Sitting of 19 November 1997

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

  Kyoto Summit
  Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.—[Janet Anderson.]
  9.34 am
  Ms Joan Walley: It is a privilege to initiate the debate on the Kyoto climate summit to be held in December. I am pleased to see the Minister for the Environment at the Dispatch Box. I am pleased also to see so many Members in the Chamber for this really important debate. I hope particularly that my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Clark) will be able to contribute to it. He is as genuinely concerned about the effects of global warming in Gillingham as I am about the effects in Stoke-on-Trent, North.
  We must remember the context in which the debate is taking place. The Kyoto summit will be the third conference of the parties to the United Nations framework conference on climate change. It will review progress to date, and it is an opportunity which we cannot afford to lose.
  There are many reasons why I wish to raise the issues surrounding the Kyoto summit. It is important that we have the opportunity to debate them, but I want the debate to be for the many and not the few. It is not enough for Parliament to have the debate; we must ensure that it spreads ever wider throughout the country.
  I noted with great interest this morning's announcement by my right hon Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment that he is setting up an advisory panel to promote citizenship among young people. I hope that its chairman, Professor Bernard Crick, will make arrangements for that awareness to include environmental issues.
  I want the media to take up the debate about Kyoto and about how we might make progress towards achieving the tightest possible emission standards. I am pleased that the two programmes "Costing the Earth" are to appear on television this week and next week. I hope that they will give the public the opportunity to consider the scientific evidence and to make up their own minds about what is happening. I hope also that debates such as this will take place in parliaments throughout the world so that parliamentarians, as well as Governments and Ministers, can take part in a crucial worldwide debate.
  More than anything else, I want to give our new Government the most resounding send-off when they go to the important negotiations in Kyoto. It is crucial that the debate here takes place in time to influence events and so that Ministers know that they have the backing of the country when they go to Kyoto.
  240
  I know that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will be part of the mission, which may even save the world at Kyoto. I want him to return with a legally binding agreement on greenhouse gas emissions. I am mindful of the work that he has already done in respect of the sea and seafarers and transport policy. I have confidence that, given what my right hon. Friend learned so often with the International Maritime Organisation, he, of all people, knows that it is crucial to go for the highest denominator, not the lowest. That is the message of optimism that we must send from the House.
  I would not be so bold as to assert that people throughout the country talk of nothing else but Kyoto. I should like to think that that was true, but things do not work quite like that. I know that in many parts of the country people are talking about major political issues. One major issue, for example, is whether we will get the world cup four years after Paris. I should like the debate about Kyoto to be on a par with interest in the world cup. I should like to think that the debate about global warming is of such importance that people will wish to become well informed and well versed on issues that will become everyday matters of conversation.
  Although such topics may not be on everybody's lips, people are increasingly concerned about the effects of global warming. It does matter; it touches their everyday lives. People want something to be done, and they want to be part of the solution.
  We are not quite in the same situation as people who live in small island states such as the Maldives, who fear that, because of the rising sea level, their islands could disappear, but we face a real danger of flooding. What will happen to low-lying areas? There are crucial issues involving health, the water supply, shortage and biodiversity. Most of all, we have to look at the scientific evidence to see whether what we have heard could happen is just scaremongering or whether there is a scientific base for the worst possible scenario. As most hon. Members know, I would want us always to take the precautionary approach, and I hope that I will be able to carry many people with me.
  The scientific evidence is indisputable. The 1996 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which comprised no fewer than 2,500 experts, concluded:
  "There is a discernible human"—
  I stress human—
  "influence on global climate."
  A report is due next month from the workshop held in Boulder, Colorado, in September, which was attended by the world's biggest wildlife groups, including the World Wide Fund for Nature, and Wildlife International, of which our own Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is a member. All the evidence is there. Groups such as Greenpeace, for which I have the greatest respect, and Friends of the Earth are not scaremongering. There is evidence, which we have to accept. Having done so, we cannot just leave it. To know is not enough. Once something is known, something has to be done about it. That is why all of us are here. We all have to do as much as we can, in whatever way we can, about Kyoto and the huge issues we face.
  It concerns me that there are still people, for example the chairman of Exxon, who say that climate change is not really an issue, and that it should not be dealt with by

  241
  regulation. We have to tackle people who still say that. We must ensure that we make real progress with the climate conventions, and ensure that this Parliament—I stress that it is not just for the Government and Ministers—gives full backing to our Government in what will be an uphill, or "up-bank", as we say in Stoke-on-Trent, struggle that they will have on their hands when they go to Japan.
  The run-up to the 10 days of negotiations at Kyoto will be a testing time for the United Kingdom. It is not just our hopes that are pinned on the leadership of the new Labour Government. The whole world has recognised, particularly at the Earth summit II conference in New York last July, that, with our Prime Minister, we have new vision and leadership. Having seen what can be done, there is even greater emphasis on what more could be done. I still believe that, if anybody can, our Government can achieve the best deal.
  It is a question not of doing as I say, but of doing as I do. For that reason, I welcome the very clear commitments that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has given, including various presentations at the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. We are aiming for a 20 per cent. reduction in 1990 emission levels by 2010. Above all else, that commitment makes the Government most able to squeeze the best deal out of negotiations. I accept that the dash for gas has helped us to achieve things that we might never have dared hope for, although at a price. None the less, that is our starting point. Now we can achieve even more.
  There is also a track record since July. I recognise that the former Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), tried to address the issue. We have a Cabinet committee, which is at the heart of government, to ensure proper environmental assessment on all issues. It will not be easy to get that from the Treasury when the Green Paper is published. When I talk about a green Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer may not have the same ideas that I have, but the Cabinet committee can start to make progress on these matters, and I hope that it will.
  We will continue the round table on sustainability. That can play an important role in the debate that we need to have throughout the country. I am delighted that the Environment Audit Committee, which was a manifesto pledge, has been set up. I am proud to be a member of it, and I want to play my part on it to get real progress. We now have the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which comprises the former Departments of Transport and the Environment. We have an opportunity for integrated transport. The consultation period has just ended, and we are about to have new Green Papers and White Papers. What is more, the Deputy Prime Minister is striding round the world, bringing together all the countries that have not yet signed up to what we want them to sign. He is also chairing the annexe 1 group of countries at Kyoto.
  It is not all simple and straightforward. Achieving the 20 per cent. target that this country wants will not be plain sailing. It will present us with difficulties. More can usually be achieved at the beginning than further along the way, because, by the later stage, the big savings have
  242
  already been made. However, sometimes it is possible to achieve more later, because more people understand the issues. That is the message which we have to get across. There will be hard choices, but I have every confidence that my right hon. Friend will see how we can balance them. I shall list just a few.
  In our integrated transport plans, I want to see targets for road traffic reduction as well as for transport. At some stage, however much we may not want to do so, we will have to consider the issue of aviation fuel and tax subsidies.
  There is a threat of opencast coal mining in my constituency. I want us to have a presumption against opencast. I want legislation for energy conservation and efficiency. I am not happy that the gas regulator, unlike her predecessor, is not prepared to understand the arguments about energy savings and conservation. It may well be a matter on which the House will need to legislate, but my understanding is that we could not do so within about two years. What happens in the meantime? Are we to let her get away with saying that it is not her responsibility? It does not appear to be anybody else's responsibility either.
  While on the subject of energy conservation, I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, in the nicest and most supportive way that I can, that I met the Energy Saving Trust yesterday, and although I understand that we have accepted the previous Government's spending limits, it does not seem quite right in terms of our priorities that the trust's budget has been reduced from £19 million to £13 million. I am sure that, with the right will, we can find a way forward so that it can continue its invaluable work.
  Clean coal technology for deep-mined coal needs to be on the agenda. Sooner or later—perhaps later rather than sooner—we must look at switching the balance towards renewables, and at the whole role of oil exploration.
  We have to ensure that civil servants are doing what the political masters and mistresses here are saying that they could be doing.
  There is enormous hope for optimism because of what we have committed ourselves to. As with anything, it is no good our doing our best if we cannot secure agreements on the world stage for what needs to be done internationally.
  As far as I can see, Japan is not doing enough. As the host country for the summit, it should be under a special obligation to be at the cutting edge and to make the greatest possible commitment to what is needed at Kyoto. Extra pressure needs to be exerted, and I hope that our Government will be able to put in whatever word is needed. As a member of the Trade and Industry Select Committee, with the prospect—I put it no higher than that—of a visit to Japan, I hope that the Committee will be able to continue where the Government leaves off post-Kyoto.
  I know that the work of the House deservedly has a considerable personal following throughout America. We recognise that President Clinton may be between a rock and a hard place—between Congress and the Senate—but we want him to look afresh at the issues. We pin great hopes on his securing tighter agreement in his country about what should be happening at Kyoto. I hope that our Government can exert further influence in America, so that it, too, can play its part. President Clinton was

  243
  elected on an environmental platform, and I feel that he can do better than stabilising emissions at 1990 levels by 2012.
  We all have a special responsibility for the annexe 1 countries. It is vital that we do not transfer to the developing world the mistakes that the industrialised countries have made. I have every confidence that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will take that on board, but I feel that a message of support should go out from our Parliament.
  Binding targets must be agreed at Kyoto. It is the best chance we have. I want these to be "ten days that shook the world". Energy-efficient technology needs to be transferred, and, as part of the reform of the United Nations, we need to find a way of monitoring, policing and enforcing agreements so that there is full compliance. I hope that Klaus Topfler will be able to carry out some of the necessary reforms if he moves to the United Nations Environment Programme. I also hope that we shall be able to make progress when we attend conferences with other parliamentarians.
  We should not lose heart just because we may not secure the best possible deal at Kyoto, and may manage only a modest first step. The United Kingdom must go on leading. We need a permanent process to keep the negotiations moving and to follow through success or failure at Kyoto. The European presidency will provide us with a huge opportunity to do that.
  We need more than a one-off, ad hoc debate in Parliament on this important issue. We need a strategy. Perhaps the Procedure Committee could ensure that we have regular follow-up discussions, so that we can identify the targets and establish how much progress we are making. There is no way out for any of us. We must make certain that the debate reaches out to the heart of our democracy—to schools and local government, through Agenda 21; to business, and to community groups. We need full and regular scrutiny of how our 20 per cent. targets are progressing here in the United Kingdom. Parliament has a real role to play, and I hope that through today's debate—in which I know many hon. Members wish to speak—we can take things forward, and send our Government off to do the job that we depend on their doing in Kyoto next month.
  9.53 am
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on securing a debate on such an important matter. Perhaps we should discuss environmental issues more than we do. In fact, this is not just a question of the environment, it is a question of the economy, the politics of the country and our attitude to various of our industries, including important industries such as the car industry and the fossil fuel industry.
  Let me put my cards on the table. I drive a car, and Ford UK is in my constituency. That company is an important employer, but, like the rest of the car industry in the west nowadays, it is also extremely responsible in regard to emissions. Over the past few years, it has reduced the particulates—the bits and pieces that come out of exhaust pipes—to practically nil.
  We are not talking about the kind of pollution that we associate with the old-fashioned smogs. We are talking in particular about Kyoto, which is intended to deal with
  244
  the level of carbon dioxide emissions in our atmosphere. We must discover where those emissions come from. In fact, the great majority do not come from motor cars: only about 20 per cent. of the alleged carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere—by which I assume people mean emissions other than the natural carbon dioxide emissions from decaying vegetable matter—come from cars.
  I should say in passing that I have been a scientist for the past 35 years, and I therefore know something about the detail of the subject. Facts and figures sometimes drive people nuts and do not get to the point, but the point is that the motor car is not the villain that it is sometimes portrayed as being. The vast majority of carbon dioxide emissions probably come from house dwellers—from the fuel they burn or from the fuel they waste. Housing should be better insulated, because it can have a detrimental effect on the air that we all breathe.
  Of course we are all keen to improve the environment, but the atmosphere and its effect on our climate have little to do with anything we do on this earth. Most climate changes are due either to the sun, which influences our climate enormously, or to our planet's orbit around it. That orbit varies, as was demonstrated recently. Those who were awake and looking at the sky one night in September will have seen a remarkable eclipse of the moon, which, for a short period, appeared much larger than usual. That was because of one of the wobbles in the earth's orbit.
  The climate is also strongly influenced by ocean currents, as we saw recently. El Nino has had a massive effect on the climate. It causes huge changes, producing violent rain storms and other destructive weather, for which some people immediately blame motor car pollution.
  Another massive cause of climate change is volcanic activity. People seem to think, from what they read in the papers, that a volcano pops off occasionally—that it is a one-off event that occurs every few years, and is not significant. That is not true. In the Antarctic region, close to the area where the measurement of ozone holes is carried out, there is a very active volcano, Mount Erebus, which produces in a year more chlorine gases—which contribute to the chlorofluorocarbons in the upper atmosphere—than the whole of industrial production since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Those are the three massive forces over which human beings have little control.
  Another significant climatic element is the fact that the Earth is basically a water planet, 75 per cent. of whose surface is covered by water. Only 15 per cent. of the remaining part—the land mass—is habitable: most of it consists of mountain ranges, ice plains and deserts.
  The inhabited part of the earth's surface is very small, and only a tiny portion of that is industrialised; most of it is agricultural land. It is important to keep the facts and figures in proportion. Only a small part of the Earth's surface is involved in industrial activities that contribute CO2, to the atmosphere. There is a tendency to think that industrial activity is extremely dangerous for our atmosphere and climate, and that the problem can be dealt with by punishing the motorist and cutting down on the use of the motor car. At that point, the argument comes down to politics.
  I see from the attendance in the Chamber for this debate that a number of hon. Members are concerned about this matter. If they want to hear the other side of the story,

  245
  I advise them to read documents produced by NASA. Its upper atmosphere research programme puts out extremely informative documents about changes in the atmosphere and about the amount of gases, including greenhouse gases. It insists that the hysteria that is generated by this subject, particularly on climate effects, is unwarranted, but that is not a particularly popular view. An enormous number of institutions, such as Globe, genuinely believe that there is a serious problem that industrialised western countries can deal with.
  I should love better quality air. Everyone wants that; it is like motherhood and apple pie. I deplore the fact that, when I was in Egypt recently, I could see across the Nile at 7 am, but not at 10 am, because pollution levels from the old rust buckets that roam the streets were such that the atmosphere was very unpleasant. That applies in other parts of the world, such as China, although I have never been there. I know Mexico City very well, and it has a dreadful pollution problem, but that is partly due to the fact that the city is surrounded by mountainous regions.
  There is an alternative point of view, and it is well received in the United States. It brings me to the attitude of President Clinton to the Kyoto conference. Without the agreement of the Americans to the proposed 20 per cent. reduction in emissions, nothing much will happen. President Clinton has laid his cards on the table. We should not assume that his is just the voice of a careless and vote-happy President who wants to preserve his industries against the better interests of mankind. The Americans are as pollution-conscious and as concerned about global warming as we are.
  In science, one has to deal with the facts and consider both sides of the story. The amount of investment in our industrial society, the jobs it provides and its importance to the standard of living of the people we represent are serious considerations. We should not go to the Kyoto conference calling for global figures, such as a 20 per cent. reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere, just because that is a nice target at which to aim.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the hon. Lady's argument, because I recognise that other factors are at work, but we should take the right remedy. The car industry produced the catalytic converter, but it is not much use in industrial cities and is a waste of money. Does the hon. Lady accept that the argument coming out of the United States is that the Americans do not want their industries to be injured further while other countries are polluting more than they are? The argument is not just about the scientific fact that nature produces its own pollution: it is about the Americans looking after the mighty buck.
  Mrs. Gorman: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I put it to him that it is the duty of any Government to ensure that industries, which are the backbone of communities, are properly looked after and protected. I hope that every hon. Member has the same attitude.
  Is President Clinton being selfish or is he being responsible in saying that emissions produced by motor cars in the United States are relatively small, given the improvements that have been made, especially with
  246
  regard to particulates as opposed to the CO2 element? How important are 2 emissions from the motor car compared with other forms of adding CO2 to the atmosphere? I repeat that less than 20 per cent. of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere come from the car, so it is an easy target. Insulation of properties is less easy, because everyone could do something about that, as opposed to leaving an individual industry to do it.
  Other parts of the globe, such as China, the countries of the former Soviet Union and Mexico, are not able to make those improvements, especially given the low level of wealth of their citizens. The way to help those countries is to improve their economies overall. I am sure that the Egyptians who were driving rust buckets around Cairo would love to have a nice car with controlled emissions and catalytic convertors, whether or not they work.
  My argument is about the importance of the motor car. This debate and the discussions at Kyoto are an attack on the industrialised west, its alleged greedy consumption of fossil fuels such as coal and its selfish use of raw materials in the production of motor cars.
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: It is important to note that objective scientific work has been done on this subject. The energy technology support unit has produced an account of how it believes the United Kingdom proposal of a 20 per cent. reduction could be achieved by 2010. It has produced figures for different sectors: industry and services could reduce by 9.6 million tonnes of carbon; the domestic sector by 7.6 million tonnes; transport by 14.9 million tonnes, so that is an important component; and renewable energy could make a contribution of 2.7 million tonnes. Those figures show a 40 million tonne carbon reduction. That is not a random attack on any particular sector, certainly not on the transport sector. However, the reality is that transport can and will have to make its contribution.
  Mrs. Gorman: The hon. Gentleman's point is perfectly acceptable, but I am trying to explain to the House that most of the carbon dioxide that goes into the atmosphere is not the responsibility of the motor car. Furthermore, gas carbon dioxide is only one of the greenhouse gases; most of it is water vapour that rises above the Earth, forms clouds and helps climate control by acting as a screen.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Gorman: No, not at the moment.
  Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is welcome because it aids the photosynthetic process of plants. It is not an awful substance: it is not poisonous to human beings, except in vast concentrations, and it is positively helpful to vegetation. It is a soluble gas, especially in sea water where plankton rely on it for photosynthesis, which affects the food chain right up to mankind. We must stop regarding that gas as a poisonous substance which does us enormous harm.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: The question is not whether there is a natural balance in the atmosphere, which includes natural CO2 as well as that which is emitted. In time, that balance will alter. The issue is whether mankind's additional CO2 emissions are

  247
  upsetting that balance. The hon. Lady seems to miss the fact that, overwhelmingly, the world's scientists take the view that we are upsetting that balance. The OECD nations and the Government have also accepted that. Even oil companies such as BP have accepted that it is a serious issue and that our actions are affecting the climate because we are upsetting the natural balance.
  Mrs. Gorman: The hon. Gentleman has his view. I recently attended a meeting in the House of Lords with the energy industries. Those industries, and especially the coal industry, expressed great concern that the demands of Kyoto would wipe them out. Every hon. Member knows that it is important not to devastate key industries because that would have an enormous backlash affecting the amount of support that we would have to provide to those communities. If we are not careful, they could be destroyed by the casual adoption of a target whose significance I challenge in terms of improving the global climate, pollution or the well-being of mankind in general. I presume that I shall be the only person to present that view.
  I do not wish to denigrate the sentiments of the dedicated followers of orthodoxy, including the Globe European network mentioned by the hon. Member for Stoke—on—Trent, North. I do not suggest that they are on a crusade to destroy basic industries. My point is that there is another side to the scientific evidence. The United States is much more aware of that, because its technological and scientific groups such as NASA are producing the statistics to back that view. Far from being irresponsible and selfish, President Clinton's attitude is balanced, sensible and sane.
  We all want to make life better for people and the way not to do that is to attack, seek to destroy or make more expensive the use of the motor car, which is people's pride and joy, or increase the cost of fuel for heating their homes. That is a sensitive political issue and we should not lightly embark on increasing fuel costs because of concern for what may not be as important an issue as it is made out to be.
  10.12 am
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: It is tempting to respond in detail to the speech by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman).
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Don't.
  Mr. Stunell: I shall take that advice.
  The topic is vital not just for us but for our children and our grandchildren. Some of the hon. Lady's comments were sad. Climate change is real, global warming is serious and both of them are avoidable. The hon. Lady has missed those points. Kyoto provides an opportunity to concentrate people's minds on the impact of failure. If it succeeds, there is little doubt that climate change can be arrested, but it will take decades of hard work internationally, nationally and locally.
  If Kyoto fails, climate change is likely to spin out of control. The consequences for the United Kingdom would be serious, and the hon. Member for Billericay has missed some of those. Elsewhere in the world, the effects would be catastrophic. There is no doubt that some nations would disappear, and the feedback from catastrophes
  248
  elsewhere will produce political instability, poverty, homelessness and hunger on an international scale that we have not seen so far.
  The hon. Member for Billericay is right to say that global warming is a natural consequence of our atmosphere. Its greenhouse effect adds about 21 deg C to the temperature of the earth, and the hon. Lady might think that an extra couple of degrees will not make much difference. It will make a great deal of difference. It will add 50 cm to sea levels in the next 40 or 50 years and the levels will continue to rise. That is why the Liberal Democrats think that it is right for the United Kingdom and the European Union to take the lead in tackling global warming.
  We welcome the United Kingdom's progress over the past few years, although we recall that much of it was accidental—the consequence of the destruction of our indigenous coal industry and the dash for gas. We welcome the Prime Minister's pledge of a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon emissions by 2010. It is good to hear that that will remain a Government commitment even if Kyoto is not a success. Promises must be backed by action. We recognise that it is early days for the Government to produce an impact on the issue. There has not been much time to sort things out, and we accept what the Prime Minister said on television on Sunday. He is a man of honour and he intends to deliver. I know that the Minister fully shares that view.
  However, the Government need to recognise some harsh realities. The first is that UK carbon emissions rose by some 2 per cent. last year, after a period during which they had been dropping. Contrary to the comments of the hon. Member for Billericay, the good work is being undone by the additional mileage on British roads. The growth of that transport has led to the increase in carbon emissions, and that is a worrying trend. We take 1990 as our base line and look forward to 2010. We are a third of the way through that 20-year interval, and Britain has rising carbon emissions.
  There is a risk that by the year 2000—halfway through the 20-year period—we will have failed to reduce emissions to the 1990 level. The previous Government had intended to be about 8 per cent. below that level by the year 2000. The figures show that significant new policies will be needed if Britain is to reduce emissions to 20 per cent. below 1990 emissions by 2010.
  The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) was right to speak about positive actions by the Government. I must balance the account and point to some less positive happenings since 1 May.
  The targets will be harder to reach because most Departments do not know whether they are keeping to targets. I recently asked a series of parliamentary questions and in every case I was referred to the climate change book which was produced by the previous Government. I thought that perhaps I was a slow reader and had missed a bit at the back listing every Department and giving targets, but no such information is there. If the parliamentary answers are to be believed, Departments do not have clear, internal energy policies, objectives and plans. I asked the Secretary of State for Health what representations he had received about public health and hygiene as a result of climate change, and he said that he had received none

