates of this kind contribute to the aim which the Government set out in the White Paper; that is, to engage more people in development issues and to spread awareness and understanding of those issues. The commentary in the press and broadcast media since the White Paper was published, even if we do not agree with all that has been said and written, contributes importantly to that. So does the work of Parliament, and we particularly welcome the decision of the International Development Select Committee in another place to conduct an inquiry into the White Paper.
As was suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, I should like to reply to as many points as possible. Perhaps one or two were covered in my opening remarks. However, it is unlikely that I shall be able to cover them all and if I do not manage to do so I hope noble Lords will accept letters from me covering those points.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was a little less than fulsome in his remarks about the White Paper. He said that it had its head in the stars and its feet in the clouds. But he also said that much in the White Paper reflected the position of his noble friend Lady Chalker. We on this side of the House have acknowledged the considerable contribution which the noble Baroness made to development issues. However, my right honourable friend has one or two advantages over the noble Baroness. My right honourable friend is a full member of the Cabinet and is also in charge of an independent department. Those factors demonstrate that the current Government are taking these issues in a more focused way and more seriously than the previous Administration. Furthermore, my right honourable friend enjoys the support of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in her endeavours to raise the development budget, unlike her unfortunate predecessor, who saw it cut year on year under the previous Administration.
The noble Lord said that we were doing some things which would make the poor poorer. It is almost impossible to see how that can be the case, in particular when we have committed ourselves to tackle international development effort with a specific target of halving by 2015 the number of people who live on less than a dollar a day.
I could have cheered my noble friend Lady Lockwood when she put the noble Lord straight on one or two issues relating to women and poverty. She did so more eloquently than I am able and on the basis of great experience of women's issues. She was not alone in raising issues of population control; they were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, and the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon. Gradually, the rate of population growth rose less steeply in the first half of the 1990s than it did in the latter part of the 1980s. But we still have a long way to go. For many years to come—probably until 2025—the world will continue to grow by some 80 million people a year. Almost all of those will be in developing countries; that is, those which are least well equipped to deal with the consequences.

75
Meanwhile, the ways in which we can measure population growth are pointing in the right direction. It is a fact that some 30 years ago only some 9 per cent. of couples used family planning methods. Today, as we know, some 57 per cent. use such methods.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, raised the question of resource allocation and partnership policy. Allocations will be made each year in the resource allocation round for those countries committed to pro-poor economic policies, as well as policies promoting responsive and accountable government. Indeed, I believe that was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Steel. Many of those countries will indeed be in sub-Saharan Africa and in south Asia. We shall also encourage partnerships with middle income countries, including those in the Caribbean.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked in particular about a theatre project. This Government recognise the value of development theatre in conveying important messages on health, education, the environment and family planning to poor communities in the South Pacific and elsewhere in the world. We shall continue to support that medium where it is appropriate.
The noble Lord, Lord Steel, raised a number of important issues. In particular, he asked about ways in which we should be tackling debt issues and asked about our commitments in relation to helping the poor to realise their human rights, including the human rights that they have in democratic countries. We shall do what we can to help where we are able to do so. In countries where governments have no commitment to helping the poor in respect of their democratic rights, we shall seek to help them through alternative channels; that is, through voluntary agencies, institutions and civil society. Such assistance will be focused tightly, however, on the victims of neglect and oppression.
The noble Lord raised questions also about the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. That organisation is funded not by the DFID but by the FCO. The Government recognise the important contribution which the foundation makes to democracy and to responsible government. Government officials have regular consultations with the foundation to discuss current strategies in those areas.
The noble Lord asked also about the Oxfam suggestion of a conference on the future of the Great Lakes region. We support a well-prepared conference under the auspices of the UN and the OAU when the time is right. In the meantime, officials from the FCO and the DFID will be meeting Oxfam officials to discuss the proposal which has been put forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Steel, was not alone in raising questions of debt. That was mentioned also by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham, my noble friends Lord Judd and Lord Taylor of Gryfe and the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. The question of debt has been covered to some extent but perhaps I may put some more detail before your Lordships.
At a cost of £132 million, we are cancelling debts still owed to the UK by Commonwealth countries which are committed to pro-poor and transparent policies.
76
Moreover, we have pledged £20 million without conditions to the IMF for the implementation of the heavily indebted countries programme. Formal offers have been extended so far to seven countries with aid debt. That totals £18 million. Discussions have started with others. The seven countries which have so far received formal offers are Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Mauritius, St. Lucia, Tonga and the Turks and Caicos islands.
But the UK cannot deal with the debt problem alone. We must work with our partners and, of course, with fellow creditors. The UK takes a leading position in the Paris Club discussions on relief of export credit related debts. We shall link up with multilateral institutions to provide debt relief under the heavily indebted countries programme and I have already mentioned the money that we have earmarked for that.