  249
  The targets will be more difficult to achieve for another reason: in a commendable effort to reduce fuel poverty, the Government have cut value added tax on domestic fuel to 8 per cent., but kept it at 17.5 per cent. on insulation materials, which could help to reduce fuel consumption. Last week, the House debated the fossil fuel levy, which can now be applied to renewable energy producers—another Government decision which is difficult to understand. It would be interesting to hear whether the Minister for the Environment believes that that is sensible.
  The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North mentioned the Energy Saving Trust. Can it be right that, last year, supported by the Department of the Environment, its budget was £25 million, that this year it is £19 million and that next year it is projected to be £13.5 million? Is that a sensible way to set about reaching the targets?
  The hon. Member also mentioned that the gas regulator is blocking a levy to support renewables. It is interesting that, when Neighbourhood Energy Action asked MORI to do a poll of the public, asking, "Would you prefer to have your fuel bills reduced by the installation of insulation in your home or by being offered lower prices by your fuel supplier?", 40 per cent. of people said that they would prefer the insulation solution and 30 per cent. the lower prices solution. It would be both popular and sensible to invest in insulation rather than simply in cut-price fuel supplies.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: I agree with the drift of what the hon. Gentleman says. Meeting the 20 per cent. reduction target by 2010 is ambitious and may be difficult, but may I console him with this fact? Most of the progress to date has been because of the dash for gas. At present, only about 20 per cent. of our electricity is generated from gas. By 2000, it will be 50 per cent. and, after that, it will be more, so the dash for gas will continue. I know that that is bad news for coal mining areas, but the continued dash for gas makes a large contribution to savings.
  Mr. Stunell: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. It is still true that the driving force for that dash is the gas surplus in the world market. Therefore, as its price is low, a levy could be placed on the fuel by the regulator, with customers still receiving lower gas prices—although not perhaps as low as they would be if one went for bargain-basement pricing—and would be invested in insulation, which would reduce overall fuel consumption and carbon emissions.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: There is an absolutely key point here. This is one for Government; the previous Government failed to face it. With energy prices falling and likely to continue to fall, the Government can simply allow that to happen, with customers receiving the benefit and inevitably using more fuel because it is cheaper, or take action through levies to pay for improvements to tackle fuel poverty. For the people who can least afford to heat their homes, fuel price cuts are not significant.
  250
  Insulation would be far more significant. It would mean a stabilisation of fuel prices, which would send a signal that people cannot expect a cut in prices.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. This is a brief debate. Interventions should be short. The hon. Gentleman is depriving other hon. Members who badly want to speak of the time in which to do so.
  Mr. Stunell: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) for what he has said, which I fully support.
  In the run-up to Kyoto, the Government should, first, be working more closely with non-governmental organisations. It was disappointing for the Prime Minister to reply that the Government would not be including any non-governmental organisation representative in the official delegation to Kyoto, and it is worrying that neither the Prime Minister nor the Foreign Secretary will be going to such a major international event.
  Secondly, the Government should ensure that every Government Department and agency establishes an energy-saving plan with clear objectives and targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases. Thirdly, the Government should cut VAT on insulation materials and sign up to the Energy Saving Trust plan, which would reduce domestic fuel consumption by 17 per cent. and carbon emissions by some 14 per cent. over the next 13 years. It would also save money for consumers purchasing fuel and create 20,000 jobs.
  That is an ambitious target, and I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Billericay. We are talking about the development of high-technology alternative industries. If Britain manages to be at the forefront of those industries, they will be profitable as well as ecologically sound.
  Fourthly, the Government should reconsider their new deal plan and the money that they put into the environmental task force. At present, the materials grant is up to £90 per week per person. In many cases, that will mean that insulation projects are beyond the reach of the task force. I hope that the Government will consider that apparently small point, which could have a major impact.
  Fifthly, I hope that the Government will pledge support and time to the Road Traffic Reduction (United Kingdom Targets) Bill, which would make a material difference on traffic emissions into the atmosphere.
  Sixthly, as a Liberal Democrat, I say, of course, that it would be appropriate for the Government to cut vehicle excise duty on cars below 1,500 cc and to increase fuel tax to raise the extra money required. In that way, we could achieve a pattern more like that of the Danes and the Italians: we could have smaller cars and fewer journeys.
  I could say much more, but I know that this is a short debate. I give credit to the Government for their stance and promises on global warming. I and other Liberal Democrat Members wish them every success in the difficult and complex negotiations, but I sincerely urge them to get stuck in here in the UK. There is much to be done and there is plenty of public support for it to be done. There is no great mystery about the policies that are needed, and most of them do not have a high price tag. Liberal Democrats want some Government courage and some Government determination. That will bring success and profit.
  Mr. Paul Clark: It gives me great pleasure to deliver my maiden speech, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) for securing this debate. It is a great pleasure because I recognise the honour bestowed on me by the electorate of Gillingham and because I am representing my home town, of which I am immensely proud.
  My success on 1 May was, of course, another's failure. James Couchman was the sitting Member of Parliament and had held the seat for some 14 years. He served on the Social Security, Health, Public Accounts and Northern Ireland Select Committees and was Parliamentary Private Secretary to many Ministers during those years.
  Times move on, but I am pleased to say that Gillingham people are loyal, at least to the authority of Parliament. History records that, during the civil war, a distinguished Gillingham citizen, Philip Fraude, fought on the side of the king, but:
  "The district as a whole appears to have prudently supported Parliament".
  Long may Gillingham people have so much sense.
  Some hon. Members may ask, where is Gillingham? It lies on the estuary of the River Medway in Kent and some of my constituency is a special scientific interest area, which has been a matter of consultation this week. Gillingham is one of the Medway towns and, unlike its neighbours, Chatham and Rochester, it is densely populated: its total population is more than 90,000, squeezed into just 4,500 hectares of land. That figure includes the special scientific interest area that lies in the River Medway—not much use for people in terms of expansion. However, it is important in other ways, as I shall mention. There are a number of differences between the older part of the constituency, which lies to the north of the A2, and the southern part. On indices of overcrowding, as defined by the 1991 census, many of the northern wards have figures in excess of 3 per cent., when the average for Kent is 1.8 per cent. A survey of private sector stock showed that 8.5. per cent. of properties were unfit—for example, in poor repair, damp or with kitchen problems—compared with a county level of 5.6 per cent. In one ward, more than one fifth of properties were classified as unfit. Gillingham has a number of challenging issues, and none more so than the overcrowding of its land space.
  Was Gillingham born out of reorganisation? No—it is recorded in the Domesday book of 1086. It is said that it was named after a war lord, Gyllingas—from the old English "gyllan" meaning "to shout". He was a notable man in Kent history as he led his warriors into battle screaming and shouting. I suppose that a modern translation of Gillingham would be "the home of shouting men"—and, of course, women, to be technically correct. I am delighted to tell the House that we keep up that tradition. The shouting men and women of Gillingham can be found every other Saturday on the terraces of Priestfield stadium, the home of Kent's only football league team, Gillingham FC, which is going from strength to strength.
  Gillingham has assumed a role that has perhaps been unknown, but has been an important part of the defence of this country. It developed as a fishing village and port and 450 years ago, in 1547, storehouses were rented by the Navy for use at Gillingham water—so started
  252
  Gillingham's long association with the Navy. Gillingham dockyard formally opened in 1559, and it is from those early beginnings that the Medway towns developed. Over the centuries, thousands of men and women have been involved in the defence of the realm.
  Gillingham is also the home of Her Majesty's Corps of Royal Engineers. They are an integral part of the town and their headquarters continues to provide the finest military engineering training to be found anywhere in the western world. The corps headquarters have also been, at one time or another, home to great heroes of British history, such as Kitchener, Gordon and the eminent father and son team of Generals Sir Manley and Sir John Glubb. Gillingham is proud to have the engineers museum in the town, which I recommend to hon. Members as well worth a visit.
  Many hon. Members will be saying, "Gillingham dockyard; Medway towns—wasn't it called Chatham dockyard?" Yes, it was, despite the facts that it started in Gillingham, and that, until the day it was closed in 1984, two thirds of the then modern-day dockyard lay within the boundaries of Gillingham. No one knows for certain why the name changed, but anyone who knows anything about using semaphore flags will be well aware that it is easier to spell out Chatham than Gillingham.
  Gillingham has other claims to fame. Louis Brennan lived in Gillingham and tested his monorail in the town. He was clearly a man of great foresight, recognising traffic congestion in the early part of this century and the need for an integrated transport system.
  Will Adams was equally famous, but he did not realise that he was to lay the foundations for Gillingham's future. He was shipwrecked off the coast of Japan—where the Kyoto summit is being held—and he stayed there to help develop Japanese ships. From that has arisen a link with two Japanese cities, Yokosuka and Ito. We have grown close to them through exchange visits. That has enabled us to form close links for business development. Gillingham business park is home to many thriving businesses, including Fuji Seal, Fuji Copian and Hochiki. They are the bases for their European operations.
  There is a great deal of hope in Gillingham, which has a great deal to offer. Rising from the ashes of its former glory, the dockyard, there are high-quality developments providing jobs and housing on brown-field sites, but all that will pale into insignificance if we do not tackle the fundamentals that are being presented at the Kyoto conference. The cost of failing to reach agreement on the global climatic agenda will be to fail our country and our children.
  As other hon. Members have said, it is essential that the greening of our policies must permeate all our thinking. I welcome the positive steps taken so far by the Government, such as the clear commitment to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. on 1990 levels by 2010, and the decision to put sustainable development at the heart of policy making, as is evident in the bringing together of the environment, transport and the regions into one co-ordinated Department.
  ough targets have been set, but they are achievable by policies that are sensible in their own right. An integrated transport policy will make public transport more acceptable and attractive. There should be increasing use of renewable forms of energy. We must achieve greater efficiency in firms and bring the public sector up to the standards of the best. We must also improve energy efficiency in homes.

  253
  The first Labour Budget in 20 years was used to show that the environment has been placed at the core of the Government's objectives for the tax system. Among other measures, duties on road fuel were increased by 6 per cent., with a commitment to future increases of about 6 per cent. It is estimated that that will lead to additional savings of about 2.5 million tonnes of carbon annually by the year 2010.
  Failure to secure legally binding targets in Kyoto will present us with the unthinkable. Other hon. Members have referred to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change conferences in 1990, 1992 and 1996. The Geneva conference in 1996 concluded that there was discernible human influence on climate, which none of us can afford to ignore.
  What does Kyoto mean to the people of Gillingham? Even today, when certain weather conditions prevail within the north sea and the Thames barrier is raised, there is a chance of flooding in the Medway estuary. The effects of rising sea levels would seriously affect the Medway towns. Gillingham's north Kent marshes are designated not only as a site of special scientific interest, but as a special protection area under the European directive on the conservation of wild birds. In addition, the marshes are a listed Ramsar site under the convention on wetlands of international importance.
  Seven internationally important bird species, including the Brent goose and the redshank, live in the Medway marshes. They would all be threatened by rising sea levels, with the mudflats being affected and, hence, the loss of a valuable source of food to support the birds of coastal habitats.
  There is also the possibility of increased rainfall, especially in the south and south-east areas. It is predicted that certain red data book species in Gillingham and the surrounding towns would disappear—for example, the lizard orchid, a species to be found in Kent and, in particular, on the Darland banks in the southern part of my constituency. Various butterflies are equally vulnerable, along with the bush cricket, which is predominantly found within the Medway and Thames estuaries.
  At its simplest level, the link to population levels is clearest—the more people there are, the higher the emissions are likely to be. The more we alter land use patterns and associated vegetation, the more we add to our problems of water run-off and pollution levels. That is why we must take local control of our local environment. It is no good local authorities issuing planning briefs for areas that allow development surrounded by patches of natural environment, supposedly to maintain ecological balance, only to allow substantial infilling on those areas a few years later. All too often, we see good intentions thrown out of the window.
  In Rainham, at the eastern end of my constituency, a windfall site has occurred since the county council decided that it was no longer required for its intended use. It is a wedge of unspoilt land which runs between highly developed and populated areas. To walk through it takes us back to the Rainham of 40 or 50 years ago—orchards, open space teaming with wildlife and an important natural and undisturbed habitat for many species. It is important to the people of Rainham as an escape from the demands
  254
  of everyday life. There is now a battle to save it from the developer's bulldozers. Clearly, we must take in hand our own concerns.
  The House needs Kyoto to deliver, and the people of Gillingham need it to deliver. A protocol containing legally binding commitments for industrialised countries will have to be adopted. We fully support our Government's objective of reducing CO2, emissions to 20 per cent. of 1990 levels by 2010. In setting that objective, they are showing leadership to those who are less willing to respect our climate, notably the United States and Japan. The developed, industrialised countries must not only bear responsibility for past emissions and lead the way in setting challenging targets but offer our knowledge and expertise to developing countries to help them to avoid the pitfalls of the past.
  If the Government's representatives need any moral support when they attend the Kyoto conference, I assure them that they will have the good will of the people of Gillingham. During the general election campaign, apart from education and health environmental issues were a serious concern among voters in Gillingham. As Gillingham's Member of Parliament since May, I have had to deal with a number of environmental issues.
  I hope that I have explained the importance to the people of Gillingham of what some might regard as an irrelevant conference in a far-flung part of the world. I am sure that what is relevant for my constituents is relevant for all of us in the United Kingdom. We look forward to success in Kyoto.
  10.40 am
  Mr. Tim Yeo: I congratulate the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Clark) on his excellent maiden speech. Unfortunately, time prevents me from following up his points in detail, but the House looks forward to hearing from him again.
  I congratulate also the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on securing the debate. I deplore the fact that the Government have not made their own time available for such a debate. The request that I made at business questions three weeks ago was refused. Since then, the House has more than once addressed such internal issues as modernisation.
  I much regret that, only two weeks before Kyoto, the Government have declined to explain in any detail to the House their position on the issues that the conference will address, and have denied many hon. Members—including some who would have liked to speak in this debate—an opportunity to express their views to the House. The Government's refusal does not sit easily with their claims to be seeking greater accountability and openness in the processes of government, and to be committed to environmental ideals. It rather provokes the suspicion that their green commitments are more about soundbites than about substance—although the Minister for the Environment will have the chance to correct that impression when he replies.
  I am sure that the Minister will agree that climate change is one of the most crucial and urgent issues facing Governments around the world. It is crucial because the science is clear; human activity is affecting the world's climate. It is urgent because the longer that Governments in any part of the world delay acting, the more drastic, expensive and disruptive the solutions and the action will

  255
  have to be. Many people—most people, I think—now realise that sustainable development is a goal whose achievement is essential for the world's survival. I hope that even my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) is close to accepting that point.
  Passing on to our children and grandchildren a world that is as good as the one that we inherited depends on sustainable development and addressing climate change. The damage that climate change could do to the world—a world that future generations will inhabit—is not dissimilar to the damage that could be inflicted by nuclear weapons. The damage is perhaps less immediate and less threatening to the short-term survival of the human race, but the long-term consequences for the earth are no less far reaching.
  Climate change is not accurately described by the phrase global warming, and it is not only about an agreeable Mediterranean climate coming to these shores. Even within the United Kingdom, many of the consequences of climate change will not be pleasant. There will be severe droughts in parts of the country, including the south-east and East Anglia. There will be more violent storms, and serious consequences for farming, tourism and insurance. Some coastline will be threatened. For the world, the consequences are, of course, much more far-reaching. The very survival of some low-lying territories, where millions of people live, is under immediate threat.
  Britain has had a distinguished role in the issue. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Stoke—on—Trent, North did not have the grace to acknowledge the previous Government's record.
  Ms Walley rose—
  Mr. Yeo: I am sorry, but the hon. Lady had much longer to speak than I have, and I cannot give way.
  From the time when Margaret Thatcher forced the issue on to the agenda of the world's Heads of Government, Britain has been at the forefront of the debate. Leadership has never been more needed than now. Expectations of what will come out of Kyoto are running high. Public interest is greater than it has been for several years, and the importance of a good settlement is widely recognised.
  However, there are two dangers. The first is that the overall target that is decided at Kyoto will be too lax. There will be a risk if the United States influence at Kyoto is too great. We simply cannot defer for another 12 years the timetable for achieving the Rio targets.
  The second danger is greater and, more subtle can be summed up in the word flexibility. A good headline target for cutting emissions by 2010—perhaps to 10 per cent. below 1990 levels—could be rendered valueless if the small print contains too many loopholes. If such loopholes are included in an agreement, Kyoto's contribution to averting continued and damaging climate change will be as effective as Munich's contribution, in 1938, to averting war in Europe. A fudged deal in Kyoto will be worse than no deal at all.
  I therefore ask the Minister to confirm that Britain will resist any proposal allowing countries such as Russia—whose emissions have fallen sharply since 1990, because of economic collapse—to take credit for those falls, and to sell those credits to other countries under emission trading arrangements which may be established early in the next century.
  256
  Will the Minister also clarify the Government's attitude to New Zealand's proposal to use gross emissions as the 1990 baseline figure, which would allow some countries to take credit for reductions resulting from the existence of carbon sinks, although those sinks already existed in 1990?
  Above all, will the Minister confirm that the Government understand that the fine print of the Kyoto agreement is as important as the headline target?
  The Government's target of a 20 per cent. cut by 2010 has my full support. The European Union target of a 15 per cent. cut also has my full support. I hope that, in the next six months, the Government will use the presidency of the Council of Ministers to stick to that 15 per cent. target, whatever the outcome of the Kyoto negotiations. Will the Minister confirm today that both those targets will remain, even if—as is very likely—Kyoto settles for less challenging figures?
  There is growing evidence that people and businesses in advanced countries are prepared for challenging targets. Business increasingly recognises the potential opportunities of accepting the actions that are necessary to tackle climate change. I congratulate BP on pulling out of the Global Climate Coalition in the United States, and on its forward-looking approach to climate change issues. I hope that Shell will follow in its footsteps. I welcome moves by both those great energy companies to step up their efforts in solar energy. Eventually, we may persuade even Exxon to see the light.
  Does the Minister understand that, if Britain is to offer the necessary leadership and to continue exercising influence, merely announcing challenging targets is not enough? There must be, and as soon as possible, details of the policies that will enable those targets to be achieved. I regret that they have not already been spelt out.
  As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) said, new policies will be needed. Even if the Minister does not want to gives us details of those policies today, confirmation of some broad principles would be helpful.
  For example, will the Minister confirm that coal's contribution in power generation must continue to decline? In transport, will he confirm that market instruments, rather than regulation, will be the main way in which emission reductions are achieved? Will those instruments include, for example, variable rates of vehicle excise duty, to encourage cleaner and more fuel-efficient cars?
  Will the Minister confirm that tax changes that are introduced to tackle climate change will be revenue neutral? Environmental goals must not be a smokescreen behind which the Government raise revenue. The model of the landfill tax, where all the proceeds of a new tax on pollution were used to cut the tax on jobs, should continue to be followed.
  Finally, the Opposition will not let go of the issue of climate change after the Kyoto conference; it is far too important. We shall continue to monitor the Government's future action. The verdict so far is that the rhetoric has been good but the action disappointing, especially as the tax on energy consumption has been cut, but the tax on energy saving has been maintained at a much higher level. I hope that the Minister recognises that the more he says today about the Government's policies, the louder Britain's voice will be at Kyoto next month.
  10.50 am
  The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): We have has an excellent debate which shows the House at its best. I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on obtaining the debate. I thank her for introducing it in a positive, generous and elegant manner. I agree that she has raised what is arguably one of the greatest environmental issues currently facing the world.
  I shall cover as much ground as I can in very little time and respond briefly to some of the points that have been raised. We are concerned about the domestic measures to deliver our targets and reduce road traffic. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor introduced the 6 per cent. fuel price escalator, and we are currently putting through the House regulations to increase local authorities' traffic management powers for that purpose. We are also concerned about the contribution of aviation fuel to greenhouse gas emissions. The EU is in favour of an international tax and we are looking to the United States, among others, for support.
  We are certainly in favour of extending energy-saving measures. Standards of performance have been provided by the electricity regulator since 1994, but not by the gas regulator, so we shall address that. I am concerned about the reducing budget for the Energy Saving Trust, as it does an excellent job. Of course, we inherited public expenditure totals to which we are keeping, but a comprehensive spending review is being undertaken in Departments precisely to see whether we can redistribute money into key areas. I am also keen to see the development of clean coal technology.
  I warmly welcome what my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Clark) said in an amusing, enjoyable and well-informed maiden speech. I thought that I knew Gillingham and the Medway pretty well, but I have learnt a great deal more about its history from my hon. Friend. I endorse what he said and thank him for his support for our policies in respect of integrated transport, energy efficiency at home and environmental taxes. The House should have regard to what he said about the effects of greenhouse gas warming on rising sea levels, not just in Bangladesh or the Maldives, but in parts of the United Kingdom such as the Medway marshes.
  The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), in a stimulating speech, seemed to be representing the car industry or the Global Climate Coalition. She should recognise that, although, as she said, traffic emissions represent only 25 per cent. of United Kingdom CO2 emissions, CO2 emissions represent 81 per cent. of all greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, traffic emissions represent about 20 per cent. of all greenhouse gas emissions. It is a substantial figure which we cannot ignore.
  The hon. Lady raised a number of scientific points that some might consider as debunking the conventional wisdom. I understand her point about the effects of the sun and the Milankovich cycles, about the effect of El Nino, which is now more frequent and more violent and may have some connection with the effects of global warming and vulcanism, what happened at Mount Pinatubo and other factors. However, it is fair to say that the balance of evidence is strongly against her and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which comprises 2,500 scientists and experts from around
  258
  the world, believes that the evidence clearly suggests a discernible anthropogenic effect on the climate. We have to accept that and act on it.
  I thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) for his fine comments and I share nearly all his concerns. It is a little early to expect all Government Departments to have clear targets. As he said, we have been in office for only a short time. However, the White Paper that we shall issue in the spring will include energy-saving and transport-saving plans for each Department and targets that they will have to achieve. I accept his point—I am on the record as referring to it before the election—about the desirability of synchronising VAT on energy and energy-saving materials. A Customs and Excise review is under way, looking at precisely that point.
  Before I turn to the main part my speech, let me at last refer to the speech by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo). We have heard two speeches from Opposition Members which seem to be diametrically opposed. This is one of the rare occasions when I agree with the remarks of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, rather than the speech of a Back Bencher. The hon. Gentleman is quite right about superheating in Russia. Of course, it is perfectly sensible that there should be joint implementation so that Russia is able to grow using the latest technology and that it should be able to obtain credits for that. However, there must be emphasis on the restructuring of domestic economies. Flexibility and joint implementation are meant to strengthen those targets and not be a substitute for them.
  We are concerned about carbon sinks. The EU has yet to take a final decision, but the entire world has seen the fires in Indonesia and the destruction of the forests which sequestrate carbon and the increase in CO2 that forest fires produce. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that we need to be careful about how we write that into the protocol, if we do.
  On the hon. Member's important point about the EU, following Kyoto—assuming that it is a success—there will be a new burden-sharing arrangement to be agreed at the first EU Environment Council in March, when Britain will have the presidency. We shall also maintain our domestic target of a 20 per cent. reduction in emissions. Our first commitment is to achieve our legally binding commitment, as agreed at Kyoto, but, in time, we will go beyond that to achieve our own domestic target.
  The hon. Member for South Suffolk said that we had not set out the details of our policies. We have not had a great deal of time, but the delivery mechanisms will be set out in detail in our White Paper in the spring.
  We were elected on a manifesto commitment to lead the international fight against global warming. It is not fair for the hon. Gentleman to say that it is a matter of soundbites. Although we have made substantial progress already on delivering that promise, a successful outcome to Kyoto is far from assured. We shall certainly do everything within our powers. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I will be engaged in extensive international consultation involving much travelling over the next fortnight precisely to exert diplomatic pressure where we can.
  As I said, we have committed ourselves to a 20 per cent. cut in carbon dioxide emissions by 2010. The Prime Minister restated his support for action in a speech to the United Nations. I should make it clear that I believe that

  259
  the previous Administration had a good reputation on climate change. Indeed, to be fair, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North said that. I pay tribute to the previous Secretary of State. The problem was that he was not backed up by his Cabinet colleagues; he did not have the support of the rest of the Government. That is what is so different this time. The whole Government are behind our objectives.
  As others have said, global warming will not be as attractive a prospect as some may believe. Yes, there may be more long, hot summers, more alfresco dinner parties and warmer winters, as we are seeing, but the reality in future will be very different if we do nothing. There will be more rain, frequent floods, more storms, hurricanes and disasters, and diseases such as malaria will certainly reappear. Prime agricultural land will begin to disappear under the waves, and if the Gulf stream shifts, which could well happen, we could certainly face a much colder climate—perhaps more like Siberia than the south of France.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must move to the next debate.

  Oxford and Cambridge College Fees
  11 am
  Dr. Evan Harris: A story runs that only in Oxford would one hear a snatched conversation between two people walking down the street, in which one is saying to the other, "And ninthly." The House will be pleased to know that, although I have a number of points to make, I shall not tax its patience or my numeracy by matching that caricature.
  I should begin by making clear what I shall not be speaking about. I shall not be claiming that Oxford and Cambridge are the only two excellent universities. Indeed, I would mention that, in many of our leading universities, departments across a range of subjects rival and even exceed the quality found in Oxford and Cambridge. I hope that Members will not spend time this morning arguing that point, which I think has already been conceded.
  This debate allows discussion on how we can improve access to excellence in teaching and research. It does not concern privilege or elitism in any sense other than we would wish to help to produce an academic elite just as we would artistic, cultural and sporting innovators and leaders. There is no reason why the term "elite" should be one of abuse, providing that there are opportunities for all members of society with the right gifts and talents to access the means by which they may excel.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman spell out to the Government the limited range of practical steps for many colleges if the fee that the Government pay is abolished or substantially reduced and if they are not allowed to resume the charging of private fees? As he will point out, such options are stark. Colleges could close, they could scale down their activities to the level that their endowment and university-derived income provides, or they could substantially increase the number of full fee-paying overseas students. Does he agree that the Government would be well advised to cut out egalitarian dogma and focus on practical implications?
  Dr. Harris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Although I shall not necessarily imply that I believe that that is what the Government are doing, I shall turn to some of the options for universities if they are faced with a cut in income of any kind, specifically the potential cut in college-fee income. Access is at the heart of the debate, and I shall return to it later.
  The current review is being conducted because the Dearing report said that any funding differentials between different educational establishments should be reviewed with a view to maintaining higher levels of investment only if there is an improved difference in provision and if the state, through the Department for Education and Employment, decides that it is a good use of resources. The review is therefore welcome because it is an opportunity for Oxford and Cambridge universities to justify their additional funding.
  It is right, as Lord Plant said last week in another place, that any differential funding by the state be the subject of proper scrutiny. It must be publicly justified and periodically reviewed. The review provides an opportunity to show value for money and to re-energise universities' efforts to expand access.

  261
  We must remember that the Government and parliamentarians share an interest in ensuring that nothing said here will deter state-school applicants of appropriate merit from applying to Oxford and Cambridge universities. There is a great problem with image; it is an outdated one which portrays them as caricatures and as stereotypes in the media. We must ensure that any comments that we make today can be used by people who wish to see the excellence offered at Oxford and Cambridge and other universities open to state-school applicants.
  Today's debate, and the review which prompted my request for House of Commons' time to discuss it, provides a valuable opportunity to debunk the Oxbridge myths. I was educated in a Liverpool state school and trained in medicine at Oxford university so that I could go on to a career in public service—the health service initially. I am therefore anxious to eliminate the myth of Brideshead-style privilege. Broadening access and encouraging the most able from all backgrounds to apply and undergo the, albeit rigorous, selection procedures is a job for the two universities, in co-operation with the Government.
  Some people will always be attracted to Oxbridge for what we might call the wrong reasons, but I am concerned with the substance rather than the fluff of what it produces. We must deprecate the fact that the press do not publish pictures of people in formal academic dress at other universities which have the same or similar ceremonies to those at Oxford and Cambridge and approximately the same number of annual occasions. I want to move away from the associated image of gilded youth and dreaming spires.
  The Government are right to be taking advice and seeking information from various sources, including the Higher Education Funding Council for England, which has been asked to give a view. We should, however, remember that the funding council has a relatively narrow remit to look only at funding issues, and then only within its terms of operation, which is generally to even out funding. The Government must not allow any reduction in funding to be implemented without proper consideration of Oxbridge's place and role in what the Prime Minister likes to call "the big picture".
  Our secondary education system is severely damaged. The state sector achieves relatively poor results compared with private and grammar schools. People have made great play of the apparent wider access to universities in former days, but that was of course before the huge expansion in private secondary school education over past decades, when grammar schools moved into the private sector.
  We have also seen a huge expansion in the number of assisted places. The figures that Oxbridge collects—the only universities to publish them—will include people who, in the 1960s, would have attended state grammar schools and who come from all backgrounds, especially lower socio-economic groups. We must remember that, until recently, such people did not progress through assisted places.
  Problems with access—the ratio of state to privately educated students at Oxford and Cambridge is approximately 50:50—together with the British tendency
  262
  to associate the word "elite" with class privilege, has skewed our perceptions of excellence in higher education. The French have no problem with the concept of an elite, and pour far more money than we do into students who attend the top higher education institutions—the grandes ecoles. Since the French have a totally egalitarian state secondary school system that works, their elite is meritocratic. We need to move more quickly toward that ideal, as I am sure the Government would agree, by broadening access to the best institutions and not by homogenising or levelling down.
  The Government have spoken of their commitment to excellence in, for example, their intention to create centres of excellence and special training facilities for tomorrow's sporting heroes. I hope that they can work with Oxford and Cambridge to ensure that those two training grounds for exceptional academic ability continue to lead the world and draw on all British talents.
  Oxford and Cambridge are world-class institutions, in the top 10 on any measure of merit, and unique in Europe for being able to compete with and match the standards of the great American universities in both teaching and research across a broad subject range. Alone in Europe, Oxford and Cambridge can compete with Harvard, MIT, Columbia, Yale, Princeton, Chicago and California. Penicillin was discovered in an Oxford laboratory and DNA in a Cambridge physics department. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) is present, and look forward to her contribution to the debate.
  Through their work, the universities indirectly contribute to the standing of this country in arts and science, and of course to the work of other universities in cross-fertilisation of ideas and personnel. Of the university professors listed in "Who's Who", a majority have been through Oxford or Cambridge—especially for an early part of their research career.
  The extra college fee income must be seen to be used to maintain quality, not for other purposes. That extra fee income is used by Oxford and Cambridge to provide a unique teaching system and extensive research capabilities, all in the context of a collegiate structure.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the extra resources would be more acceptable if the price extracted for them was wider availability for ordinary bright children to go to Oxford and Cambridge?
  Dr. Harris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, which I shall deal with later. It is at the nub of the argument. The fee will not be perceived as value for money unless it is used to provide wider access to Oxford and Cambridge for all socio-economic groups than applies at present. The funding is used to deliver excellence and quality in the collegiate system. I do not claim that one-to-one tutorials are the norm or the only way of teaching, but the collegiate structure and the community of learning make those places different and contribute to the excellence that is provided.
  Dearing specified that there should be diversity in Britain's higher education. Oxbridge offers unique features that must not be sacrificed on the altar of a fallacious definition of equality. The Dearing report says:
  "We do not believe that students in the future will see themselves simply as customers of higher education but as members of a learning community."

  263
  Oxbridge has cross-subject communities. That experience should be held up as an ideal. Those who sit on the Labour Benches in another place have said that, from teaching in other universities and consulting universities abroad, they have found that Oxford and Cambridge are a model on which many institutions abroad base their teaching methods.
  College-based university life provides unique opportunities to interface between disciplines, which leads to unusual and exceptional achievements. The discovery of DNA was a biology problem solved in the physics department at Cambridge. If Britain loses a precious asset such as Cambridge science—there is great fear and danger that, should the fee be reduced—Microsoft's recent valuable inward investment package may not be repeated. Indeed, the standing of British universities may never recover.
  It is not strictly correct to say that the argument is about undergraduate teaching alone. Lord Plant, from the Labour Benches in another place, has said that research in Oxford and Cambridge is embedded in a collegiate structure which is bound to be more expensive and will not survive if college fees disappear. Colleges fund research fellowships, junior research fellowships, graduate studentships and graduate scholarships from their income.
  The college system is not the only way to achieve that or a template that all must follow, but where it exists there are additional benefits that compensate for additional costs. The Oxford and Cambridge college system is a fact of life that cannot be uninvented, even if it is a model that other universities would prefer not to, or could not afford to, follow.
  The £35 million that goes to Oxbridge in college fees gives good value for money, helping to maintain those pre-eminent institutions and their teaching and research strengths. The money does not come from the HEFCE pool, so it is not taken directly from other universities. It is a separate item in the budget of the Department for Education and Employment, used to compensate local education authorities for paying the fees that students used to pay. The HEFCE general budget gets a clawback.
  There is a danger that, if the fee were reduced, the Government would not automatically allocate the money to other universities without taking a decision to do so. While I join the Government in lamenting the drop in unit resource in universities over the years and I recognise that there is chronic underfunding in the higher education system, I do not think that they would argue that such a simplistic measure would solve all the problems facing higher education.
  It is sad that so much is said about funding that is deleterious, looking at what some colleges have and saying that they should not have it simply because other universities do not. Some have said in another place that it would be no bad thing if Oxford and Cambridge colleges were to close. Such comments are unwelcome in this debate.
  Academic salaries in Oxford are as low as those anywhere else in the sector. Without the senior lecturer grade that exists in other universities, many age equivalents are less well remunerated. It is sad that hon. Members may have to be reminded that college members pay from their salary for any wine that is supposedly consumed in large quantities in the colleges. I hope that we shall hear no more such nonsense and stereotypes.
  264
  There is no pot of gold on which colleges can draw to keep afloat. They cannot compensate for the withdrawal of college fees by selling their assets, as recent press coverage has suggested. Some colleges have valuable assets, but every penny earned from those assets, endowments and funds is spent on teaching research and the upkeep of libraries, laboratories and college buildings, often of great heritage value.
  Christ Church in Oxford is not poor, but it funds, among other things, 16 junior research fellowships and looks after the 12th-century cathedral for the city and the nation with part of its income. The Cambridge equivalent is the King's college chapel.
  Those who suggest that such colleges should sell what they have fail to distinguish between capital and revenue. By the standards of American universities, which have far larger endowments, Oxbridge is positively reckless in taking earnings of 4.6 per cent. from its investments and assets to complement the funding that it receives from the public purse. What is more, the decision in the July Budget to abolish tax relief from dividends will reduce income by about 10 per cent. I make no comment about the appropriateness of that decision.
  If assets are sold, there will not be the income to match—indeed, more than match—the public subsidy. The situation is a superb example of a public-private partnership. The colleges, which are private institutions, more than match, for the same purposes, the funding provided by the state in the college fee.
  Dr. Brian Iddon: In arguing for the preservation of the elitism of Oxbridge, I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that we should improve access by developing an egalitarian state school system. Is he advocating the abolition of the public school system?
  Dr. Harris: I am asking that we improve standards in the state sector—a policy that I believe the Government to be committed to. We have supported moving the subsidy previously used for assisted places to the state sector. That will allow higher quality from the state sector. The current lack of applications from good state sector candidates, for reasons that I have already mentioned, is the biggest problem in our attempts to ensure a better ratio of state to private and overseas students.
  Mr. Phil Willis: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the crux of the issue? Unless targets for admissions from the state sector are set for Oxford and Cambridge, it is unlikely that anything will change. Does he agree that part of the package to justify the extra £35 million must be positive steps on that and agreed targets to redress the balance?
  Dr. Harris: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. That is why the universities welcome the Government's initiative in seeking the review. Many proposals have been put forward to expand further the work done on access from the state sector to those two universities.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: That is all well and good, but will the hon. Gentleman remind the House that a substantial proportion of A-levels go to pupils from independent schools? As long as Oxford and Cambridge are seeking to attract the brightest and ablest students,

  265
  which must be part of their mission, it is inevitable that they will choose from the pool of people with A-levels. Regrettably, the performance of the state sector is such that a high proportion of A-levels go to children from independent schools.
  Dr. Harris: I am afraid that I must disagree. There are clever people in all sectors of education, but we do not get a sufficient number of applications from the state sector. A-level results are not necessarily the best way of judging whether people are bright.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that Oxbridge merely accepts the students who are best prepared, not necessarily the brightest students; and that that is why so many of them are from the public school sector?
  Dr. Harris: Yes, but recent changes in Oxbridge admission procedures have attempted to tackle that. Certainly Oxford—and I think Cambridge too—interviews far more people for each place than does any other university, so as to ensure that what appears on paper, perhaps reflecting good preparation, does not disguise people's ability or rule out those with great potential from the state sector. Often ability will emerge better in an interview—but more remains to be done.
  Removing college fees will inevitably damage access, either because colleges will have to reintroduce charges to the student that are no longer made up for by LEAs, or because colleges will have to put up room and board costs, or because they will have to admit a greater number of paying—and hence wealthier—overseas students. The universities do not want to start charging students fees which the Government currently pay, but that is the next alternative open to them as independent institutions.
  If the Government want to prevent the Oxbridge colleges from taking this step under the duress of the removal of the fee money by the DFEE, that will involve complex and time-consuming hybrid legislation. As the Bishop of Oxford said in another place, it would be sad if, as a result of Government legislation, Oxford and Cambridge became a club for the relatively well-off, with all that that would imply for future jobs and careers and the accentuation of a worse kind of elitism.
  Of course Oxbridge has always charged college fees. Until 1962, scholarship students there had their fees paid by the state, but all others paid the extra money. But then legislation passed on the costs to the LEAs for all UK undergraduates. The LEAs were then able to recoup the costs from the Treasury. If the Government remove funding for the college fee system, the colleges will have to find students who can afford to pay the fees themselves, and that in turn will further damage access. Indeed, the effect would be the very opposite of what the proposal is intended to achieve.
  Mr. David Heath: Does my hon. Friend share my great concern that, if the Government persist with their wrong-headed decision to introduce tuition fees, not only will such fees increase across the board in time but differentials will open up between various places of learning? In the end, Oxbridge
  266
  and the medical and veterinary colleges will be completely out of reach of ordinary people and will turn into truly elite institutions—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. May I remind the House yet again that this is a very short debate? A number of those who have intervened are also, I believe, seeking to catch my eye later; they should hear in mind that their interventions take time away from their own speeches.
  Dr. Harris: There is certainly great concern that up-front fees—or up-front debts—may deter people from higher education and from taking less well remunerated jobs in the public sector. The Government are grappling with such difficulties, but I will not dwell on the subject today. Suffice it to say that we all deprecate additional up-front fees, even with means testing administered by colleges, as the worst of all worlds.
  Critics of Oxbridge call for modernisation. There is a great deal of room for improvement in the crucial area of access; but people must realise that removing the college fee would achieve the opposite of what they want. If colleges cannot charge their students for the fee, the first ones to go bankrupt or to go private will be the newer, poorer colleges, many of which are women's colleges—the only remaining state women's colleges in Britain. Surely the continuation of such arrangements would be in line with the spirit of Dearing, which requires the fostering of diversity.
  The women's colleges and the more recently founded colleges do not possess land or inherited wealth, and have far smaller endowments and fewer assets. A good example would be Somerville college in Oxford, where the college fee money provides one third of the college's total income. It is spent entirely on academic stipends.
  Removing some or all of the fee will have serious consequences for jobs and the local economies of both cities, with redundancies and associated costs in academic, administration and ancillary posts. Such action would contribute to the brain drain. Talented British academics would leave for postings overseas, especially in the USA. The loss of the fee would also undermine the general economic health of the two cities. Oxford University employs 10,500 people, of whom 3,000 are college non-academic staff. That is to say nothing of those employed by the companies and institutions that flock to these cities to be close to the universities.
  Colleges maintain their historic buildings and collections without heritage grants. The Bodleian library has just had its application for a restoration project rejected by those who make the decisions on lottery awards. This investment by the universities in heritage feeds into the lucrative year-round tourist trade, which also generates jobs. In this sense Oxford and Cambridge are industrial cities whose main industry is education, based in and around the universities. Damaging those universities would threaten the economic well-being of a large part of the population.
  The Liberal Democrats will support Government moves to provide high-quality mass education and to support our existing centres of excellence, with open admission procedures based on merit and talent. I hope that some of my arguments this morning, especially those about the need to improve broad access, have demonstrated

  267
  the place held by Oxford and Cambridge in this vision. I further hope that Members who enjoyed and benefited from an Oxbridge education after leaving state schools, as I did, will not adopt a drawbridge mentality. We must be keen to maximise opportunity for those who come after us; we must retain the college fee coupled with a requirement to improve access and to show value for money.
  I close with a statement by Lord Winston, who said that he joined the Labour party because he believed in a fair society, but, he said, a fair society does not mean that people are equal in every respect. We are talking about truly outstanding institutions which are models of university education not merely in this country but throughout the world. Academic institutions throughout Britain are extremely fragile. We might damage something which in turn could damage our national economy.
  These universities are brand leaders in British higher education. If they fall, the reputation of British higher education will be damaged. I hope that the Minister's response today will be as constructive as the spirit in which I have attempted to deal with these difficult issues.
  11.26 am
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: I thank the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) for raising this issue and congratulate him on gaining the time in which to do so.
  I am proud to represent a university that has contributed so much success to academic endeavour and excellence. Most of us are proud to live in a country that can still achieve world firsts—a country renowned for its contributions to science and technology as well as the arts and humanities. We should celebrate our nation's success: it increases our self-confidence and self-esteem, and it leads us to greater achievements in the future.
  One thinks of some of the people who studied at Cambridge—Isaac Newton, Watson and Crick, Rutherford and J. J. Thompson. They all achieved their remarkable success at Cambridge university. Cambridge has also shaped the arts and humanities by giving us people such as F. R. Leavis, Rupert Brooke, Ted Hughes, Maynard Keynes, Wittgenstein, Joan Robinson and Ian McKellen.
  The briefing prepared by Cambridge for Members of Parliament stated that Cambridge had won 68 Nobel prizes, but since that briefing was prepared Cambridge has won another one for molecular biology. That is surely a record to be proud of.
  Oxbridge's contribution to our economy is difficult to assess, although needless to say it is pervasive. Among its better known graduates are the Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers, many Members of Parliament, including me, captains of industry, senior civil servants, professional people, actors, journalists and many others—all of them sport a Cambridge or Oxford MA after their names.
  The contribution to the local economy is much easier to measure. About 30,000 people are employed in 1,000 technology-based firms in and around Cambridge, in my constituency and that of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). Most of those companies say that the university is one of the main reasons for locating in the area or that it is the basis for their existence.
  268
  A wide range of expertise is represented, from telecommunications, in firms such as lonica and Cambridge Cable; biotechnology, in firms such as Amgen, Cantab Pharmaceuticals and Peptide Therapeutics; information services, in firms such as Analysis and UUnet; computer hardware and software, in firms such as Olivetti and Xemplar, and now Microsoft, and industrial consultancy, in firms such as Cambridge Consultants and Scientific Generics. Those firms are known not just nationally but internationally as excellent in their fields.
  Those companies also generate huge revenues for the Exchequer. One argument that I have heard made is that the college fee should be increased because the payback on the investment is so enormous that it justifies the initial investment. I hope that my hon. Friends will agree that we should do nothing that will damage the excellence of those institutions and the national benefits which accrue from them.
  That is not to argue for the status quo. It is right that Oxbridge colleges should account for the ways in which their public subsidies are spent and justify them. When every other item of expenditure is being closely examined, it would be wrong to regard Oxbridge as untouchable. Few would argue that the system could not be more efficient or effective. We have a new Government who value achievement and who set out a clear agenda for higher education in their pre-election document, "Lifelong Learning". Equal access to higher education is an important principle, on which the Labour party fought the election and which was overwhelmingly endorsed by the population.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said that at the moment the system is not egalitarian. More than half the students at Oxbridge are recruited from the independent sector, which represents only 9 per cent. of the school population. For those who wish to preserve the excellence which is Oxbridge, that makes the college fee hard to defend. It means that the subsidy goes to those who have been best prepared rather than those who are the brightest and have the most ability. Although many state schools prepare students well for higher education, after 18 years of Tory mismanagement of our education system, many do not.
  Mr. John Burnett: Do not Oxford and Cambridge go to a great deal of trouble in their interview process to discover not just the academic qualifications of individual candidates, but their inherent intelligence? Do they not bend over backwards in that endeavour?
  Mrs. Campbell: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is implying that, because the admission of students from the independent sector is more than 50 per cent. at Oxford and Cambridge, it means that students who go to the state sector are less intelligent than those who go to the independent sector, but that argument does not hold up. Oxbridge cannot make up for the defects of our state school system, but it can suit well those bright students who have underdeveloped potential. Some colleges in Cambridge have led the way—Churchill, Fitzwilliam and King's, which now admit 75 per cent. of their intake from the state sector. Those are examples which can be copied and from which we can learn.