In his excellent maiden speech the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, drew our attention to the appalling havoc wreaked by landmines. I am sure that everyone in your Lordships' House is well aware of the ghastly consequences of landmines, so often visited upon children playing innocently, wherever they may be. I am sure that the noble Lord will be pleased to hear that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development will be signing the Ottawa Agreement on our behalf next month.
My noble friend Lord Judd raised a number of questions in relation to the part which the Department for International Development is playing in foreign policy. In particular, he referred to the Strategic Defence Review. The DFID is a member of the defence review steering group chaired by the Cabinet Office. I believe that the noble Lord rather implied that the DFID is not a member of that group. Discussions include consideration of the Government's wider international responsibilities, particularly in relation to the maintenance of peace, international order and stability, humanitarian principles and democratic rights.
My noble friend said that if the Government are serious about mainstream international development policy, why is the Secretary of State for International Development not a member of the DOP? The Secretary of State is invited to attend relevant meetings of the DOP and I hope that that gives my noble friend some reassurance.
He asked also what the Government are doing to ensure that conflict prevention is fully integrated into foreign policy. As I indicated in my opening remarks, the Government believe that conflict prevention is crucial to combat poverty and reduce suffering. We shall deploy our diplomatic development assistance and military instruments in a coherent and consistent manner.
My noble friend asked how the Government can ensure that development assistance posts and reconstruction after conflict dovetail with FCO or MoD assistance in relation to demobilisation and demilitarisation. The possibility of DFID and MoD officials working together on further work in relation to the role of development co-operation is being considered currently. The FCO, MoD and DFID consult

77
fully on all issues of common interest. Those include programmes financed from each department's budget and broader policy questions, including the proportion of the budget to military expenditure in developing countries.
My noble friend Lord Rea had an ingenious way of drawing our attention to a subject which was clearly very dear to his heart. But he also asked questions about support for health and population control. The White Paper gives clear priority to the needs of poor people. That includes improving the health status, which will continue to be a major element in our activities. We are conducting a review of all expenditure to ensure that our expenditure meets our objectives. It is too early to say how that will affect future expenditure levels for particular sections.
The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, in his maiden speech, drew our attention to the poverty within countries which might not necessarily be in those countries which are extraordinarily poor. In my opening remarks, I reflected on the 110 million people who live in poverty but in countries which may not be considered to be extremely poor at the moment. As I said then, we shall be looking at ways in which we can reshape the know-how fund and, indeed, consult the NGOs about how best to focus aid on those countries.
Questions were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, about the know-how fund. We will continue to support the process of transition in central and eastern Europe and in central Asia. The know-how fund will continue to be a channel for British bilateral technical assistance for those countries. We will be working within the new strategy to ensure that the know-how fund continues to do the excellent job that it has in the past.
The noble Lord, Lord Acton, asked questions about the Commonwealth Development Corporation and drew our attention to the very valuable work that it has undertaken in the past. The Government are keen to mobilise new investment in the CDC as soon as possible in order to carry out our objectives. However, I am afraid that there are a number of steps which need to be taken, not least the need for legislation in an already busy Parliament. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development expects to appoint advisers soon and to bring forward early legislation.
Several noble Lords raised questions about the ATP, and working with business and untied aid. My noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe, the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, drew our attention especially to that area. We are already developing a broader relationship with the private sector. We believe that such relationships are good for business and development. We will work with British business to strengthen support for investment and trade which supports sustainable development. We will make available to British business information about trade and investment opportunities in developing countries. We will consult business when we are preparing country and other development strategies and take full account of the contribution that business can make. Much work has
78
already been done in that respect, but much still needs to be done. We will explore where mixed credits can be managed within agreed country programmes with the primary aim of reducing poverty, not subsidising exports. As I said in my introduction, we believe that that will avoid any abuses of the type that we saw over the Pergau Dam.
The White Paper is clear about our commitment to provide resources for the development programme. A number of speakers, including the noble Lord. Lord Redesdale, and my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe-indeed, most speakers who spoke about the resources that will be needed—asked me to direct my attention to the way in which the Government's commitment to increase resources will be realised. The Government will start to reverse the decline in UK spending on development assistance. We have reaffirmed our commitment to the 0.7 per cent. UN target. This is not just something that should attract lip-curling sneering: it is an important government commitment.