  269
  I want to quote the example of one of my constituents who went to Cambridge from a less than privileged background. He described to me how he had been admitted to Fitzwilliam college with qualifications gained through part-time study at a technical college some 30 years ago. That was obviously an enlightened admissions tutor. He had qualifications well below the average standard of undergraduate entry. Through the efforts of his college supervisor, he quickly made up lost ground and went on to play a major role in the development of the scanning electron microscope.
  Such instruments are now to be found in research laboratories throughout the world and have helped to create hundreds of thousands of jobs at Leo Electron Optics, formerly Leica, in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. In addition, he started a small science park company. That shows that there has been a worthwhile return on the investment in his education, which has created so many jobs and has been of so much value to the country.
  It has been said that Oxford and Cambridge do try to admit students from the state sector, but they should try harder. I was pleased to see Cambridge university's recent statement on the steps that it is taking to do just that. The recently announced target of 65 per cent. of students from the state sector is not just empty rhetoric. The proposals include a high-powered task force and a public relations campaign to encourage more clever students in state schools to consider applying; the group to encourage ethnic minority applicants will also continue, and the internal admissions procedure will be simplified and sharpened.
  While I am on the subject, I want to say a little more about the excellent initiative—the target schools scheme—which I think operates in Oxford and Cambridge. It is run in Cambridge by the Cambridge university students' union. The reason I am so knowledgeable about it is that one of the people who ran the scheme, Alex King, is my researcher in the House this year. He and a number of other people organised the scheme successfully in Cambridge. Each school with a sixth form and each sixth-form college receives a 16-page prospectus aimed at state schools, and the offer of a visit from a student to encourage others to apply.
  I was alarmed that last year the student union had to dip into its own resources to find £350 for a computer disk with updated information on the names of schools, head teachers and so on. I should be glad if my hon. Friend the Minister would investigate whether such information could be provided free in future by the Department for Education and Employment. It is a worthwhile cause, and students should not have to dip into their own pockets to pay for it.
  I understand that there are plans to strengthen the target schools scheme and I heartily applaud those efforts. We should heartily approve of students who are prepared to give up their own time and resources in order to participate.
  Mr. Willis: I am interested in many of the hon. Lady's remarks, but is not one of the barriers to greater access the gold standard of A-levels? Does she agree that, until we have a different qualification structure for 14 to
  270
  19-year-olds which is more egalitarian, we will never achieve the sort of targets that she and I, and my hon. Friends, would like to see?
  Mrs. Campbell: There is a case for widening the qualifications for 16 to 19-year-olds. That is something that the Labour party has been in favour of in the past. There is a misconception in many universities, and probably in Oxbridge as well, about other qualifications, such as vocational qualifications, and their intellectual value as a preparation for a degree.
  In addition to all the steps that I have mentioned, Cambridge is developing further its provision for mature students. It is extending a scheme for undergraduates with low financial resources, appointing an access officer and an access task force and it is making access and admissions information available on the university website and colleges are making direct contact with teachers in more state secondary schools. A great deal is being done and I look forward to seeing the success of that in the months and years to come.
  The Government are keen to promote lifelong learning, something of which I wholeheartedly approve. It is perhaps less well known that Cambridge university was a pioneer of adult and continuing education in the last century. That has continued through to this day. Currently, 15,000 students benefit from the adult programmes at Cambridge university. Professional and vocational development programmes are offered to a wide range of practitioners, including doctors, teachers and the police.
  I want to touch briefly on the recently published college accounts, about which there has been a great deal in some of the Sunday papers, which show that a few colleges are particularly wealthy. Trinity is one of those that has managed its assets well, and it now has an income of around £19 million a year. It has been argued that, if redistributed, the Trinity income alone could make up the loss of the college fee. However, it is worth asking where Trinity's funds currently go and what areas would lose out if they were to be redistributed.
  In addition to undergraduates, Trinity, in common with all the other colleges, has a high proportion of postgraduates and research fellows, who are funded from the college's private endowments. Trinity college also makes funds available for research—for instance, at the Newton Mathematical Institute, which scored a magnificent success when a young researcher, Andrew Wiles, discovered the proof for Fermat's last theorem. That problem had confounded mathematicians all over the world for 300 years. We should all take delight in such success, celebrate it and try to ensure that it continues.
  I would guess that in the Chamber today are sceptics who believe that the £35 million could be better spent elsewhere, and I do not doubt that there is room for change. Corresponding changes in the government and structure of the university could create a better institution than the one we have at present. It does not seem sensible that the colleges and the university are funded separately from the public purse. A funding system whereby the money went directly to the university to be distributed to the colleges would lead to more efficient management of the system.
  I urge the university to listen to student pleas for a more centralised welfare system. The stresses on students in a demanding hothouse atmosphere are excessive and cause

  271
  great suffering. It is time to take a more professional approach than that offered by an untrained academic acting as a tutor. I know that colleges subscribe to the university counselling service, but that is available only when students are already experiencing serious problems. Young people who are living away from home, often for the first time, require advice and guidance from professionals; they should not have to rely solely on someone who will write their references at the end of their course. Pooling resources to provide a comprehensive student welfare service, as exists in many other universities, would be beneficial.
  There are those of us who regard the current review as being as much an opportunity as a threat. A review of the system will lead to improvements, regardless of the outcome of the funding review, but we should consider what would be the outcome if the college fee were to be removed completely.
  Colleges would certainly react by taking in more foreign students, who would pay the sort of fees currently charged by universities in the United States. That would have knock-on effects in terms of limiting opportunities for home-grown students. Colleges might also be tempted to increase their income by charging top-up fees to home students. I am heartened by the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that he would make great efforts to prevent universities and colleges from adopting that course. It would be difficult to prevent them from doing so, because they are private institutions, but no doubt ways will be found.
  The consequence of such actions would not be that desired by many of my colleagues. The university would become more exclusive: there would be no incentive for colleges to take more students from poorer backgrounds and the recent gains in the percentage of state-school pupils admitted would be reversed. Oxbridge would, once again, become the exclusive home of privilege and wealth. I want everyone to be able to gain from the excellence available at Oxbridge. Bright students everywhere should be able compete for places without the fear that Oxbridge is not for them or that there is a bar to their entry. That is what the colleges want, too, and I hope that the Government will help them to achieve their aim.
  11.43 am
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am especially pleased to be called in the debate and to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), who made several remarks with which I agree, so I shall not delay the House by repeating them. I am grateful, as are we all, to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) for having sought this timely and important debate.
  As Member of Parliament for South Cambridgeshire, I represent two Cambridge colleges—the lesser part of Cambridge university, but the part containing the Institute of Molecular Biology; I am happy to say that, just a few weeks ago, my constituency acquired another Nobel prize winner.
  I am not a graduate of either Oxford or Cambridge, although some say I would have benefited from being so. Nevertheless, that does not disqualify me from saying that I entirely concur with the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon that we are not talking about two centres of excellence to the exclusion of other universities. There
  272
  is much excellence to be found in Britain's higher education sector, and to say that Oxford and Cambridge occupy a special position is not to denigrate the achievements of other universities.
  Oxford and Cambridge occupy a special position not only in our own education system but in the world education structure. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon was right to say that they are unique within Europe and that they have a capacity to compete directly with the major United States universities. If the higher education structure in this country did not exist, the United States universities would acquire an international monopoly as centres of excellence. That would be a monopoly to be strongly deplored.
  I shall restrict myself to making one or two points. First, much of the debate has been about access and admissions to Oxford and Cambridge. The hon. Member for Cambridge amply testified to Cambridge university's intention to increase further the number of students taken from state schools.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: I declare an interest in that I was educated at Oxford. I am sorry that there is such a strong Oxbridge flavour to the debate this morning and I hope that hon. Members representing other parts of the country will be called to contribute later. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that, when I was at Oxford in the 1960s, the ratio was about 50 per cent. private school students: 50 per cent. state system students, and that that has not changed at all over the past 30 years? The promises we keep hearing from Oxbridge ring hollow.
  Mr. Lansley: The speech of the hon. Member for Cambridge gave ample testimony to the great efforts made by Oxford and Cambridge in that respect. The figures tend to mislead.
  Mr. Howard Flight: A-levels.
  Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend makes the point about A-levels: in so far as A-levels are a measure, it is clear that Oxford and Cambridge are being presented with many highly successful A-level students from the independent sector, but they are not restricting their efforts to attracting such students. Through the target schools scheme, many colleges are making every effort to interview applicants from the state sector in a way that identifies potential rather than simply assessing performance at A-level.
  Mr. Flight: Is my hon. Friend aware that a significant proportion of Oxbridge students from independent schools went to those schools via the assisted places scheme, a fact which distorts the comparison? In addition, a number of schools that were in the state sector 30 years ago have since moved into the private sector.
  Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I do not wish to debate the assisted places scheme again, but its existence has meant that the proportion of students coming to Oxford and Cambridge from the independent sector is by no means an expression of elitism, since such students may well have come from low-income households and used the assisted places route to secondary education.

  273
  I run the risk of falling into the trap against which I wish to argue, which is construing the review as being essentially about access and admissions. It is not. The review is fundamentally about value for money and the use of the resources deployed through the collegiate system in the universities of Oxford and Cambridge to achieve excellence. If, as I hope, access is improved and admissions from state schools are increased, students will not wish to be admitted to a university whose standards have not been maintained and whose methods of teaching are no longer those that once sustained those standards on an international scale.
  We have to look at the use of money and resources, and on that point the arguments are clear. We are talking about one third of 1 per cent. of total expenditure on higher education—perhaps one thousandth part of spending on education in this country, but it is a one thousandth part that has a powerful influence throughout the system. Excellence breeds excellence, not only within higher education, but within the education system as a whole. The collegiate system is not simply about tutorial groups and teaching: it is integral to the research output of Oxford and Cambridge.
  The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon made it clear that 70 per cent. of United Kingdom university professors pass through Oxford or Cambridge at some time during their academic career, so there is a spread of that excellence throughout the education system. The idea that we can have some sort of Marmite strategy and take the—
  Dr. Ian Gibson: Can the hon. Gentleman give me an example of a piece of excellent research that developed solely because of the collegiate system, as opposed to research such as that on DNA, which was developed in a Medical Research Council laboratory that just happened to be sited in Cambridge?
  Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not attempt to give examples. I am aware that, in Cambridge generally, the ability within the multi-faculty universities and the collegiate system to relate one discipline to another has led to a cross-fertilisation of great importance.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: My hon. Friend might like to refer the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) to Trinity College, Cambridge. Over 100 years of the Nobel prize, that one college has won more prizes than France.
  Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There are many examples of excellence within both universities. As I have said, I am not denying the presence of excellence in other universities. There are universities where two thirds to three quarters of research departments are achieving five-star ranking. There is no lack of excellence in other universities, but we must recognize—it is a matter of perception as well as reality—that, throughout the world, there is a recognition of what Oxford and Cambridge are achieving.
  We need to look at the two Dearing criteria. I am sure that hon. Members understand and accept the need for a review of the college fees system and I am sure that the
  274
  two criteria of good value for money and good use of resources are perfectly acceptable. On those two criteria there will be no difficulty sustaining the college fees system, because it does represent good value for money and is a good use of resources.
  It is good for the universities in terms of what they achieve with the students who attend them. It is good for the higher education system because Oxford and Cambridge are feeding excellence and success elsewhere within higher education. It is a good use of resources in terms of our economic benefit. The hon. Member for Cambridge accurately referred to the impact on local economies, but we could look at the impact on the United Kingdom economy as a whole.
  I used to be a recruiter of graduates in a highly competitive environment. I was only too well aware of the aptitude and skills of those Oxford and Cambridge graduates. I am sure that that was due in no small part to the fact that they were not just graduates in a particular discipline, but had an awareness of other disciplines through the collegiate system. The combination of a residential collegiate system and a tutorial system is important, and it has had substantial benefits in our higher education system. It is important to sustain it.
  11.52 am
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: I am not a representative of either an Oxford or a Cambridge constituency, but I have an interest in the debate because I am a governor of the London School of Economics and I have a daughter at Jesus College, Cambridge and a daughter who has attended Pembroke College.
  There needs to be a breath of fresh air in a debate that recognises that there is a real crisis in higher education. That crisis has been caused by chronic underfunding over 18 years under the previous Government. Pay in the higher education sector is appalling. I do not believe the argument about the brain drain, but I do believe that some people with excellent qualifications do not want to stay on in higher education because they can slip into the City or into occupations that pay two or three times more than professorial salaries within just a short time.
  There is a crisis with our elite institutions. I believe that we will always have elite institutions in higher education and that we must have world-class institutions. However, I do not think that Oxford and Cambridge are quite as good as they think they are. If they measure themselves against the best in the United States, they will see that they have been falling behind for a long time. They need to buck up their ideas about how they organise themselves and how they attract high-quality researchers and students. They need to do that using all the talents in our country.
  As I said, 1 am a governor of the LSE. We have real problems there. As a result of the cuts over the past 18 years, more than 50 per cent. of our students now come from overseas. More people come to the LSE from the public school sector than many Oxford and Cambridge colleges. That is happening increasingly in a group of elite universities and colleges across the country. It is a real

  275
  crisis. We must decide that we need to have some world-class institutions and then provide the funds for them.
  Mr. Lansley rose—:
  Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman has had his chance.
  I am willing to see extra resources flowing to Oxford and Cambridge if we get something for it. I do not believe that, over the years that they have had that extra funding, we have seen enough of an effort to change the way in which they recruit talented students. I have been talking to some of the people involved in recruitment in the colleges. They were talking about the 50:50 split which, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams) said, has not changed for a long time.
  The recruiters would say that we should look more closely at what parts of the state sector the students come from; it is not the average comprehensive such as those in my constituency but an exclusive group of schools in the state sector. I believe that, because of the cosy arrangements that Oxford and Cambridge colleges have with specific schools in both the state and the private sector, many talented young people are losing out. Many of them are just as able as those already at Oxford or Cambridge.
  We talk about public schools having good results, but I am afraid that the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) has lost the argument here. I often agree with the hon. Gentleman about education, but he is losing it on this one. An examination of where the children are coming from reveals that talented children are not getting sufficient opportunities. We need to spread their abilities. Rather than stimulating talent, enterprise and so on, I believe that Oxford and Cambridge are stifling them. They stifle the talent of people coming from other institutions. We need to open up Oxford and Cambridge and the other universities to talent. That is a real challenge.
  We must make sure that we fund higher education properly and that we have a proper strategy. I do not think that that is contained in Dearing. The House must debate this issue far more widely otherwise our higher education institutions—Oxford, Cambridge, the LSE and many others—will have a dismal future. I am sure that our Government and our Minister will have some of the answers today.
  11.57 am
  Mr. Howard Flight: I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on calling for the debate. I remind the House that it is specifically about whether Oxbridge meets the requirements under the definition of approved difference for a relatively modest sum of £35 million of additional funding.
  I have talked to many of my contacts in America, India and Europe and they ask whether this country has gone mad. They cannot understand the wish to attack our two leading academic institutions. We have heard evidence from many hon. Members of the contribution made by those universities, which includes 69 Nobel prizes. I would have thought that Microsoft arriving at
  276
  Cambridge is just the latest recognition of what has been achieved. We know what the economic impact is, and the tourist impact.
  We are talking about two traditional institutions of excellence. To threaten them with severe damage and the eventual prospect of going independent for the sake of £35 million would be an act of levelling madness.
  In the case of Cambridge, it is argued that the colleges have their own endowment income. What would be the impact of the proposed reduction in college funding? Of a total endowment income of about £65 million, one third relates to one college, Trinity; another third relates to five colleges only; and the final third covers a spread of 23 colleges. Those 23 colleges could not exist, as they are without the college funding that they receive.
  Colleges exist, first, to provide tutorial instruction. Their second great asset is that they provide homes and finance for research fellows. If the £35 million is lost, there may be some scope for sharing funding, but 23 Cambridge colleges—the overwhelming majority—will be forced to change their arrangements.
  Unless this country becomes Stalinist, it will not be possible for the Government to prevent the universities from rendering additional charges. I am advised that the European courts would take the view that the Government would not be permitted to restrict them under European Union law.
  By contemplating a reduction in funding, we have foolishly raised the possibility of Oxford and Cambridge considering going independent. Those universities have been Labour supporters; now they feel that they have been stabbed in the back. They have attempted to broaden admissions—
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there should be no review of the college fee?
  Mr. Flight: The colleges' income can certainly be reviewed, but in terms of hard finance, the sum of £1,700 per pupil is required by the collegiate system to function as it does at present. At Cambridge—and the situation is not much different at Oxford—23 colleges would have to change their structure enormously if that source of income were lost.
  I do not believe that the Government, who have presented themselves to the nation as sensible, moderate and reasonable, seriously wish to destroy the academic excellence of Oxford and Cambridge, which is the envy of the world, and is a great maker of our relationships and contacts and a generator of business around the world—there are, for example, 3,000 Indian members of Cambridge throughout the world.
  I do not believe that the Government want to propel those two institutions down a path that may mean that they ultimately become entirely independent, like Harvard. It would be an act of madness, and undesirable. For the reasons outlined by other hon. Members, I am sure that the Government will change their mind. Under the approved difference definition, there is no reason for restricting the level of finance at those institutions.
  12.3 pm
  Dr. Brian Iddon: I came to the debate merely to listen, and totally unprepared to make a contribution, but I feel that there must be a balance in the debate on behalf of the scores of other universities, one of which I worked at.

  277
  I must declare an interest. I was not educated at either Oxford or Cambridge. My degrees were obtained from the university of Hull, but I have worked in a collegiate university, Durham, so I know something about the collegiate system; I have examined and lectured at both Oxford and Cambridge, and visited many other universities throughout the country in my career in the university system.
  When Oxbridge is under attack—boy, how it can react, and throughout the entire establishment. It plants people in the very House that makes all the important decisions. That is what the debate has been about this morning.
  The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) seems to be confused about the difference between excellence and privilege. I challenged him to tell me whether, in arguing for an egalitarian state system, he could identify with the abolition of the public school system, but all that he could talk about was assisted places. In entering this debate on the record, he has been fighting to protect the privilege of two outstanding universities.
  Dr. Harris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to answer that. Does he agree that it is not the fault of Oxford and Cambridge that we have had a Conservative Government underfunding higher education for 18 years, damaging the state secondary sector for 18 years and bringing about a situation where a greater proportion of applicants to Oxford and Cambridge come from the private sector, which has been expanded? That is not the fault of Oxford and Cambridge. I invite the hon. Gentleman to agree with me that efforts must be made to improve access, but that must be done through putting resources into the state sector, and scrapping assisted places, so that applicants come through the state sector. I agree with him on that.
  Dr. Iddon: Yes, I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but there are other ways of improving access to those two universities. Protecting the public school system is not the way to do it. As has been said, the public school system is well prepared to get its pupils into both those universities. Some schools in the state sector have learnt how to do it, but the vast majority of schools in the state sector are not prepared, as those institutions have been prepared in the past, to get their pupils into the Oxbridge system.
  It is amazing to hear the Conservatives arguing for the continuation of the privileges of the Oxbridge system. I agree with the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon that the previous Government did more damage to the university system than any preceding Government could even have contemplated doing.
  For 33 years I have been teaching at the university of Salford. In the early 1980s we received a letter in July of a given year announcing a 46 per cent. cut in the funding of Salford university, which was doing excellent work in science and technology. That cut was for a single year. The cuts that Oxford and Cambridge experienced in that year were trivial by comparison, and I mean trivial. The effects of cuts in the funding of Oxford and Cambridge and the other elite universities have been trivial by comparison with the effects of the cuts imposed on universities such as Aston, Bradford, Salford and scores of others.
  278
  I accept that the previous Government damaged the university system immensely. The present Government will find it extremely difficult to get back to where we were in 1979, when those cuts started.
  I refer to the teaching at Oxford and Cambridge through the collegiate system and the excellent tutorial system. I know what goes on in those tutorials: small groups of students—five or six—face to face with an excellent teacher is an excellent method for the transfer of knowledge.
  I remind the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon that in some universities now, tutorials have disappeared entirely from the university system. At the university of Salford, we adopted a similar system, where we had face-to-face contact with five or six students, and we transferred our knowledge in the same excellent manner. However, when I left the university of Salford to join the House of Commons on 1 May, we were trying to conduct tutorials—I did not regard them as tutorials any longer—with groups of students as large as 15.
  If the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon wants to argue for the continuation of protected privilege for those two universities, I want him to tell us how the Government should be reversing the situation that has arisen in the other universities. I cannot agree that such privileges should be protected when the system has become so bad for the vast majority of other universities. I am arguing for the hundreds of thousands of students who are suffering as a result. In other words, I am trying to strike a balance.
  It was a great mistake for the previous Government to convert all the polytechnics into universities in one fell swoop. I say that as someone who used to be on the staff of a college of advanced technology at Salford, which had to fight to become a university. It was necessary to prove excellence in all subjects that were taught at what was the college. I accept that some of the polytechnics were worthy of university status, but some were not.
  Against the background of decisions taken by the previous Government, we are in danger of creating an ivy league of universities, of which Oxford and Cambridge would obviously be members. There must be the same provision throughout the university sector and we must seek to achieve generally what Oxford and Cambridge have tried to achieve in the absence of privilege and other knock-on effects,
  Academic salaries are low compared with professional salaries elsewhere. When I became a Member of this place my salary increased by more than £10,000. Before coming here I was a reader in chemistry at Salford university. That must be wrong. In my view, the two professions are comparable. After all, I have done both jobs. Academic salaries are low, and I blame the previous Government for that.
  I remind the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon that to continue the privileged teaching methods of Oxford and Cambridge, the college fellowships pay those who conduct the tutorial teaching systems extra money. That privilege—let us underline "privilege" —is not available to academic staff in most other British universities. I must accuse the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon of trying to protect privilege and not excellence.
  The hon. Gentleman made the claim that penicillin was a discovery of Oxford university. I accept that Florey and Chain developed penicillin at Oxford university and that

  279
  their contribution was excellent. However, Alexander Fleming saw the effects of penicillum notatum on bacilli and made the observation in London in a dingy basement laboratory. If it had not been for that observation in London, Oxford would not have been able to develop penicillin.
  12.12 pm
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: Like the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), I came into the Chamber to listen. The hon. Gentleman spoke, however, and he went on about privilege. I was at Oxford university, and some may say that I was very privileged. When I was there the number of students coming up year on year from state schools was rising. What has stopped that happening? The answer is the argument that is now being advanced against Oxbridge, and that is an attack on excellence. In the 1960s and 1970s there was an attack on excellent grammar schools. I accept that some comprehensive schools are first-class but it should never have been a matter of also trying to ensure that grammar schools enjoyed no privilege—the "let's get rid of them" approach.
  At that time hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, including some on the Front Benches, had been to grammar schools. They are now prepared to deny good-quality education to children for reasons of ideology.
  Oxford and Cambridge are not basic bastions of privilege. Indeed, they are often bastions of left-wing thought. Many of those who taught me would disagree with me fundamentally on many issues. I say to all those who seek to bring down Oxford and Cambridge for ideological reasons that they should remember that both are excellent institutions of world renown. Other universities should be brought up to their standards. Let us do that, rather than levelling Oxford and Cambridge.
  12.14 pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning: I shall try to address my remarks to the subject of the debate, although the debate has ranged more widely. The House may have an opportunity to discuss admission policies on another occasion.
  I welcome the opportunity to discuss the funding of Oxbridge because, since the general election, the Government have unveiled policies that threaten the nature of grant-maintained schools, grammar schools and Church schools. Their policy towards Oxford and Cambridge represents yet another attack on centres of excellence.
  The Government have been divided on this issue and the Prime Minister has intervened to ameliorate the more harmful aspects of the Department for Education and Employment's policy. The right hon. Gentleman has now been forced to slap down the Department's proposals for Oxbridge funding.
  The Minister now has an opportunity to clarify the policy that has been batted across the net in the Chamber and by Government spokesmen outside this House, including Baroness Blackstone, the Minister with responsibility for higher education. We know that she is the driving force behind the destructive policy that we are discussing, which has created great uncertainty at Oxford and Cambridge.
  280
  The word "egalitarian" has been knocked about the Chamber a good deal today. That being so, I draw attention to an article in last night's edition of the Evening Standard by my former colleague George Walden. The headline reads:
  "Old egalitarians never die, they simply wreck our schools."
  They are now out to wreck our excellent universities as well.
  In the time that is available to me, I want to outline the background, which will explain why the matter before us is of such concern and why there is such uncertainty. The Dearing report suggested that the Government should reassess the payment of college fees at Oxford and Cambridge. Recommendation 74 said:
  "variations in the level of public funding for teaching"
  were legitimate only if
  "there is an approved difference in the provision"
  of teaching and
  "society, through the Secretary of State or his or her agent,"
  decides, after examination of the evidence
  "that in relation to other funding needs in higher education, it represents a good use of resources."
  In August 1997, the Department wrote to the Higher Education Funding Council for England to examine the issue of funding at Oxford and Cambridge and especially the tutorial system. The Government especially asked the council to consider, when reaching its conclusions, the remarks made in the Dearing report and its new funding method for teaching, which is grounded on the principle of a set price for each of the four broad subject areas. Since then the HEFCE has been discussing the matter with Oxford and Cambridge and their colleges and we expect advice to come forward shortly.
  The Government's initial position was, it appeared, to withdraw entirely the £35 million that supports the college-based tutorial system at Oxford and Cambridge.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Dr. Kim Howells): Who said that?
  Mrs. Browning: I am going through the chronology for the Minister. I hope that he will clarify the matter.
  According to newspaper reports, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the Minister, Baroness Blackstone and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were keen to redistribute the £35 million. It was clear from comments made by the Chancellor at the Labour party conference that he believed that Oxford and Cambridge received the money simply to pander to an elite. The indication given at the conference was that the money would be withdrawn.
  A Minister was reported in the Financial Times on 23 October—perhaps it was the Under-Secretary; he might like to say whether it was—as saying:
  "with the entire sector facing a squeeze, it is becoming increasingly difficult to defend a system which gives extra money to the rich."
  That theme was taken up by Labour Members this morning. It is clear that a theme ran through the Government's initial response to the Dearing report—to remove the £35 million subsidy from Oxford and Cambridge. Since then, the Prime Minister has received representations from, among others, Lord Eatwell of

  281
  Queen's college, Cambridge, Baroness Perry, head of Cambridge's Lucy Cavendish college, Lord Plant, master of St. Catherine's college, Oxford, and Eric Anderson, former headmaster of Eton and now master of Lincoln college, Oxford. Mr. Anderson taught the Prime Minister at Fettes—the fee-paying school that is known as Scotland's Eton, for those interested in elitism.
  It is important that the Minister clarifies the matter, because the Government's initial reaction is a compromise. The HEFCE is planning to make changes. It will be helpful if the Minister will guarantee that whatever compromise the Government come to following the Prime Minister's lobbying, representations made by the colleges will be taken into account.
  I want to emphasise the value for money and the positive outcomes of the present arrangement. I hope that the compromise will take account of them. Oxford and Cambridge are world renowned centres of academic research, graduates coming out of them secure employment within six months and undergraduates have only a 2.6 per cent. fall-out rate compared with the national average of some 8 per cent. That excellence is a tribute to Oxford and Cambridge. Moreover, it costs half as much to educate a graduate at Oxford and Cambridge as it does at some of the ivy league universities in the United States, such as Stanford and Harvard. Oxford and Cambridge are good value for money.
  The future of Oxford and Cambridge universities hangs in the balance. I hope that the Minister will reassure them and us that centres of excellence, not just in this country but worldwide, such as at Oxford and Cambridge will be retained and that no dogma or elitism will see their stature diminished, as the Government have sought to do in other areas of education.
  12.20 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Dr. Kim Howells): I thank the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) for raising this issue at a time when there is great interest in it.
  I was very sorry to hear the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) refer to an article, which appeared last night, written by a former hon. Member—George Walden. It was possibly the most spiteful, personal attack on my noble Friend the Minister of State that I have ever read. I know that, as she comes from an education background, the hon. Lady is aware, as we all are, of the need to review every part of education funding. No part of the review should be sacrosanct. We should be able to review the funding that goes to every university. I shall try to set out just how we intend to do it.
  I am intrigued to hear that we have already decided that we are to manipulate the HEFCE's review, because I have not seen that report. It has not yet arrived on our desks. We asked for the report precisely because we wanted a good, objective assessment of the situation at the moment.
  Many other people would like to review the situation as well. One thinks, for example, of the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General. I wonder how the Oxford colleges would feel if they had him breathing down their necks wanting to find out just how each pound is spent. Many agencies that are hard pressed
  282
  for money are examined under that microscope. As a former member of the Public Accounts Committee, I know that there are no rules of engagement. The colleges would have a very tough time justifying how the money is spent.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: Will the Minister give way?
  Dr. Howells: No. The hon. Gentleman—much as I appreciate his contributions—has spoken enough.
  We asked for help from the HEFCE because we believe that it is vital that we get expert help and that we try to understand how Oxford and Cambridge relate to every other university and higher education institution in the country. We are aware of the standard of excellence that comes out of Oxford and Cambridge. I would be the last person in the world to be any part of a new regime or system that threatened or reduced standards of excellence. If somebody were to ask, "What about the 69 Nobel prizes?" I would say, yes, it would be very hard to reinvent the system that has won this country 69 Nobel prizes, but I would like a lot more Nobel prizes to be won by other universities as well.
  Nobody should go away from the Chamber thinking that Oxford and Cambridge are the only centres of excellence. There are very many others and there are universities that are improving at a tremendous rate.
  Mr. Robathan: We want to lift them all up.
  Dr. Howells: Exactly.
  We are talking to Oxford and Cambridge. I met the vice-chancellors last week. We are talking to everybody involved. I am fully aware of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). They must be made aware that, although we cannot influence any university's policy on student admissions, we are watching very carefully to ensure that the static intake of the past 30 years starts to improve. I do not believe that children who are at state schools are intrinsically any less intelligent than children who are at independent schools. On the contrary, all children have enormous potential and we need to do a great deal to start tapping it. I welcome any debate on the review for Oxford and Cambridge. That is why I am so grateful that we are having this debate.
  Today, as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton said, we are looking specifically at one issue—college fees. I assure the House that we will consider the matter objectively. We will do nothing to endanger the standards of excellence at Oxford or Cambridge.
  Mr. Jackson: Will the Minister give me an undertaking that he will write to me setting out the legal basis of the threats to legislate against the charging of private fees by private institutions? In particular will he take into account European law and the relevant European convention?
  Dr. Howells: When I understand the significance of that question, I shall certainly consider whether to respond. If it is academic-speak for whether we are in favour of top-up fees, let me tell the hon. Gentleman right now that we are not. If there are problems with a percentage of bright young people going from state

  283
  schools to Oxford and Cambridge when top-up fees are introduced, it will be a long time before the Government allow that to happen.
  Mr. Jackson rose—
  Dr. Howells: No, I shall not give way again. The hon. Gentleman has intervened many times. I shall look carefully at the legal basis and try to reassure him, if that is possible.
  The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton challenged the Government on the basis of press reports. I hope that she will acknowledge that that is not the best source of information and accept my undertaking here and now that we are not in the business of dumbing down or egalitarian dogma. It is a long time since I have been accused of dogma—
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Nineteen sixty-eight.
  Dr. Howells: Since 1968, probably.
  We have no intention of indulging in dogma. Suggesting that we do is a cheap crack. The Government realise that the country's future lies in our having the best educated, best trained work force in the world. If we do not have it, we will not be able to compete in an increasingly global economy. We are determined to ensure that we have such a work force, and Oxford and Cambridge will play their part in that, as will all the other universities and an area of education about which there is often a deafening silence in this place, especially from Conservative Members—further education.
  We will ensure that we see the role of Oxford and Cambridge within that wider context. If we manage to do that, we will go some way towards turning the rhetoric in which so many of us believe-lifelong learning, creating a learning society—into a reality.
  We will take note of what has been said today. This has been a very useful debate. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it. We have all benefited from it.

  European Regional Aid
  12.28 pm
  Mr. Jeff Ennis: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about a matter that is of paramount concern not only to my constituency in South Yorkshire, but to every other area in the United Kingdom that has suffered job losses as a result of the demise of our traditional industries—industries such as coal mining, as in Barnsley's case, and steel, textiles and heavy engineering. All those industries are trying desperately to get back on their feet and reaching for new economic directions. Without new industry and new jobs they will inevitably continue on a downward spiral.
  I am happy to say, however, that huge strides are being made. In Barnsley and Doncaster, a brighter future is beginning to emerge: although there is still a long way to go, a solid foundation has been laid for future growth. I would like to say that that foundation stemmed from the interest and help of the last Government over the past decade or so but, sadly, assistance from that quarter has been derisory, so I cannot say it. No Conservative Members are present to answer that point.
  What I can and must say is that, without doubt, the impetus for the first steps in Barnsley's recovery has come primarily from the European Union. Given my position as a Barnsley Member, it is difficult for me to criticise Brussels. When we lost 14 pits and 20,000 mining jobs almost at a stroke, Barnsley lost its livelihood and came close to economic death. Over recent years, European help—not the last Government's help—has sustained us and put Barnsley back on the road to recovery. Barnsley is not atypical: I know for a fact that the same can be said for all coalfield areas and I suspect that the story will be similar in the many other areas that have suffered from the structural decline of their basic industries.
  The figures speak for themselves. The current EU regional aid programme runs from 1994 to 1999; in that period, the United Kingdom will have received some £4.7 billion in assistance—nearly £1 billion for each and every year. We are talking big money. Over the years, the EU has been used to nurture new enterprises, to provide new industrial infrastructure, to fund training and to develop community projects.
  That brings me to the crux of my reason for requesting the debate. There is a real crisis on the horizon: there is a real danger that our principal lifeline could soon disappear. The current spending round for EU aid ends in 1999. Discussions on the framework of the next round, which will run from 2000 to 2006, are already well advanced. The European Commission has already revealed its proposals in a consultation document that was published in July. Fortunately, those proposals have yet to be agreed by member Governments.
  I say that with relief because it is no exaggeration to state that, if allowed to proceed, the proposals will deal a body blow to our hopes of recovery. Let me spell it out loud and clear. If the Commission is allowed to do as it intends, there is a real possibility that not one part of the United Kingdom will qualify for continuing regional aid. It is that bad—that serious. I shall explain why.
  First, the Commission is determined to reduce the geographical coverage of the regional funds from about 50 per cent. of the EU population to between 35 and

  285
  40 per cent. Secondly, it is proposed that there should be no change in the key eligibility criteria—gross domestic product, industrial job losses and unemployment—that are used to decide the distribution of aid. Those two factors—greater concentration of funds and unchanged eligibility criteria—are extremely bad news for Britain.
  The GDP indicator for eligibility is used to decide the top tier of aid, which is known as objective 1. If an area is to qualify, its GDP must be less than 75 per cent. of the Community average. In Britain's industrial areas, although GDP is falling in relation to that of the rest of Europe, most rates are between 75 per cent. and 90 per cent. of the Community average and none are lower than 75 per cent.
  In other words, those areas are in a poor state of health but are not quite badly off enough to qualify for the top tier of aid. Ironically, despite their lower GDP, they may well fail to qualify for the second tier of aid as well—objective 2 aid. The eligibility criteria are industrial job losses and unemployment. We can no longer demonstrate substantial recent job losses, most jobs having been shed in the 1980s; and our official unemployment rates are falsely low and, for the most part, will not meet the EU criteria.
  On paper—this is the information that European Commission officials will use—Britain's older industrial areas seem to be in fine fettle, with few job losses and falling unemployment, but anyone who is familiar with the situation in, for example, the north-east, south Wales, Merseyside and my patch—South Yorkshire—will know that that is simply not the case. Despite progress, the problems of those areas remain numerous and acute.
  Mr. David Watts: Such concerns are heightened in areas such as Merseyside, which have been experiencing the worst of the recession over the past few years. Among other things, we would like a commitment from the Government to fight for every area that currently enjoys objective 1 and objective 2 status. That is very important to us. We would also like the labour survey figures, rather than the unemployment figures, to be used; and we would like the Government to fight for a flexible approach to GDP. If my hon. Friend the Minister will give me an assurance to that effect today, much of the concern that has been expressed to me—which I know is felt throughout the country—will be alleviated.
  Mr. Ennis: I agree with everything my hon. Friend has said, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reply specifically to his points.
  The fact that only a few of the hundreds and thousands of jobs that were lost in the 1970s and 1980s have been replaced is hidden by the distortion of the unemployment statistics. I shall give three brief examples from my area. First, 24.4 per cent. —nearly one in four—of school children in Barnsley come from households with no experience of work Secondly, the average income in Barnsley is 55 per cent. of the national average. Thirdly, 19,000 new jobs will be needed to return employment in Barnsley to the national average. I defy anyone, here or in Brussels, to say that those figures illustrate the existence of a vibrant and healthy economy.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: My hon. Friend is making a powerful point, which can be
  286
  equally well illustrated by the situation in south Wales. Economic inactivity rates—which reflect hidden mass unemployment—are also extremely important, and male economic inactivity rates in my area are of grave concern to us. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will press that point hard in negotiations about the criteria.
  Mr. Ennis: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Again, I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
  I would like to say that Barnsley is unique. It would certainly be in the town's interest for me to do so, thereby indulging in a spot of special pleading. I cannot say that, however. It must be said that Barnsley's circumstances are replicated, to a greater or lesser extent, in other traditional industrial areas throughout the nation. In making our case to Brussels for continuing aid after 1999, we could all be scuppered on the same misleading grounds, unable to demonstrate the existence of large-scale job losses in recent years and unable to show the true level of joblessness. I am enraged by the position and—as has been demonstrated by the interventions that we have heard—others share my sentiments. Brussels must not be allowed to walk away from a job that in our areas is only half done.
  What should we do? I am closely associated with the alliance for regional aid, which was set up specifically in response to fears about European regional aid. The alliance represents virtually every local authority in the older industrial areas of the United Kingdom that currently qualify for objective 1 and objective 2 regional aid. In total, 130 local authorities make up that alliance, so it has a powerful voice. It has been working on this issue for some months and has come up with proposals that I and many other hon. Members fully endorse.
  It is essential for the Commission to adopt eligibility criteria that reflect the true situation in Britain's industrial areas. The true picture is not shown by information on recent job losses and official unemployment figures. The thrust of the Government's negotiations must be to modify those criteria.
  I urge Ministers seriously to consider three proposals. First, the Commission currently uses the International Labour Organisation's measure of unemployment, which profoundly disadvantages the United Kingdom by excluding people who have given up looking for work and those who are supported by benefits, such as incapacity benefit and income support, that do not require them actively to seek jobs. A broader definition of unemployment that embraces all those out of work who want a job would be a truer reflection of joblessness. Those figures are available Europewide, so such a definition could be adopted.
  Secondly, GDP figures are used as objective 1 criteria. Their adoption as objective 2 criteria would assist the United Kingdom's case enormously. Most UK industrial areas have a lower GDP than similar areas in France and Germany, so such a step would benefit us greatly.
  Thirdly, the Commission must be persuaded to take a long view, possibly as far back as 1980 when the United Kingdom's industrial restructuring began. If it adopts a base date in the 1990s, most UK industrial areas will not qualify. It is of paramount importance that the Government urgently and successfully negotiate adjustments to the criteria in those three critical areas.

  287
  Furthermore, informed, reliable guidance shows that the Commission is minded to designate up to 50 per cent. of objective 2 areas across the European Union on the basis of proposals from member state Governments using national data. That would greatly assist our case. The Government must grasp this opportunity, because it would open the door for objective 2 aid to be directed at areas where it is needed by allowing European Union-wide criteria to be supported by criteria set at national level and based on national data.
  Indicators that measure social exclusion and competitiveness could be brought into play. That would substantially strengthen the United Kingdom's bid for continued funding. I ask the Government to consider including in the calculations three measures of social exclusion: income support, incapacity benefit and level of earnings. I am confident that close examination of those three indicators would reveal those areas of the United Kingdom that most urgently need help, and that should be recommended to the Commission for objective 2 assistance.
  I remind Ministers that time is running out. The Commission will publish firm proposals on the future of regional aid next spring and it will then be difficult to bring about a change of course. There is no doubt that European regional aid has provided a lifeline to former traditional industrial areas such as Barnsley and Doncaster. The new Labour Government must maintain that lifeline.
  12.44 pm
  The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Nigel Griffiths): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis) on securing the debate. As a former leader of Barnsley metropolitan borough council and as founder and chair of the Barnsley economic regeneration forum, which is a private-public partnership, he brings great local and national experience to our discussions. He has shown his expertise by setting out the case not just for the Barnsley area, but for the whole of the United Kingdom.
  I am glad to see a good attendance by Labour Members at this first economic debate on regional aid—in contrast to the vacant Conservative Benches. Not one Conservative Member is present and there is no Conservative spokesman. Where is the shadow President of the Board of Trade, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), or any of his deputies? No wonder they were recently described by a Conservative supporter as nonentities. They are not present because they do not know about the problems and do not care.
  As my hon. Friend acknowledged, European structural funds make an important contribution to economic development in many regions of the United Kingdom. On 16 July, the European Commission published its suggestions for the reform of the funds in its communication "Agenda 2000". We expect detailed legislative proposals in the spring of next year, so this short debate is topical.
  Current structural fund programmes run until the end of 1999: 30 programmes operate across the United
  288
  Kingdom. My hon. Friend's constituency is covered by the Yorkshire and Humberside objective 2 programme. Our short-term aim is to maximise the effectiveness of those programmes. So far this year, elected members from local authorities have played a strong role in programme monitoring, new financial systems have been introduced in England to accelerate payments, and we have brought social partners, such as representatives from employers' and employees' organisations, into local partnerships to support those programmes.
  I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that we have also nominated to the Commission 10 UK pilot projects for territorial employment pacts, including one in Barnsley. In England, we have put new arrangements in place for administering structural funds. We want to give local partnerships more responsibility through an action plan approach. Action plans will provide a real opportunity to improve the administration of structural funds. They will allow partnerships to bring together individual projects so as to reflect regional priorities, to tackle issues in a co-ordinated way and to streamline bureaucracy.
  Circumstances vary across the country and between regions, so we are not seeking to impose a uniform system. It will be for each programme monitoring committee to decide to what extent it wishes to adopt the new action plan approach. We will aim to do more in the next two years to improve effectiveness further.
  I realise that the interests of all my hon. Friends go beyond 1999. The European Union will face significant changes over the next decade, particularly if it is to be enlarged to include new member states from central and eastern Europe. The common agricultural policy should be reformed and its structural policies should be adapted to the changed circumstances.
  On the key question of reform of the structural and cohesion funds, the Government believe that the new arrangements should be fair to all member states, especially to the United Kingdom and its regions, and should be affordable, durable, simpler and more efficient.
  The United Kingdom is the second largest net contributor to the European Union's finances. We are net contributors to the cost of these development funds. That is why we are paying close attention to the total cost of the funds and to our receipts.
  The accession of poorer countries will have significant implications for EU finances. As the overall EU budget must be contained within its current share of GDP, enlargement will mean that the structural funds will have to stretch further. All existing member states will have to accept significantly lower receipts in the next century. The United Kingdom's net contribution, like those of many other countries, will rise on enlargement. We accept this as the necessary price for bringing these countries into the EU, but we cannot accept that the UK's net contribution should move even further out of line.
  The fundamentals of reform for the structural and cohesion funds should be as follows. First, the overall cost of the structural and cohesion funds should be contained below 0.46 per cent. of European Union GDP both before and after enlargement. Secondly, existing member states should expect cuts in their receipts if costs are to be contained. Thirdly, while we recognise that there will

  289
  be a drop in receipts, the new regime should and must be fair to the UK in comparison with other member states. Fourthly, the reform of the funds should be durable and fair to acceding member states. Fifthly, the effectiveness of the funds should be improved, and substantial administrative simplification is needed.
  Fairness was at the heart of the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough, so I will go into some detail about what we understand by fairness. According to data held by the Commission, the United Kingdom is the fourth or fifth poorest state in the European Union; the Commission's proposals will not make us the fourth or fifth largest per capita recipient. Therefore, we are not convinced that the Commission's ideas for distributing the funds are fair. I am pleased to tell the House that we are actively pursuing with the Commission and with other member states the issue of how a fairer system can be established.
  I feel passionately about the key issue of unemployment. The Commission intends to use Eurostat figures as part of determining allocations and eligibility based on unemployment. Those statistics are based on the International Labour Organisation definition and are collected in the labour force survey. People are asked whether they are working or looking for work and whether they are available for work. Even on this internationally harmonised basis it is not clear whether the statistics provide a useful measure of need between countries. On that basis, UK unemployment is still three or four percentage points below the European average.
  Portugal's unemployment rate is a third that of Spain despite being the poorer country. Comparisons between different countries and unemployment statistics may say more about business cycles and national labour markets than about regional need.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Would it help if our unemployment statistics had not been produced by the fiddled method that the previous Government introduced? They altered the collection of unemployment figures 30 times. Presumably it would be helpful to have the correct figures. The Government have a problem because, if they correct the figures in one fell swoop, it will look as if we have massively increased unemployment. At least for a period, two sets of figures could be produced, one under the current method and the other under the method that should be used with the corrected figures that we think should be taken into account.
  Mr. Griffiths: I agree with my hon. Friend that the issue is not about figures: it is about millions of unemployed people. We need Europewide figures that will accurately reflect that. We agree that the present figures do not accurately reflect the criteria that are needed to assess regional aid and regional aid policy. We are considering other possibilities that more accurately reflect the realities of unemployment. I assure my hon. Friends that we are discussing those with the Commission and with other member states. One suggestion is that receipts and eligibility should be related to national GDP,
  290
  with each member state or region deciding which sub-regional areas would be eligible within a centrally determined total.
  Mr. Watts: Would my hon. Friend be prepared to meet an alliance delegation which might be able to help him come up with a better formula than the one that is currently used?
  Mr. Griffiths: As my hon. Friend knows, I do not have direct responsibility for this matter, but I shall certainly communicate his request to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
  Mr. David Heath: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, if only to prove that although the Conservative Benches are empty there are at least some opposition Members in the House. Will he assure the House that he will argue for fairness in a European context and in the national context so that all regions have an equal ability to access funds? In previous years, the DTI has been a barrier rather than a help to some regions' attempts to access funds. There should be subsidiarity in this matter as in others.
  Mr. Griffiths: That point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough. The Conservative Benches are still empty, as they have been throughout the debate.
  The Commission has proposed reducing the number of objectives from seven to three so that each area of the European Union is covered by one of them. In terms of eligibility for the three objectives, the Commission has proposed that objective 1—the most generous—should be based on regional per capita GDP.
  For the new objective 2, the Commission is slightly less clear about eligibility criteria. That objective will cover industrial, urban, rural and fishing areas, and it is a matter of deciding which areas would benefit most from such support. Relatively few local area statistics are available at the European level; many more are available nationally. In our informal discussions with the Commission, we are suggesting that determining eligibility at national or regional level would improve the effective targeting of the funds.
  The Commission also proposes that the population coverage of the two geographically targeted objectives should represent only 35 to 40 per cent. of the EU population. This compares with 51 per cent. currently covered by geographical targeting. The consequence will be that many European areas currently benefiting from objective 2 or objective 5b will lose such eligibility. Some of them will be in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend has spoken many times about informal discussions. Do the Government intend to table a proper paper on these issues? If they do, will he make it available to the House?
  Mr. Griffiths: I think that I have referred only once to informal discussions. There have been other discussions. My hon. Friend has fought tirelessly to bring employment to his constituency and to south Wales. I know that he will support our aim of ensuring that the UK as a whole is treated fairly.

  291
  We hope to obtain a reasonable transition period for areas that eventually lose eligibility. In negotiations on the future of the funds, the Government aim to protect everybody in the United Kingdom and will seek to ensure that the needs of individual regions are taken into account.
  For the first six months of next year, the UK will hold the presidency of the European Union Council of Ministers. We expect the Commission to present detailed legislative proposals on the funds during the spring. We will then push forward the detailed negotiations, although we would expect them not to be completed until the Austrian presidency. They will also need to be approved by the European Parliament. At some stage, possibly in early 1999, we will know how eligibility under the three objectives will be determined and individual areas' eligibility can be confirmed and financial allocations made. After that, regional plans can be drawn up, negotiated and adopted. The European Commission must aim to complete that in time for the new programmes to start in the year 2000 and the funds must be able to continue their work. However, that is a matter for negotiation.
  I repeat: we will seek to ensure that the needs of individual regions are taken into account. We have already started lobbying. We need the UK to speak with one voice, whether it is the national Government, local authorities or campaigning groups of the type that have been mentioned. We need to draw on one another's knowledge, skills and argument.
  The House has listened to the points of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough with interest. I am sorry that no Conservative Member has listened. It would help us to argue our case in Europe for each UK region if we spoke as a whole House and if Conservative Members took an interest in the matter. I welcome the opportunity that my hon. Friend has given us to consider some of the crucial economic issues involved.