We have said that this year and next our aid spending will be redirected to ensure that all resources are used effectively and in accordance with this Government's policy priorities. Only when we have done that can we justify increasing our development assistance budget from the year 1999-2000. The great advantage that we have in saying this is that our Cabinet is united on the point and that it is made with the specific agreement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
A number of other questions were raised on interdepartmental co-operation, especially by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford. Interdepartmental co-operation is, of course, vital if the White Paper is to succeed. I made the point in my opening remarks that it is not merely a White Paper about aid: it is about investment; it is about trade; and it is about agriculture and the environment. All those departments—and, indeed, many others, including the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health—will have their part to play in ensuring that the White Paper is a success.
Many noble Lords raised questions about the Caribbean. It is worth reiterating to the House that, while it is disappointing that parts of the EU banana regime have been found to be incompatible with the World Trade Organisation's ruling, it is not all bad news. We can work with that ruling. While we accept it, we recognise the fact that it is highly complex. We are considering the findings very carefully and are in touch with the Commission in Brussels. We cannot yet comment in detail as I was asked to do, but I can assure noble Lords who have an interest in the matter that the ACP banana producers and their interests are very high on our agenda.
Some noble Lords raised the issue of child labour. As the White Paper makes clear, the ILO says that 250 million children throughout the world are working. Appallingly, a quarter of a million of them are soldiers and 1 million children are working on the basis of being sexually exploited. The Government support international efforts to enhance the well-being of children through the implementation of the convention

79
on the rights of the child. We shall encourage and support stand-alone programmes which can enable development partner countries to protect children from violation of their rights.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, reiterated the remarks of her noble friends about the importance of investment in this area. We recognise that fact and also the importance of the many questions that the noble Baroness raised. She raised them rightly and properly; indeed, it was natural for her to raise them. However, I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that the Government are committing themselves to reporting each year on the progress that we make on the White Paper. We can debate such issues each year. We shall be accountable in that respect. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will accept that undertaking in the spirit in which it is given.
A number of criticisms have been made about the White Paper. Some of them have stressed that it is too ambitious, while others have stated that it is not ambitious enough. I suspect that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has got it about right. We are focusing on what we can do. This is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, suggested, being done with our head in the stars and our feet in the clouds. It is practical politics. The White Paper makes clear that we will chart our progress against clear, internationally accepted targets that have been agreed at UN conferences and by the OECD. The programme is affordable and achievable. The Government will do everything possible to ensure that we stick by the commitments that we have made.
80
I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that, while we all admire the admirable work undertaken by his noble friend Lady Chalker in the past, the White Paper before us does not reflect the same policy as that which went before. We have a Department for International Development. We have a Minister in Cabinet; and, indeed, we have a White Paper. Moreover, we are committing ourselves to discuss progress on that document year after year. If the noble Lord looks at it, I am sure that he will see that we have made 19 new commitments in the White Paper. On reflection, I hope that he will realise that some of the trenchant criticisms that he made in his speech were perhaps not entirely deserved.
In his introduction to the White Paper, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister—and I make no apologies for the language that he used—refers to building a new society for ourselves and for our children, where everyone has a stake and where we can create a future in which generations will have a heritage of hope. That is what the White Paper is about. It is safeguarding our world for now and for the future by tackling the greatest evil that we face; namely, the extreme poverty of 1.3 billion of our fellow human beings. It is not a short-term agenda which looks for votes in the next election. It is an undertaking to which we should all, whatever our political perspective, commit ourselves in the decades to come. The Government are making this commitment. We are ready to be judged as the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, said we should be. We are ready to be judged year by year and over time by the progress that we, with our partners, will make.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at one minute before eight o'clock.

  Montserrat
  Montserrat
  Bosnia: US Train and Equip Programme
  Bosnia: US Train and Equip Programme
  Pocklington Canal
  Pocklington Canal
  PLA Pilotage Direction No. 5
  PLA Pilotage Direction No. 5
  Mine Closure Areas: Economic Support
  Mine Closure Areas: Economic Support
  Benefits Agency: Performance Related Pay
  Benefits Agency: Performance Related Pay
  Mine Safety
  Mine Safety
  Hammersmith Bridge: Traffic Data
  Hammersmith Bridge: Traffic Data
  All Work Test for Incapacity Benefit
  All Work Test for Incapacity Benefit
  NHS Trust Board Appointments
  NHS Trust Board Appointments
  Psychotherapists
  Psychotherapists
  University Funding
  University Funding
  Self-assessment and Farmers' Expenses
  Self-assessment and Farmers' Expenses
  Listed Houses
  Listed Houses
  Abortion Statistics
  Abortion Statistics
  Prison Service: Director General's Review
  Prison Service: Director General's Review
  R v Secretary of State for the Home
  R v Secretary of State for the Home
  R v Secretary of State for the Home
  R v Secretary of State for the Home
  Turkish Nationals: Asylum Application Data
  Turkish Nationals: Asylum Application Data
  Wales: Higher Education Funding
  Wales: Higher Education Funding