  Storage Tanks (Petrol Leakage)
  1 pm
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I am pleased to have secured time for this important matter. Although it might at first appear to be a typical Back-Bench debate, dealing with a specified area and of limited interest outside that area, it has universal application.
  Within the past 12 months, my constituency has witnessed two serious pollution incidents as a result of petrol tank leakage. One incident occurred at Bontddu near Dolgellau, the other at Llanrwst. Broadly speaking, there are some stark lessons to be learned and conclusions to be drawn.
  The person on the street might be forgiven for believing that the sale of petroleum is highly regulated. A considerable body of law applies to the sector. We have, for example, the Petroleum Spirit (Motor Vehicles etc.) Regulations 1929, the Petroleum (Mixtures) Order 1929, the Petroleum (Compressed Gases) Order 1930, the Petroleum (Liquid Methane) Order 1957, the Highly Flammable Liquids and Liquified Petroleum Gases Regulations 1972, the Petroleum (Regulation) Acts 1928, the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act 1928, the Petroleum Spirit (Plastic Containers) Regulations 1982 and many others. Despite that, after 13 months, the incident at Bontddu is still unresolved.
  Details of a pollution incident were received by the Environment Agency locally on 19 September 1996. Some of the villagers at Bontddu had complained of petroleum odours to Gwynedd council's trading standards officers in the previous week. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that both are linked and that the discharge had begun several days before 19 September.
  It was found that there had been leakage from underground tanks at Bontddu service station into a stream that flows into the Mawddach river, one of the most environmentally sensitive areas in the whole of Wales. The quality of the stream was severely impaired, and there were high fish mortalities. Some estuary invertebrates were also affected.
  During the initial investigation, the Environment Agency ascertained that a volume in excess of 30,000 litres of petrol had leaked from the underground tanks and drained from the immediate vicinity of the site. A meeting was convened on 27 September 1996 between Environment Agency staff, the garage proprietor, Liquid Cargo Management—an oil recovery specialist—and officers of Gwynedd trading standards and environmental health departments. Certain remedial works were agreed—for example, booming off the river, excavation of the tank in question and flushing the contamination from the ground. By now, the leaked volume was estimated to be in excess of 60,000 litres—twice the original estimate.
  Families were meantime evacuated because the concentrated petroleum smell was at times almost unbearable and routinely gave villagers severe headaches. There was also the obvious possibility of an explosive mixture being created at some point.
  Things appeared to be proceeding slowly. The county council and the Environment Agency were involved, but there was no official involvement by the Health and

  293
  Safety Executive. A public meeting that I chaired was arranged in November, calling together representatives of all agencies and the specialist firm that had been retained to rectify the pollution. At that meeting, an HSE representative said that that body would not become involved unless there was a risk to public safety.
  With a spillage of 60,000 litres—13,000 gallons—of the most flammable products known to man, one would conclude that a danger would at some point arise. Not so, the experts told us—despite the pollution and the obvious health problems being caused, including headaches and worse. The public were safe, they said. Those who attended the public meeting were incredulous, but the experts said that there was no danger. Our arguments did not change their minds. The HSE said that it was perfectly okay and that there were no problems.
  A few weeks later, not surprisingly, there was an explosion in one of the houses near the polluted site—a build-up of gases, and bang. It was safe to assume now that there was a danger to the public. Even the HSE took that view at that late stage.
  The village school was evacuated. The children were bussed each day to Dolgellau to receive their education in a sports and leisure complex. That unhappy situation lasted until September. Homes continue to be evacuated. Several families have been moved from one address to another, in some cases from mobile home to mobile home. One family even camped out for a while. Incredibly, the remedial work has not been completed.
  The explosion occurred in the early part of this year. Naturally, the villagers became increasingly concerned at the lack of progress and were alarmed at the fact that, despite asking several months previously for air and monitoring systems, these were not installed in the affected areas until spring 1997. Similarly, monitoring equipment was promised for the school building, so that an informed judgment could be made as to when it would be safe for pupils to return to it. That was supplied late as well.
  To bring some pressure to bear, a further public meeting, which I chaired, took place in April. By now, it was a question of trying to ascertain who was responsible for clearing up the pollution and bringing Bontddu back to normality. Incidentally, the village has many times won the title of the prettiest village in Meirionnydd. That is some honour when one looks at the constituency that I am privileged to represent.
  It was hoped that this would not become a buck-passing exercise. In the event, assurances were given at the meeting about monitoring equipment and so on. One of the villagers' greatest concerns was the closure of the village school. Naturally, as parents, they wanted the school to thrive and to continue providing first-class education. Their fear was that children might be placed in other schools and their previous one closed permanently. In the event, I am pleased to say that the children returned to school in September.
  Somewhat incredibly, the pollution incident has yet to be dealt with. Homes remain evacuated. Naturally, there is considerable anger and resentment about the way in which this intolerable situation has been allowed to drift on and on, almost aimlessly.
  294
  Let us consider the main players. We have the loss adjusters, who act for the garage proprietor. They engaged two specialist clearing-up firms, one of which caused an explosion, although the other fortunately did not. The Environment Agency, which was in at the beginning, has done nothing about the fish kill. The HSE, in its infinite wisdom, declined to act because there was no perceived risk to public safety. Needless to say, the explosion changed that. Those incidents should be the subject of a full public inquiry. I am adamant that lessons can be learned from our experiences.
  Many serious questions need to be answered. Why was it that the spillage was assessed at 30,000 litres for some time, but then that assessment was varied to 60,000 litres? How long will it take to clear the petrol from the ground and the atmosphere? Why were read-out machines placed so far away as to be of no evidential use? Why was the school closed but the garage allowed to continue trading? Why did it take so long to install benzene tubes in the houses most affected? What about the dozens of other houses in the area that were not supplied with them?
  Why, when it was patently obvious that there was a safety risk, did the HSE, although knowing all the facts in October 1996, decline to become involved until March 1997, after the explosion—some might say, the expected explosion. Why are four families still evacuated from their homes almost 14 months after the incident? Why did it take six months to issue an improvement notice on the garage proprietor? Who is in overall charge of the operation, and therefore, who should be charged with answering those important questions and more?
  This morning, I spoke to a responsible officer of Conwy borough council, who took charge of another incident at Llanrwst. He was this morning taking part in a debriefing exercise with representatives of all north Wales unitary authorities to compare the Bontddu incident with the one at Llanrwst and to see what lessons might be learnt. I welcome that. Unfortunately, I believe that such incidents will occur with increasing frequency over the next months and years.
  In Bontddu, the situation was muddled when one authority passed the ball to another and no one wished to run with the ball or to accept ultimate responsibility. It is an absolute and unmitigated nightmare for many of my constituents. Surely a public inquiry is necessary. We cannot allow matters to be left without proper expert examination and analysis.
  I have asked 10 basic questions which remain unanswered. I am sure that there are another 10 or 20 that should be asked. A public inquiry is the only vehicle for doing that. It is the only way that we can ensure that such incidents do not happen again.
  In a written answer that I received yesterday from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, I was told:
  "In the period since January 1995 the Environment Agency recorded 55 incidents of water pollution from underground petrol storage at filling stations in England and six such incidents in Wales." — [Official Report, 18 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 125.]
  By contrast, in a recent article in The Guardian, the London Fire Brigade said that it registers 70 to 80 seepages a year. Three years ago, Shell UK suggested that up to one third of all underground tanks—as many as 10,000—may be faulty. Perhaps we are seeing the tip of a very nasty iceberg.

  295
  There are 900 service stations in Wales, about half of which are independently operated. I do not want to place additional burdens on retailers because we have already lost dozens of them over the years. Rural areas, such as the area in which I live, depend on them, so it is not a part of my brief to place financial commitments on retailers. However, an answer must somehow be found. Compulsory insurance for retailers is probably the most obvious and will have to come in.
  I am aware of the new draft regulations that have been formulated by the HSE, but I do not think that they will greatly assist matters. They will codify the myriad pieces of legislation—a move that I welcome. They will place on local authorities virtually all the responsibility for licensing—as is the case now—but also risk assessment and enforcement. That is fine if local authorities are given the resources to train staff and to obtain expensive equipment. They need those resources if they are effectively to undertake risk assessments. If they do not get them, the regulations will contain only empty words. They will do nothing to address the problem.
  I urge the Minister to undertake a Welsh Office inquiry into the prevalence of older tanks, which we are virtually waiting to see burst. Secondly, will he ensure that there is a full public inquiry into the continuing nightmare at Bontddu near Dolgellau? Thirdly, will he ensure that there is effective co-ordination between the Environment Agency, the Health and Safety Executive and the public protection units of unitary authorities? Fourthly, I urge upon him the need for the automatic adoption by the HSE of a lead role in dealing with those crises.
  I hope that the Minister will respond in detail to my points. My constituents at Bontddu and Llanwrst—but especially those at Bontddu, who remain homeless—deserve nothing less.
  1.15 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Win Griffiths): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) for bringing this important issue of public safety before the House. I sympathise with the plight of his constituents, who have had to cope with the disruption and anxiety caused by the events at Bontddu during the past year.
  In the time available, I shall try to deal with the areas of concern identified by the hon. Gentleman. If I do not deal with all of them, I will be happy to meet him and to correspond with him on the subject—although I am sure that he will understand that a number of the issues are outside my Department's direct responsibility.
  There are about 15,000 retail petrol stations in Great Britain. In general, their safety record is very good. Every day, millions of people visit petrol stations to refuel their vehicles, usually in complete safety. We all tend to take that convenience for granted. However, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, petrol is a potentially dangerous material, so it is essential that all the necessary safety controls are put in place and properly maintained.
  Fortunately, injuries to members of the public following the leakage of petrol from underground tanks and pipes is rare. Nevertheless, although the recent series of incidents in Wales has resulted in only one slight injury, that is still one too many.
  The hon. Gentleman has reminded us of the history of the Bontddu incident. In September last year, it was discovered that a substantial quantity of petrol had leaked
  296
  into the ground and into a nearby river from an underground storage tank. Various agencies have been involved in the response to that. Following an explosion last April, a number of homes were evacuated, as was the school—although, thankfully, the school has since reopened. From last November, the Health and Safety Executive has assisted the local authority in investigating the incident.
  I am aware that the local HSE office at Wrexham has recently written to the hon. Gentleman informing him of the continuing progress of the clean-up operation. I am pleased to be able to report that a clean-up plan has been prepared by the contractors. The HSE received a copy on 12 November and has now commented on it. I expect that the contractors will start work shortly, in close consultation with local residents.
  Mr. Llwyd: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. Does he agree that 12 months is a long time in which to prepare a clean-up plan? It is a fact that the HSE did not officially become involved until March of this year, after the explosion.
  Mr. Griffiths: It is unfortunate that the matter has taken a year to come to a conclusion. Perhaps that is a lesson that we need to learn from the way that the incident has been handled. We may need to reflect on whether the HSE should become involved at an earlier stage in such incidents. We need to look at those matters.
  Gwynedd county council has issued formal cautions for breaches of the petroleum licence, and other aspects of the case may result in legal proceedings. I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy about the length of time that the incident has been allowed to continue, especially because of the impact on the local community. In recent months, there have been several similar incidents in Wales, and that highlights the importance of the issue raised today by the hon. Gentleman.
  The hon. Gentleman may be aware that we are approaching a transition in safety law for petrol stations. Current legislation dates back to 1928 and requires anyone storing petrol to hold a licence from the local petrol licensing authority. In Wales, the authority was either the trading standards or the environmental health department of the local authority. The authority uses licence conditions to achieve the safety measures that it feels are necessary at particular sites. Local authority inspectors are able to visit sites to ensure that the licensee is complying with the licence conditions. They have the power also to take enforcement action when non-compliance is discovered.
  The Government accept that current legislation is not completely satisfactory—which may be a bit of an understatement. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy has certainly briefly highlighted the complexity of current legislation. As licensing authorities have a free hand in determining which conditions should apply, there are variations in controls imposed by authorities for similar petrol stations across Wales, Scotland and England. Those and other points emerged in the Health and Safety Commission's "Review of Regulation" report. As he will be aware, the commission advised the Government on safety matters and the need for changes to safety legislation.

  297
  In 1996, the Health and Safety Commission asked the Health and Safety Executive to develop modern legislation that addressed today's safety concerns at petrol stations. On 1 September 1997, the commission published a consultative document on its proposals. The closing date for comments is 1 December 1997.
  The commission's principal considerations are to ensure that there is confidence that the law will apply equally to all petrol stations across the land, that the law reflects risks from petrol—especially leaks from sites—and that enforcers have effective and flexible enforcement tools when those are necessary.
  I shall explain the key proposals affecting petrol storage. For the first time, the local enforcement authority's consent would be needed before the building or major alteration of a petrol situation could begin. A site developer would have to provide technical information, including details of proposed underground tanks and pipework. Consent would be based upon risk assessment of the site, which would have to take particular account of risks to the public who live in the vicinity. If the local enforcing authority is not satisfied on safety grounds, it will be able to require changes to the plans.
  A new duty will be placed on site operators to ensure that petrol is stored safely. Such a duty is of particular relevance to the incident that occurred in the constituency of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, because it will require that a system is in place to detect rapidly leaks from underground tanks and pipes. There will be a requirement also to ensure that equipment is maintained in a safe condition. Those requirements will apply not only to new sites but to all sites. There will be a requirement also to make safe tanks and pipes that are no longer used. The Government plan to lay the new regulations—supported by new guidance—before the House towards the middle of 1998.
  The Government realise the environmental damage caused by petrol leakage from underground tanks and are working on tackling the problem. As the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy said so forcefully in his speech, water pollution is the main environmental threat posed by such leaks. Under the Water Resources Act 1991, the Environment Agency is responsible for protecting controlled waters—which include inland, coastal and ground waters. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions told the hon. Gentleman yesterday, in response to his parliamentary question, in the past two years, the Environment Agency recorded six water pollution incidents in Wales from underground storage tanks.
  I should stress that, under the Water Resources Act 1991, it is a criminal offence to cause the pollution of controlled waters, whether the pollution is caused deliberately or accidentally. The Environment Agency has
  298
  made it clear that, when serious pollution is caused and the agency has adequate evidence to support a case, it will prosecute polluters.
  The Government intend to strengthen further powers available to the agency. We plan soon, for example, to bring into force provisions under the 1991 Act enabling the agency to require anti-pollution works to be done. The powers should allow the agency to be more proactive in preventing water pollution from petrol filling stations.
  It is vital that all Government agencies involved with petrol should work together effectively. I know that the Government and our relevant agencies—such as the Health and Safety Agency and the Environment Agency—are already considering the necessary arrangements.
  As I said, the Government's plans to strengthen petrol safety controls and environmental protection are already well advanced. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy—or the hon. Gentleman, as he is not quite yet an hon. Friend in the technical, House sense; outside the House, of course he is a friend—will be reassured by that.
  Mr. Llwyd: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time. I know that it will be difficult for him to say anything today about my call for a public inquiry, but will he consider that request further? I am not trying to put him on the spot, and I realise that he cannot comment on it today. Nevertheless, now that he has heard more about the incident—I also propose to write further to him on it—will he please keep the possibility open?
  Mr. Griffiths: I had planned to deal with that point, although I can well understand why the hon. Gentleman should be concerned about it, as we have reached the end of the debate and it has not yet been mentioned. I shall convey to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister—to whom the Health and Safety Commission is responsible—the concerns expressed today by him, especially his wish that lessons should be learned from the recent events and that new controls should be introduced as speedily as possible.
  I have asked that a full report be prepared of the way in which the incident has been handled, and I will arrange for it to be placed in the Library. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, it is a very serious matter and—based on the evidence provided and the story recounted by him—I am not in a position to decide whether there should be a public inquiry. I hope that my assurance that a full history of the incident will be put on paper and placed in the Library is adequate. I will ensure also that he personally receives a copy of the report.
  If the hon. Gentleman feels that the report does not cover everything, we shall look again at anything that may concern him. Once again I thank him for introducing a debate on a very important issue. It has given the Government the opportunity to put clearly in the public domain our concern and the measures that we intend to take to ensure that such incidents do not recur.

  Kenya (Human Rights)
  1.29 pm
  Mr. John McDonnell: I am extremely heartened by the acceptance of the subject of human rights abuses in Kenya for today's debate. It is a reflection of the warmth and affection that many right hon. and hon. Members feel for Kenya and its people.
  No one who has visited Kenya and met its people can fail to be entranced by a country so beautiful and so abundant in natural resources. From the fertile shores of Lake Naivasha to the game-filled plains of the Masai Mara, across the green foothills of Mount Kenya to the beaches of Mombasa, Kenya is a stunning garden of Eden.
  No one can fail to be impressed by the fortitude, vigour and enterprise of the Kenyan people. Kenya is a vibrant melee of Africans, Asians and Mzungus—the settlers who stayed on after decolonialisation—most of whom share a common bond of loyalty and commitment to their country—a commitment bred from a courageous struggle to free themselves from colonial oppression and establish a modern nation.
  I introduce the debate with considerable humility. I do not wish to be depicted as some interfering neo-colonialist lecturing an ex-colony on how to manage its affairs. Nor do I want to be portrayed as some ex-pat arrogantly expostulating over a tusker beer on the verandah of the Norfolk hotel in Nairobi.
  Instead, I speak firstly as a friend to friends—a friend of the Kenyan people to the Kenyan people. I speak as someone who represents many constituents who originate from Kenya and who share my love of that country. Above all, I speak as a socialist, and thus someone who believes that international solidarity places a duty on us all to associate ourselves with and support all those whose human rights are being abused and who struggle against oppression.
  The Government, with wide acclaim and my total support, have placed human rights at the centre of their international relations policy. The recent White Paper on international development defined the human rights that have been recognised by the global community and protected by international legal instruments.
  We said that human rights include all those rights essential for human survival, physical security, liberty, and development in dignity of the human being. They include the right to life and liberty; the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being, including food, water and housing; the right to social protection in times of need; the right to education; freedoms of religion, opinion, speech and expression; freedom of association; the right to participate in the political process; the right to be free from arbitrary arrest or imprisonment and to a fair trial; and, above all, freedom from torture and from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
  It is with immense sadness that I report that, on virtually every count, the present Kenyan Government stand accused. On those basic physical freedoms—freedom from torture, imprisonment and loss of life—the most recent Amnesty International report published two months ago indicts the Kenyan regime.
  Physical force has increasingly become a basic ingredient of Kenyan life. In its recent investigations in Kenya, Amnesty International identified numerous reports
  300
  of human rights defenders being threatened, harassed, beaten or arbitrarily arrested. Their meetings have been disrupted, and their premises raided. Journalists trying to report on events have been assaulted by the police and by members of the ruling party's youth wing.
  The Kenyan police have used their wide-ranging powers of arrest without warrant extensively in round-ups of the poor, the street children and those suspected of sedition. There are continued reports of ill-treatment, torture and deaths in custody as a result of torture.
  Kenya retains the death penalty, and there are currently more than 700 prisoners under sentence of death. There have been no executions in the past nine years, but many prisoners on death row have died as a result of the appalling prison conditions. A Kenyan high court judge recently described the prisons as "death chambers" and noted:
  "going to prison these days has become a sure way to a death certificate."
  Amnesty International reports hundreds of political prisoners dying each year, the majority from infectious diseases resulting from severe overcrowding and shortages of food, clean water and adequate medical care. Exact figures are hard to come by, but the most recent official figures suggest that more than 800 prisoners died in the first nine months of 1995.
  The Kenyan police have become notorious for their use of excessive lethal force. Less than a year ago, the shooting of three students by the police provoked widespread revulsion in the community, only to be followed in March this year by a further student being killed by the police, who followed up his murder by arresting and beating up his two companions.
  As for the Kenyan Government's record on political freedoms, hon. Members will be aware that the last year has been dominated by preparations for the Kenyan general election, which, thankfully, has now been called for 29 December. Recently, Kenya has witnessed the use of force and intimidation by the existing regime in order to undermine the Opposition and thus the potential for free and fair elections.
  Earlier this year, a loose alliance of Church groups, lawyers and reformers came together and launched under the banner of the National Convention Executive Council a new campaign with the aim of securing basic electoral reforms in advance of the general election. All but one of the demonstrations for reform organised by the NCEC have been broken up by the police and by supporters of KANU, the governing party.
  On 10 October, when President Daniel Arap Moi was celebrating Moi day—his 19th year in power—his police were violently breaking up the most recent NCEC demonstration. People were beaten and tear-gassed by the police. Prominent NCEC supporters including Paul Muite, Ngengi Mugai—Jomo Kenyatta's nephew—and Richard Leakey were beaten so brutally that they left in ambulances. The police commander in charge personally physically thrashed an elderly and ailing Member of Parliament.
  In a previous demonstration in July, 14 people were shot dead. Mothers carrying babies were beaten, students sitting exams at Nairobi university's school of architecture were beaten up and tear-gassed, and a lecturer had his arms broken. At the capital's All Saints cathedral,

  301
  the presidential security guard itself beat up the pro-Opposition clergy at prayer, spattering blood over the pews, and leaving one Church leader unconscious and soaked in blood.
  The Kenyan Public Order Act requires meetings and demonstrations to be licensed in advance, and has been used to restrict meetings and rallies of Opposition groups. Sections of Kenya's penal code dealing with sedition and treason have formed the basis of the Government's ability to threaten their critics with detention.
  In effect, some Opposition parties have been banned from the forthcoming election by the Government's refusal to allow them to register as political parties. The Safina party, led by lawyers Paul Muite and Mutari Kigano and the archaeologist and conservationist Richard Leakey, has not been allowed to register, and therefore cannot put forward candidates in the election. The Islamic party of Kenya has been banned outright.
  The Kenyan constitution requires a successful presidential candidate to obtain at least 25 per cent. of the vote in five out of the country's eight regions. In key marginal areas such as Mombasa, there have been concerted attacks on northern settlers aimed at driving out potential Opposition voters—an activity that occurred in the earlier elections in 1992.
  In the raids on Mombasa by ruling KANU supporters, 31 people have been reported as killed and hundreds forced to leave their homes and shelter for safety in the grounds of local churches. The Economist reported that it was revealed that the gang of 150 youths responsible for the attacks had been recruited, armed and trained in the coastal hinterland some months ago with orders to
  "keep the coast safe for KANU".
  The tragic irony is that the present level of violence and loss of life is almost certainly unnecessary to sustain President Moi and his regime in power. A divided Opposition is President Moi's best guarantee of remaining in the State House, and his recent simple manoeuvre of offering some token reforms has yet again split his opponents asunder. That, plus the inevitable sprinkling of bribes, should ensure his re-election.
  The real question is whether President Moi will use his last term of office to leave behind the inheritance of a prosperous, cohesive democracy, or the same monument to human greed as Mobutu did—a billion-dollar Swiss bank account. The abuse of human rights in Kenya stems from a regime that will do almost anything to sustain itself in power in order to be able to continue to plunder the country's resources.
  Corruption is the motivating force for denial of and attacks on human rights in Kenya's beautiful but unhappy country. The corruption of the regimes of Mobutu and Moi, denounced by their own people as Moi-butu, is on such a scale and so all-pervasive in the system of government that we have been prompted to coin a new political term for such rule. Instead of democracy or aristocracy, the states have developed a kleptocracy: a system of government whose main purpose appears to be the plundering of the nation's resources by a kleptomaniac ruler—a kleptocrat.
  The massive scale of corruption in Kenya has almost been counter-productive, as in recent months international donors have increasingly frozen or withdrawn support,
  302
  and the Kenyan currency has spiralled downwards. On 31 July, the International Monetary Fund suspended its $220 million loan programme to Kenya in the face of not only the refusal of Moi's Government to act against corruption but the direct involvement of members of the Government in corrupt practices.
  The corrupt scams become increasingly bizarre. In one recent notorious scam called the Goldenberg scandal, implicating Saitoti, Moi's Vice-President, huge subsidies were gained from the Government to support the export of gold and diamonds by individuals associated with the Government. The only problem with that worthy policy is that there are no gold or diamond mines in Kenya from which to export. An honest customs commissioner tried to close a similar con on sugar importation, and was sacked by the President himself.
  The latest Nairobi fashion in corruption is land-grabbing, which involves the simple appropriation of publicly owned land by corrupt politicians and civil servants. In Nairobi and other towns, public parks and gardens, school playgrounds and even graveyards have been allocated to individuals well connected to the ruling elite. While that theft is going on, the country's infrastructure is deteriorating rapidly. Many people go hungry and are uneducated, ill-clothed and unhealthy, while the tragedy of street children multiplies.
  What can we do to help? Our new Government can serve in the coming period as a true friend of the Kenyan people. First, in the run-up to the elections in December, we should continue—as I know my right hon. and hon. Friends have done—to impress on the Kenyan Government in the strongest possible terms the need for abuses of human rights to stop, and the importance of fair elections in a climate free from violence and intimidation.
  Secondly, we should review the adequacy of the scale of assistance that we are providing through non-governmental organisations which perform the task of monitoring elections. Thirdly, we should join other international donors, including the United States and the IMF, in an approach to the Kenyan Government to agree new ground rules on human rights, corruption and poverty elimination before loan facilities are renewed.
  Finally, we should commence the process of redirecting all bilateral aid to Kenya through NGOs rather than the Kenyan Government, and review procedures for ensuring financial probity in all the assistance that we provide to Kenyan organisations.
  Many of us were inspired by the original Mau Mau struggle and the ideals that they developed. I dream of a return to the ideals of Jomo Kenyatta and Tom Mboya, which were hammered out in the freedom struggle and became expressed in the concept of Ujamaa, when Kenyatta said:
  "I stand for the purposes of human dignity and freedom and for the values of tolerance and peace."
  I believe that our Government should assist the Kenyan people in standing once again for those virtues.
  1.42 pm
  Mr. Paul Stinchcombe: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) on securing this debate, and thank him and the Minister for allowing me to make a modest contribution in the short time available. I also thank

  303
  my hon. Friend for referring in the House to Jomo Kenyatta and Tom Mboya, two heroes of African post-colonial politics.
  I, too, am a long-standing friend, both of the people of Kenya and of their country. That friendship goes back 18 years, to when, as a teenager, I was a volunteer teacher in two Harambee schools. My hon. Friend mentioned the Mzungu community. I was a white teacher in that community—"Mimi mwalimu mzungu".
  Since then, I have visited the country several times. I went back with my wife on our honeymoon, and returned shortly afterwards to take her to one of the schools at which I taught. Over the intervening decade, the school had changed from a single block in a mud-hut village with just a salt-water well to a multiple block in a village that had tap water—supplied through the international community.
  From my very first time in Kenya, I was concerned about the lack of democracy. The first time that I was there, Oginga Odinga, the former Vice-President, was effectively in domestic exile. Shortly afterwards, leading literary figures, such as Ngugi Wa Thiong'o, were forced into real exile. On our honeymoon, we flew into a curfew in Nairobi, such was the political pressure for democracy and the resistance to it. More recently, I too have seen on television from these shores the savagery with which the pro-democracy demonstrators have been treated.
  Those experiences lie behind a number of written questions that I have tabled in order to test exactly the Government's attitude in foreign policy to what we see in Kenya. Are we providing military or other assistance to the existing regime? What measures are we taking in our ethical foreign policy to ensure that pressure is brought to bear to bring democracy to true fruition?
  I must say that I am slightly concerned by some of the answers that I have received, which do not reveal exactly what military assistance we have been giving, but do reveal that, notwithstanding what appear to be human rights abuses, we are still treating the country as eligible to receive military training at the very least.
  I press the Minister to confirm that our ethical human rights policy is what it proclaims to be: that we will be led by the guiding light of human rights; that we will look cautiously at applications for military assistance; that we will do what we can to support the pro-democracy movement; and that, in particular, we will be vigilant in monitoring the progress in the lead-up to the elections on 29 December to ensure that there is no intimidation and the democratic process works properly and fulsomely, so that we can restore Kenya to the kind of country that Tom Mboya and Jomo Kenyatta wished it to be.
  1.45 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) and for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) on introducing this very important debate. It could not be more timely, given the impending presidential and parliamentary elections in Kenya.
  I congratulate my hon. Friends on expressing the great affection—it is important that the House expresses such affection—in which Kenya and the Kenyan people are
  304
  held by hon. Members and British people generally. It is important that that message is given, because it is important that we do not send a mixed signal about our ambitions and intent.
  Our relations with Kenya are obviously long-standing. It is a measure of the importance that we as a country—and certainly the Government—attach to Kenya that, on my first official visit to Africa in June, not long after our general election, I decided to visit Kenya.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington gave a graphic account of the criticisms made of the Kenyan Government's human rights abuses. Indeed, earlier in the year and again in September, Amnesty International launched a document in which it went into considerable detail about its concerns. My hon. Friend has already cited some examples, such as the questions of arbitrary detention, killings by the police, detention without trial and numerous other grave and serious charges to which the Kenyan Government have to respond.
  I raised such issues when I visited Kenya. I specifically raised Amnesty International's manifesto with the Attorney-General, Mr. Wako, and President Moi himself. The key points in the manifesto were the need for legal reform, the end to indefinite detention without trial, the need for reform of the press and media and the judicial system, an end to torture and ill-treatment of prisoners—an argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington made forcefully—and action on police killings. There is a legitimate demand that lethal force be countenanced only when unavoidable in order to protect lives.
  At that time, and since that time, the Government have pressed all concerned on those issues and, more generally, on the need to avoid confrontation and to resolve differences—there are real differences in Kenyan society—through dialogue and not by resorting to violence.
  We have called consistently for free and fair elections. We knew that the electoral cycle in Kenya meant that elections would have to take place this year, or possibly early next year. We have said specifically that free and fair elections are ones in which all those who want to vote can exercise that choice freely, all those who want to stand have the opportunity to do so, the electorate have access to the candidates through the media to help them to make their choice, and people can come together freely in support of the candidates of their choice.
  The donor community—the Europeans, the United States and the Japanese—have made it clear that such conditions are necessary for proper elections. We have been consistent in our demand that that process take place.
  The elections that have been announced are a great opportunity for the Kenyan people to take control of the destiny of their country. The election takes place against a backdrop of laws that have made the electoral process a subject of concern. The elections held in 1992 were widely seen not to have come up to the standards that we demand. The saving grace is that they were the first multi-party elections after a long period of one-party rule. We must insist that the elections this time are fought and won on a more acceptable basis than those of five years ago.
  During the summer, there was considerable violence, much of it no doubt related to the anticipation of elections. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington

  305
  referred to several specific incidents, including that in the Anglican cathedral and another in which Paul Muite and Nengi Muigai, both of whom I know personally, were subjected to violent attack. We have made it clear to the Kenyan Government that we abhor violence from Opposition figures, state institutions or the Government's supporters. It has no place in Kenyan society.
  I spoke at length with Church leaders when I was in Kenya, urging them to continue to play a constructive role, as they seek to do. Their initiative brought the different sides together to form the inter-parties parliamentary group. That has had positive results.
  On 7 November, Parliament and the President approved three important reform Bills. One removed the principal legal instrument that has been used to harass Opposition politicians—the Public Order Act. When I was Opposition spokesman, I had direct experience of the operation of that Act, when a meeting that I was supposed to address was cancelled arbitrarily and at short notice. That did not ultimately prevent the meeting, but the intention was certainly to disrupt and reduce the audience.
  I welcome the abandonment of that Act, which means that political meetings no longer require a licence. That takes them outside the immediate control of those with a political incentive. There is now simply a requirement to notify the police of public rallies.
  The Preservation of Public Security Act has also been amended, removing the provisions for detention without trial, as has the penal code, with the replacement of the sedition laws, which had been used to prevent freedom of expression and to intimidate Opposition politicians. Importantly for the coming election, the constitutional provision preventing coalition government has now been changed.
  We note the commitment of the Kenyan Government to allowing equitable access to publicly funded media. All parties must have access to the radio, in particular, to ensure free and fair elections. When the election was announced, we issued a statement calling for a peaceful election and insisting that all parties and candidates of national status should have access to the media on a fair basis, particularly to the radio.
  We also note that a law has been passed to establish a constitutional review commission, which will draw from diverse sections of Kenyan society, with a two-year timetable to draw up fundamental reforms to present to Parliament.
  We are not sanguine about the process. We do not think that it goes far enough. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington referred to the unacceptable continued refusal to register Safina as a political party. There can be no place in a democratic system for parties being arbitrarily forbidden to contest elections.
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised that with the Kenyan Foreign Minister as recently as the Edinburgh Commonwealth Heads of Government conference in October. I am writing once again to the Kenyan Government, asking them to allow an urgent appeal against that refusal. I do not know whether that will be possible in time for the forthcoming election, but, if not, that will be a severe blot on the credibility of the election.
  306
  We shall follow the election campaign closely. The Department for International Development, together with the Swedes, the Danes and the Dutch, is jointly financing a $1.5 million project to help independent Kenyan non-governmental organisations to observe the elections. Those bodies include the National Council for Churches, the Catholic Justice and Peace Commission and the Institute for Education in Democracy. We have also seconded staff to the international secretariat in Nairobi, which will co-ordinate the monitoring of the electoral process from start to finish. The election is important. The world has an interest in ensuring that it is fought on a free and fair basis.
  We shall continue to be critical of all human rights abuses. We know about the problem of persistent police brutality. We recognise the evidence of tortures and deaths of prisoners and detainees and of excessive violence in crowd control, arbitrary arrests and extra-judicial killings. I have raised those issues with the Kenyan Attorney-General on at least two occasions. We shall continue to criticise excessive police violence, particularly incidents such as those of 7 July and 15 October. I wrote to the President about our concerns at that time, and the Foreign Secretary has raised the issues with the Kenyan Foreign Ministry.
  Against that background, the Department for International Development is considering funding training courses for the Kenyan police. I want to disabuse my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough of his concerns. There are 4,000 British troops in Kenya on their own training exercises. We are simply using the training facilities offered by the Kenyans.
  The only training that we offer the Kenyans is not on civilian control, but on peacekeeping duties on a wider basis throughout Africa. There is no large-scale military training programme that might give him concerns—which we would share. We are not training an armed force that is out of control.
  I should add that the Kenyan army has a remarkably high standard of discipline, and there is little evidence of it being involved in the abuses that have been referred to.
  Mr. McDonnell: The concerns are specifically related to the Kenyan police and its training.
  Mr. Lloyd: The police training that we have provided has been limited to a training scheme for senior management, which includes a human rights component. We believe that that helps to improve the quality of the Kenyan police. The Department for International Development is considering a human rights training scheme, which we hope will focus on improving the human rights attitudes of the Kenyan police. We shall monitor how that works out. Those are important initiatives.
  We look forward to the election. It is a new chapter in Kenya's history. We hope that it will be a multi-party election fought on a proper democratic basis. It is not for the British Government to choose the winners. It is up to us to work with whoever wins the election and to ensure that action is taken on corruption, an end to which is vital for the long-term economic future of Kenya, and human

  307
  rights abuses, on which the Kenyan Government are bound under international obligations to make progress. More generally, there is a need for constitutional reform to give sovereignty to the Kenyan people.
  My hon. Friends are right to urge the Government to play their part in pressing those issues on the Kenyan Government—the current Government and whatever Government emerges after the election. We intend to
  308
  ensure that pressure is maintained on the Kenyan Government. We shall continue constructive private dialogue and, when circumstances warrant it, make public our concerns. My hon. Friends have taken part in that process.
  It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  DUCHY OF LANCASTER
  The Chancellor was asked—
  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Freedom of Information
    1. Ms Julie Morgan: When he will publish the White Paper on freedom of information. [15090]
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. David Clark): A White Paper on our proposals for a freedom of information Bill will be published shortly.
    Ms Morgan: I thank the Minister for his reply. How does he propose to make the information that will become available under the legislation accessible to the ordinary citizen, not just to lobbyists?
    Dr. Clark: It will be important to give a great deal of publicity to the freedom of information Act. The code has been partly ineffective because of inadequate publicity. I also believe that the amount of press publicity surrounding freedom of information will ensure that virtually everyone is aware of the legislation.
    Mr. Lansley: When the Chancellor of the Duchy publishes the White Paper, will he at the same time publish the advice that has been rendered to Ministers by officials about the scope of freedom of information and its method of application?
    Dr. Clark: When we publish the White Paper, it will contain the Government's proposals for consultation. Part of the process of that debate will concern how we deal with information to Ministers. On the one hand we need to be as open as possible; on the other, we must retain the central confidences that will allow the business of good government to continue.
    Mr. Bennett: Will the freedom of information legislation apply to devolved government in Scotland and Wales? If so, will it be introduced via the devolution legislation or by a subsequent Act of this House?
    Dr. Clark: The parts of public information that relate to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly will be matters for those authorities. How we bring that about will be a matter of detail that we will examine as we work through the consultation period.
    Mr. Maclennan: As much public business today is carried out on behalf of the Government by contractors in the private sector, will the Chancellor of the Duchy ensure that the White Paper does not exempt such contractors from the requirements of disclosure that would be in place if the business were carried out in-house by the Government?
    Dr. Clark: The right hon. Gentleman has a fair point. The nature of government has changed a great deal in recent years. With so much privatisation and contracting out, public business that would in the past have been
    310
    carried out by Government Departments is now being done by private organisations. It would be wrong of me to pre-empt the Act, but this is the sort of issue that we are examining in the committee that is considering the White Paper.
    Mr. Caplin: Will the Animal Procedures Committee under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 be part of the freedom of information Act, thus ending the shabby secrecy that vivisectionists have been able to hide behind under the Tories?
    Dr. Clark: I believe that that particular legislation is one of the 200 Acts which contain clauses relating to the release or disclosure of information. If my memory is right in that respect, we shall deal with it in the White Paper. If not, I shall write to my hon. Friend.
    Mrs. Shephard: In the interests of freedom of information, will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House why he found it necessary to make trips to Australasia, the United States and Canada in order to study open government? In connection with those trips, as reported in The Times on 20 October, we on the Conservative Benches at least hope that it is not the case that a smear campaign is being conducted against the right hon. Gentleman by a senior colleague—not, surely, something that we would want to expect from an open Government.
    Dr. Clark: We on the Government Benches take the view that, if we are to modernise our constitution, the freedom of information legislation is very important. We also take the view that we will probably have only one opportunity to put such legislation on the statute book, so we must get it right on the first occasion. Therefore, I felt that it was right and proper not to reinvent the wheel but to learn from experiences elsewhere. It just so happens that, whereas the Conservative Government did not have the guts to face up to that difficult issue, we are prepared to grasp the nettle.
    I felt it right and proper to go to the United States of America, which has a long history of freedom of information, and also to go to those three Commonwealth countries, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, which have introduced freedom of information Acts in the past 15 years, so that when we compiled our legislation, we could ensure that, we were using the best practices from the experiences in those Westminster models.

    Departmental Appointments
    2. Miss Widdecombe: If he will make a statement on the Government's policy in respect of appointments to the press and information departments of Government Departments. [15091]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): All appointments to the permanent civil service—including those in press and information divisions—are made on the basis of merit through fair and open competition.
    Miss Widdecombe: If that blameless description is true, and if there really is no politicisation of press and information appointments, as is widely reported, will the

    311
    hon. Gentleman explain why no fewer than eight senior civil servants in press and information departments have suddenly found an overwhelming desire to spend more time with their families?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: First, the figure is seven, not eight. There are a variety of reasons for such changes. Bernard Ingham, in his memoirs, points out that, when Viscount Whitelaw returned from Northern Ireland, he was out of a job because Viscount Whitelaw brought his own press officer with him. It is a matter of public record that the chief press officer and the Minister without Portfolio have endorsed the impartiality of the press officer service within the civil service. That has been the case in the past, is the case at present and will remain the case in future.
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: Is not it rather rich of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) to complain about the Government in this respect when the Conservative party was responsible for pumping tens of millions of pounds into Government propaganda campaigns which masqueraded as Government information?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: However much the Conservative party pumped into propaganda when they were in government, they signally failed on I May. The Labour party made it abundantly clear before the election that it would be an integral part of a Labour Government's modus operandi to present their case effectively and impartially. Not only is it necessary for the Government to do that: it is their responsibility.
    Mr. Hogg: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the fact that seven press officers—:that is, about one third of the leading press officers in Government Departments—have found it impossible to work with the directives being issued to them by their Ministers makes it absolutely plain that what we are seeing is the politicisation by the Labour party of the civil service?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: Needless to say, I completely reject that allegation; more important, so did Sir Robin Butler when he appeared before the Select Committee. It is perfectly in order that there should be staffing changes in press offices as elsewhere with the advent of a new Government. Indeed, without divulging the particulars of individual cases, there was a variety of reasons why people chose at that time to vacate their job in a Department.

    Better Government Programme
    Mr. Edwards:: If he will make a statement on the progress of his better government programme. [15092]
    Dr. David Clark: We are making good progress in developing the better government White Paper, which will set out a vision for public service into the new millennium. Our aim is to make government simpler and more responsive to citizens. That will partly be achieved by using the latest developments in information technology to improve the services we offer. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has set the target that one quarter of Government services should be deliverable electronically within the next five years.
    Mr. Edwards: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the better government initiative
    312
    should involve the talents and experience of those in local government, where a number of improvements in service delivery have already been introduced?
    Dr. Clark: Yes. I think it essential that we involve ordinary citizens at every level of government. Ordinary citizens do not distinguish between tiers of government, whether central or local; all they are interested in is the quality of the service that they receive. The better government initiative aims to end the perception that government is only about queues and forms. I am determined that local government will be involved in the initiative because local government is involved in many exciting initiatives in service provision. In order to co-ordinate and learn from those experiences, I recently set up a working group as part of the central-local partnership initiative, so that we can look at the various pilots and try to spread best practice.
    Mr. Jenkin: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he has told me in a written answer that it is not Government policy for Ministers to be accessible by e-mail? With all the talk about better government and information technology, would it not be a good idea either for Ministers to have e-mail addresses instead of handing out a sheaf of replies consisting of "I will reply to the hon. Gentleman as quickly as possible", or for him to tell me that Ministers have no intention of having e-mail addresses?
    Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman does not understand my answer correctly if he thinks that I am saying that it is not my policy to encourage Ministers to have e-mail addresses or to use them. In fact, I do have an e-mail address and it is public. My reply to the hon. Gentleman was that the information is not held centrally and therefore I cannot provide him with the answer for which he asks.
    Mr. Coaker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the better government programme is absolutely essential if we are to bring government closer to the people, overcome some of the cynicism people feel towards government and take better decisions in the future?
    Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We fought the last election on the issue of the regeneration of our country, economic, social and democratic. Part of that appeal was the democratic appeal and, through our better government initiative, it is our hope and intention to involve many more of our citizens in the running of their country.

    Non-departmental Public Bodies (Women)
    Mrs. Ballard: What measures he will be taking to increase the number of women on the boards of executive NDPBs. [15093]
    Mr. Kilfoyle: All Departments encourage women to apply for public appointments and are committed to fair selection procedures. As part of that process, Departments are currently drawing up individual plans for the increased representation of women on public bodies. Those plans will include specific targets for each Department and will cover the period 1998 to 2001.
    Mrs. Ballard: The Minister will be aware that, of those women who currently hold public appointments, the vast

    313
    majority are in unpaid, not paid, appointments. When drawing up his targets, will the Minister ensure that there is a target for equal representation of women in paid as well as unpaid appointments?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: It is certainly the Government's policy to encourage women to participate at every level within what is commonly known as the quangocracy. The commissioner for appointments has set out a code of practice in which equal opportunity is a central element. In addition, the public appointments unit is actively seeking more women nominations to its list—it currently stands at 31 per cent. of its total—so that Departments have a ready reservoir of willing and-[HON. MEMBERS: Able."] That is not my word. I am talking about willing and well qualified women who are available for appointment to both paid and unpaid non-departmental public body jobs.
    Mrs. Gorman: Will the hon. Gentleman consider looking at the staffing of foster homes, which are often privately run, many of which have been in the news lately for severe abuses of children? Does he agree that, if more older women were used to head those institutions, there would be less of the abuse that we keep reading about in our newspapers and which is such a disgrace? Older women would not have the wool pulled over their eyes in these matters.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: I do not know if the hon. Lady is suggesting that the Government should nationalise private foster homes—I doubt whether she is. What the hon. Lady is suggesting is not within our remit, but I will pass on her comments to the appropriate Ministers.

    Charter Objectives
    Mr. Simon Hughes:: If Her Majesty's Government plan to provide for penalties or sanctions for non—compliance with charter objectives; and if he will make a statement. [15094]
    Mr. Kilfoyle: We are committed to relaunching the charter programme so that it meets the needs and wishes of people who use public services on a daily basis. That is why we are currently consulting on how best to do this, including looking at issues of compliance. Details of the new programme will be published as part of the better government initiative.
    Mr. Hughes: Are Ministers aware that the patients charter, to which the Government are committed, says:
    "From April 1995 the NHS is broadening the 18-month guarantee"—
    that last word is in bold print—
    "of admission into hospital to cover all admissions into hospital."
    When the Government took office, there were 155 people for whom there was no treatment in 18 months and, yesterday, we learned that there were 818 people for whom there was no treatment in 18 months. As a result of the guarantee being broken, will there be compensation for the individuals affected, will they be admitted to hospital, or is the guarantee—it is much more important than a pledge—worthless in terms of guarantees about NHS treatment under this Government?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of
    314
    State for Health in which he likened turning round the situation on waiting lists to turning round a super-tanker. The previous Government left a dreadful legacy, and that is why my right hon. Friend and the Government have taken immediate action, including the provision of £269 million this year. They have appointed a waiting list action team, led by Stephen Day, with task groups in each of the eight regions to ensure that by next March we have looked at that 18-month limit and are turning round the huge lists that were bequeathed to us by the last Government.

    Quangos
    Kali Mountford: What representations he has received about changes in the working practices of quangos. [15095]
    Dr. David Clark: Over the past few years quangos have been roundly criticised for being too secretive, unaccountable and unrepresentative. Last week I published the "Opening Up Quangos" Green Paper, which addresses those criticisms and sets out our plans to make quangos more open, accountable and effective.
    This is open to widespread consultation and I look forward to receiving the views of people from throughout the country.
    Kali Mountford: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. I welcome the Green Paper, which I am sure will shine light on the secretiveness and unaccountability of the quangos set up by the Conservative Government. Given my right hon. Friend's commitment to freedom of information, may I ask him whether quangos will be covered by a freedom of information Act?
    Dr. Clark: We shall introduce a number of measures to open up quangos, including open annual meetings, publishing the minutes and annual reports. We are also, keen to encourage a wide cross-section of the community to become involved. The freedom of information legislation, as I said, will have wide coverage, right across Government. I cannot anticipate what the White Paper will contain, but I am pretty sure that my hon. Friend will not be disappointed.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the effectiveness of quangos essentially depends on who is selected to serve on them? When they consider that matter, will quangos refrain from selecting people purely on the basis of political correctness?
    Dr. Clark: I am delighted that at long last the hon. Gentleman, and I hope his colleagues, have seen the light. We live in a pluralistic society, and it is important that quangos and other bodies that help to advise the Government represent a cross-section of our society. I believe that one of the reasons why quangos got such a bad name over the past 18 years was the manner in which the previous Government stuffed them with their own appointees.
    Mr. William Ross: Does the Minister recognise that most citizens are not interested in changing the working practices of quangos, but rather in bringing them under direct democratic control, especially at local level?

    315
    Nowhere do people feel more strongly about that than in Northern Ireland. What steps do the Government intend to take to restore democracy to the Province?
    Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. The document that I produced last week referred to the 1,000 or so quangos that are national, but in addition to those, there are thousands that have regional, provincial or local application. I hope that out of the consultation and the on-going debate on democracy and about our devolution proposals, we will find it possible for some of the local and regional quangos to be subsumed by local government.

    Open Government
    Mr. Mullin: What action he plans to take to increase openness in government; and if he will make a statement. [15097]
    Dr. David Clark: The White Papers on freedom of information and better government which I am preparing will both increase openness in government.
    I believe that in a modern society, open government is good government. Our proposals will change radically the culture of government in Britain and the way in which public information is handled.
    Mr. Mullin: I am grateful for that reply, but who will decide what is to remain secret and what will not remain secret? Will it be the same civil servants who, as we saw during the Scott inquiry, are rather unenthusiastic about the concept of open government, or will there be an independent element in the appeals process?
    Dr. Clark: It is important that any legislation on freedom of information includes a strong, fair and easy-to-use appeals system, and does not leave the individual helpless in his or her attempt to get information. There are various ways in which that can be achieved, but the Government are studying the model of an independent information commissioner.
    Mr. Gill: The Government make much play about open government. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he considers that holding a referendum before publishing the Bill to which the referendum refers is no more than a crude opinion poll, not a referendum?
    Dr. Clark: We had referendums in Scotland and Wales before powers were devolved, and we have made it clear that we will use the same instrument before we introduce regional government into England.

    Non-departmental Public Bodies
    Mr. Gerrard: How he intends to ensure the accountability of non-departmental public bodies. [15099]
    Dr. David Clark: The Government are determined to make quangos more open and more accountable.
    In our "Opening up Quangos" Green Paper we set out ways to improve the accountability of quangos. I am inviting Select Committees to have greater oversight of quangos, by looking at annual reports and by being
    316
    involved in the new five-yearly reviews. I also plan to introduce codes of practice and registers of interest to quango boards wherever possible.
    I believe that these and many other proposals that we put forward will ensure that quangos become much more accountable to the people they serve.
    Mr. Gerrard: I know that my right hon. Friend appreciates that the quango state that was created by the previous Government removed huge areas of public expenditure from democratic scrutiny, with boards meeting in private with members who were unknown to the general public. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, as part of his proposals for openness, the name of every member of every quango will be made publicly available, as will their register of interests, in a form that will be easily accessible to the average member of the public?
    Dr. Clark: My answer is yes. At the same time that we published the Green Paper last week, we ensured that it was available on the internet. I intend to ensure that the internet includes the names of all quangos, their aims and objectives, and overall financial information. In addition, it is my intention to ensure that the names of all individuals on quangos appear on the internet, with the odd exception where one or two specialist committees deal with security or with the security of the individual, which might be at risk from publication.
    Mr. Baker: Is the Minister able to give an assurance that it is his policy that henceforth all quangos will be subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee? Will he concur that the best way to deal with quangos is to abolish many of them and return their powers to democratically elected local councils? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, when he is replacing clapped-out Tory placemen, he will not simply introduce Labour placemen?
    Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman raises some serious points. First, we are trying to examine the raison d'etre of every quango to ensure that there is a reason for that body continuing to exist. Secondly, I have already said that we see a future, when considering regional and local quangos, for discussion to ascertain whether these bodies could be incorporated into the local government structure. That is the sort of issue that will be raised when we introduce our central-local government initiative. We have already discussed that.
    I assure the hon. Gentleman that we recognise that we live in a pluralistic society. It is right and proper that people from all sections and strands of the community are represented on quangos.

    Freedom of Information
    Mr. Barnes: If he will make a statement on progress towards legislation on freedom of information. [15100]
    Dr. David Clark: I intend to publish a White Paper on freedom of information shortly, and after a period of consultation this will be followed by a draft Bill.
    Mr. Barnes: Will it be seen that no excessive charges are made for accessing freedom of information, so that

    317
    the information will begin to be readily available? As the process will take a while, with the publication of a White Paper and ensuing legislation, can things be done in the meantime to open up the secrecy of the state?
    Dr. Clark: It is essential that costs should not be a deterrent when use is sought of the eventual Act. As my hon. Friend says, some time will pass before that Act is on the statute book. It is important that we continue our efforts as a Government to be more open. We shall be encouraging the flexible use of the code. I am encouraging my colleagues to be more proactive about the release of information. Right hon. and hon. Members may have noticed that yesterday we took an opportunity to show our commitment to openness by releasing MI5 documents from the Public Record Office.
    Mr. Soames: Does the Minister accept that freedom of information itself is necessarily no panacea for better government? What arrangements does he intend to make for the advice that is given by officials to Ministers? Will that advice be subject to the same rules, or is he intending to alter them and thus make it likely that officials will restrain themselves in giving full and frank advice?
    Dr. Clark: It is quite clear to us that open government is part of modern government and good government. I have already made the point that, at some time, one has to make a balanced judgment between openness, which informs our citizens, and confidentiality, which is essential to the workings of government. We feel that our responsibility is to provide good government, and we certainly intend to ensure that we get that balance right.

    Special Advisers
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What are the principal provisions of the contracts of special advisers; and what steps he is taking to ensure that they do not undermine the integrity and impartiality of the civil service. [15101]
    Dr. David Clark: The model contract for special advisers sets out the terms and conditions under which they are employed. For the first time under this Government a copy was placed in the Library of the House in June. It distinguishes clearly the role and responsibilities of special advisers and reinforces the integrity and impartiality of the permanent civil service.
    Mr. Winterton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. What action is he taking to ensure that, where statements by special advisers are dishonest, misleading and inaccurate, disciplinary action is taken? I refer in particular to matters relating to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Is it not important that the traditional professionalism of the civil service is in no way undermined by the activities of special advisers?
    Dr. Clark: It is absolutely essential that the political neutrality and integrity of the civil service is maintained. The draft contracts make that quite clear. They also lay out quite specifically the terms and conditions under which the special advisers operate, and make it quite clear that they can be more free in speaking to the press on political matters.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    The Prime Minister was asked—
    Miss Widdecombe: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 19 November. [15120]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Miss Widdecombe: Will the Prime Minister spare the time to enlighten the House about the statement that he made last week, with what he described as enthusiasm and relish, on payments to the Labour party, when his enthusiasm and relish miraculously dried up so that he did not reveal the issue of the second payment? When he answers that question, could he do so with uncharacteristic frankness and humility, and without giving his usual impression of a Cheshire cat?
    The Prime Minister: There was no further payment—
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that I take points of order after statements.
    The Prime Minister: There was no further payment, as I have said. I would just point out to the hon. Lady that we returned the donation. We refused more donations. We consulted Sir Patrick Neill. We followed his advice. We published that advice. I do not believe that the Conservative party would ever have done the same in our position.
    [15121] Mr. Winnick: In view of the £10 million to £14 million that Ecclestone gave to the Tories previously, as well as the £1 million given to us before the election, is there not a case for changing the law to limit the amount of money that any private individual can give to political parties? Does my right hon. Friend agree that all political parties represented in the House should be forced to declare to the last penny where their money comes from and to return all stolen money? Does he recognise that, if we are to reform party financing, we should do so soon and do so thoroughly? That is what the public want, and it is what Labour Members of Parliament want.
    The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. That is precisely why the terms of reference for Sir Patrick Neill should be as broad as possible. I also believe, to take up the point that my hon. Friend made, that it is important—and I have proposed this—that Sir Patrick Neill is able to look at all the donations that have been made, the names of the donors and the amounts, going back to 1992— [Interruption.] I am perfectly prepared, for myself, to have it go back 10 years.

    319
    I am delighted to say that, since I wrote to the leaders of the two other main parties, the leader of the Liberal Democrats has agreed to that proposition. I hope that the leader of the Conservative party will now agree to that proposition as well.
    Mr. Hague: When was the £1 million given back to Mr. Ecclestone?
    The Prime Minister: We have said that we will give the money back. [Interruption.] We have already made arrangements to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] We have already made arrangements to do so, and it will be done in the next few days.
    Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister just told my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) that the money had been returned. Are we to understand, five minutes into Question Time, that his first answer was not correct?
    The Prime Minister: As we have made clear, we sought the advice of Sir Patrick Neill. We have followed that advice: we have followed it to the letter. I now think that the right hon. Gentleman should say whether he is prepared to accede to what both the leader of the Liberal Democrats and I have already agreed to.
    Mr. Hague: I would have thought that, in this week of all weeks, even this Prime Minister would not be on his high horse—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Just a moment, Mr. Hague. I will have silence in this House when Members are asking questions. They must be heard.
    Mr. Hague: I would have thought that, in this week of all weeks, even this Prime Minister would not be on his high horse in the Chamber. I will make my recommendations and proposals to the Neill committee; I will not prejudge its conclusions as the Prime Minister seems to.
    Now we know that, when the Prime Minister told the House last week that he had already followed Sir Patrick Neill's advice to the letter, he had not actually done so, and he has still not actually done so. But, given that the Prime Minister has said that he ruled out further donations from Mr. Ecclestone on 5 November, why has the Minister without Portfolio said that he knew about such donations and ruled them out in October? Who is telling the truth, the Prime Minister or his sidekick?
    The Prime Minister: I have made it clear, as I did in my television interview, that the decision was taken on 5 November—before, I may say, any press inquiry was made at all.
    Mr. Hague: Well, we can take it from that that the Minister without Portfolio was not telling the truth in his statement.
    Let us explore this a little further. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on!"] I can understand why Labour Members do not want it to be explored a little further. Given that the
    320
    Prime Minister has said that he ruled out further donations on 5 November, why did he ask Sir Patrick Neill two days later whether further donations could be accepted?
    The Prime Minister: Because we had already made it clear in the letter to Sir Patrick Neill—which the right hon. Gentleman keeps quoting one part of, but not the other—that we had thus far refused the further donation. We therefore asked his advice about whether it was right to do so. We were advised that it was right to do so. We followed that advice.
    Mr. Hague: Well, I have a letter here. It does say, as the Prime Minister says,
    "The position which we have adopted thus far has been to refuse this ⁠ donation".
    Then it says:
    "but we wish to be advised whether this is a position which we need to maintain."
    It also says:
    "we should consult you on whether it may properly be accepted."
    Are we to understand that, the next time the Prime Minister tells us that he has ruled something out—of course—he will take advice two days later on whether to do it after all? Does this explain why the Minister without Portfolio said on Saturday that the Government had behaved with complete propriety, but has gone on today to say that they have been behaving out of character?
    The Prime Minister: What the right hon. Gentleman has just read out to me is precisely the answer that I gave him a moment ago. While we are on this topic, in June he promised that he would publish a full list of donors to the Conservative party. As far as I am aware, he has not published a single name. In August, the Conservative party said that it would publish its accounts, but it has not so far done so. It said that it would give back the money that it received from Asil Nadir, but it has so far not given it back.
    The leader of the Liberal Democrats has agreed with me— [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: The leader of the Liberal Democrats has agreed with me that we should disclose the names of donors and the amounts going back to 1992. [Interruption.] It is not a question of waiting for Sir Patrick Neill's conclusions; it is about the terms of reference. Does the Leader of the Opposition agree to those terms of reference or not?
    Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister has already had to admit that he has not handled this matter well. He should not make it worse by failing to answer questions that are put to him in the House. Is it not extraordinary that the Government denied that the Labour party received money from Mr. Ecclestone and then admitted it; denied that the donation was £1 million and then admitted it; denied that the crucial meeting had been minuted and then published the minutes; denied the House a full account of the matter, which instead had to be dragged out piece by piece; and denied that the Labour party would accept further donations and then took advice on accepting them?

    321
    Has not the Prime Minister's conduct been a shabby tale of evasion, which voters, when asked to trust him in future, will not lightly forget?
    The Prime Minister: People who are watching this exchange will not forget that the right hon. Gentleman has failed to say why—he will have to answer the question at some point—he refuses to agree terms of reference that would allow Sir Patrick Neill to go back over the period from the 1992 general election onwards. The only reason why the newspapers or the Conservative party can go through Labour's donors is that we publish their names. The right hon. Gentleman has not published anything: no one knows where a penny of Tory money comes from. Before he criticises the Labour party, he should tell us where that money comes from and who gave it to the Conservative party. He should go back five years, as we are prepared to do. Until he does that, no one will pay the slightest attention to his criticisms.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Will my right hon. Friend inform the House of the status and progress of his social exclusion unit? [Interruption.] Are not the objectives of his Administration the modernisation of Britain and the attainment of social justice? In Wales, many of our fellow citizens have no meaningful work, and have no hope for the future. How does he intend to tackle the problems that he has inherited from the Conservatives?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. I am surprised that Conservative Members jeer about the problems that many people face. It is precisely because we believe in a proper approach to tackling not just unemployment but levels of truancy, exclusions from school, poor housing and poor educational opportunity that we have established the social exclusion unit, which will examine these problems in a proper and co-ordinated way. It is important that people realise that at long last they have a Government who take seriously the unity and cohesion of this nation.
    Mr. Ashdown: Will the Prime Minister tell us which, in his view, should come first, an early pledge or a long-term objective?
    The Prime Minister: It is important, of course, that we fulfil all the pledges that we gave to the electorate at the last general election, and we will fulfil them all. At the next general election we will be held to account for the performance that we have given.
    Mr. Ashdown: I take it from that that an early pledge comes first, in which case will the Prime Minister explain why today the Chancellor is going around telling us that the Government's revenues are so buoyant that he can fulfil his long-term objective of a lop tax rate next year whereas the Secretary of State for Health is saying that he cannot—in five years—guarantee that the Government will deliver on their early pledge of lower waiting lists than we had under the Tories? Does the Prime Minister realise that people simply will not understand a Labour Government who say that they have enough money to spend on lower tax rates but not enough to deliver their own early pledges on lower waiting lists?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly hope that my right hon. Friend did not say that, because of course we will
    322
    fulfil the pledge that we have made to cut waiting lists by 100,000 or more from what we inherited from the previous Conservative Government.
    I say to the leader of the Liberal Democrats, since I anticipated that he might raise this, that I went back and looked at the Liberal Democrat pledges before the last election. Before the election the Liberal Democrats asked that over the first two years of the Labour Government we put an extra £1.1 billion into the national health service. We are actually going to put £1.5 billion into the national health service, but now they say that that is not enough. Secondly, they asked for some £500 million to go into a school repairs programme. We are actually providing £1.3 billion and now they say that that is not enough. With the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I think he should learn the difference between opposition and opportunism.
    [15123] Mr. Illsley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that despite 19 years of fiddled figures—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nineteen years?"] —a legacy of the last Conservative Government is a level of unemployment that is still unacceptably high, especially in my constituency where unemployment above the national average. I echo my right hon. Friend's welcome for the employment chapter in the treaty of European Union, and I urge him to use our presidency of the EU next year to take advantage of whatever initiatives there are to alleviate unemployment throughout the European Union, including in Great Britain and in my constituency.
    The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend. I think that it was 18 years of Conservative Government, but it seemed like 19 at the time. What is happening at the jobs summit this week in Luxembourg is tremendously important for the future of methods to tackle in particular long-term unemployment in the European Union. The Government have proposed a range of measures which focus particularly on education, on skills and on tackling youth and long-term unemployment.
    I very much hope that the summit indicates a new approach by the whole of Europe in which we focus particularly on how we encourage the employability and adaptability of the work force. If we can achieve that at this summit, it will show the advantage of having a sensible, constructive approach to Europe that allows us to achieve the objectives that we all want.
    Mr. Hammond: Will the Prime Minister explain what he sought to achieve in asking Sir Patrick Neill's advice on 7 November about the propriety of accepting a further donation from Mr. Ecclestone when he has already told the House that he decided on 5 November not to accept such a donation?
    The Prime Minister: For the very reason that I have just given, which is that, having taken the decision to refuse further donations, it was important that we got his advice as to whether we had taken the right decision. We got his advice and we followed that advice. [Interruption.] That is precisely what we have said and, as I say, I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman believes that, in the 20 years of Conservative Government, there was never any potential conflict of interest. But for the first time a Government actually took

    323
    the watchdog's advice. We followed that advice, whereas the party of which the hon. Gentleman is a member would never have done the same thing.
    Mr. Dalyell: What conclusions are we to draw from Madeleine Albright's discovery that not a single Arab country would support military action against Iraq?
    The Prime Minister: All countries are concerned to ensure that Saddam Hussein obeys the United Nations security resolutions that were passed at the conclusion of the Gulf war. The reason why it is important that he does abide by those resolutions is that they concern the making of chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. If he is allowed to carry on developing those weapons, the dangers, not just for the middle east, but for the whole world, are obvious and clear. He has deceived people, used chemical weapons on his own people, and invaded other countries without any possible justification. It is absolutely essential that he backs down on this—that he be made to back down. We will, of course, seek a diplomatic solution, but he has to back down because, if he does not, we will simply face this problem, perhaps in a different and far worse form, in a few years' time.
    Mr. Bercow: If the Prime Minister had decided on 5 November— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, come on!"] I understand that Labour Members do not want to hear the question, but they will have to suffer in silence. If the Prime Minister had decided on 5 November that he definitely did not want to take further donations, why ask Sir Patrick Neill's permission to do so? Is not the truth of the matter that the Prime Minister was begging Sir Patrick to give him the green light to take more money?
    The Prime Minister: I am intrigued that the hon. Gentleman should ask such a question as I understand that his last employment was as special adviser to Jonathan Aitken.
    Mr. Bercow rose
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman seems able to shake his head. Perhaps he will indicate whether he will support me in saying that donations over £5,000 for the past five years should be disclosed to Sir Patrick Neill. Does he agree with that or not? Conservative Members cannot answer it because they do not dare.
    Mr. Caton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that evidence of already deprived and disadvantaged children being accommodated in children's homes and then physically and sexually abused shames our whole society? Will he assure the House and the country that the Government will respond to the Utting report with urgent and tough action?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will know that there is to be a statement on this shortly by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. The Utting report does detail an exceptionally bad record of neglect, mismanagement and abuse. Obviously, we will study the conclusions carefully, but it is essential, after long years of neglect, that we clean the situation up, and we will do it.

    Official Visit
    Mr. Steen: If he will make an official visit to White Rock above the River Dart, near Totnes. [15127]
    The Prime Minister: I think this is the second time that I have been asked to visit the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I hope that he does not mind if I say that I do not have any plans to do so, although I visit all regions.
    Mr. Steen: That answer will be a great relief to my constituents.
    Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that White Rock is just a few miles from the home of the D'Oyly Carte at Coleton Fishacre, and that the D'Oyly Carte opera company may close next month, despite its popularity, simply because the Arts Council operates a cartel which prevents new entrants, however meritorious, from getting on its little list? Surely he does not wish to preside over a Government who will allow one of our great and precious British institutions to collapse when more than £200 million is unspent in the Arts Council's lottery fund.
    The Prime Minister: We are continuing the policy of the previous Government. I do not know about the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, but I shall be happy to write to him about it. I will make a deal with him—if I do not go to his constituency, he will not come to mine.
    Mr. Gill: I want to return to the question of tobacco sponsorship. Will the exemption of formula one from the ban on tobacco sponsorship affect the financial success of Mr. Ecclestone's long-postponed flotation of Formula One Holdings?
    The Prime Minister: I have absolutely no idea about that, but in any event the exemption is right. As I pointed out last week, every other country that runs grand prix either has no sponsorship restrictions or makes special arrangements or grants exemptions for formula one. Australia, Canada, France, Germany and other countries all do that. It is important that we do it as well, because we do not want to lose the industry and the jobs associated with it.
    I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that it was his party, when last in government, which blocked the European Union directive. We are trying to ensure that we get the maximum action on advertising in sponsorship to try to reduce the level of smoking—but in a way that does not damage sport or the industry.
    Mr. Clapham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that research has shown clearly that white asbestos is a carcinogen? Some countries in Europe have already banned white asbestos and any manufactures that include white asbestos. Is he further aware that the Health and Safety Commission supports a Europewide ban and that there are substitutes for asbestos? Will he seriously examine the case for a United Kingdom ban so that we can protect future generations of workers?
    The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend, who is right to draw attention to the issue. My understanding is that the Health and Safety Commission has advised Ministers on a mechanism and timetable for introducing

    325
    a domestic ban on the import, supply and use of white asbestos. An announcement will be made shortly on how the Government intend to proceed. I know from the work that my hon. Friend has done on this matter over a number of years that he has had a long-standing commitment to a ban. I hope that shortly we will be able to give him the answer that he wants.
    Mr. Sanders: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to European Union directive 91/439. Is he aware that the directive will affect 350,000 insulin-dependent diabetics by making it illegal for them to drive vehicles in groups C and D? Is he further aware that the decision has not been based on any actuarial evidence? Will he look at the matter urgently before diabetics start to lose their jobs in January because of restrictions on their licences?
    The Prime Minister: The problem is that the current legislative position, which was introduced in 1991, reflects the advice of the expert advisory panel on diabetes and driving. To make a change, we would have to be sure that new scientific evidence and advice would justify a change to the original conclusion reached by the previous Government. If such evidence emerges, we would be happy to review the position, but until it does it would be difficult for us to argue the case for changing the directive. If the hon. Gentleman has any further information or if he wishes to draw our attention to different scientific advice from that which we have received, I suggest he submit it to my right hon. and hon. Friends for their consideration.

    Solar Energy
    Mrs. Brinton: If he will make a statement on the Government's policy on solar energy. [15131]
    The Prime Minister: The Government propose a new and strong drive to develop renewable energy sources in line with our manifesto commitment. The policy review announced by my hon. Friend the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry will consider what will be necessary and practicable in order to achieve 10 per cent. of the United Kingdom's electricity needs from renewables by the year 2010. That is an ambitious target, but we believe that, if we put the right commitment into it, it will be possible. That will obviously make a substantial contribution to the measures that we need for the Kyoto summit.
    Mrs. Brinton: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that the solar energy economy requires dispersed forms of energy conversion and supply, rather than the massive centralised power stations of today's electricity industry? Does he agree also that if we
    326
    develop and maintain solar energy, we will return power and real autonomy to the regions—not only in the United Kingdom but in the rest of the world?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right, of course-[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Opposition Members may cavil, but it is a serious problem that the country has to deal with. We believe in increasing the amount of our energy resources that come from renewable energy, and we are encouraged by the growing use of solar energy. The trouble is that solar energy is still very expensive. We are putting more money into research, and we will make progress on it as soon as we possibly can.

    Waiting Lists
    Dr. Harris: When he expects the Government's commitment to reduce waiting lists to the levels of 1 May to be achieved. [15132]
    The Prime Minister: The appalling situation that we inherited from the previous Government, who consistently undermined the national health service, means that we will have to make progress as quickly as we possibly can. The extra £300 million that will be provided over and above what was allocated by the previous Government will be of enormous assistance in doing so.
    Dr. Harris: Although I agree that the health service inherited problems, is the Prime Minister aware what a disappointment his answer will be to sick and elderly people in Oxford, West and Abingdon and elsewhere? Whereas it will take five years to implement an early pledge to cut waiting lists, as a first step, funds seem to be available to achieve the long-term aim of cutting taxes for the well-off. Is it not time that the Government governed, rather than merely acting opportunistically on their pre-election pledges?
    The Prime Minister: We will fulfil our pre-election pledge. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] Opposition Members shout out, "When?", but they are the people who put up the waiting lists. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] They deny responsibility. It was nothing to do with them, was it? As I told the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), in the next two years, we will put more money into the national health service than the Liberal Democrats wanted us to before the general election.
    Waiting lists have increased because of the situation that we inherited. Our pledge is that, at the next general election—when we again stand before the British people—we will have reduced waiting lists by 100,000 or more. We will deliver on that pledge. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on!"] As for Opposition Members, they are the people who undermined the health service. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, they are. This week marks the 100th anniversary of Nye Bevan's birthday. We established the national health service, in the teeth of Tory opposition, and we will rebuild the national health service, after 18 years of Tory disgrace.

Utting Report
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): The House will know that, last year, after the conviction of people in north Wales for sexual and other crimes against children in their care, the previous Government commissioned Sir William Utting to conduct a review of the adequacy of safeguards against the abuse of children living away from home. They also established a judicial tribunal of inquiry, under the Tribunal of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, into the events that led to those convictions. The north Wales judicial inquiry, chaired by Sir Ronald Waterhouse, continues and is expected to report next summer.
Sir William Utting has now reported to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and to me. Today, we are publishing his report. A comparable review for Scotland is being published today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Sir William's review was necessary because of continuing revelations of widespread sexual, physical and emotional abuse of children living away from home—in particular, in children's homes—over the preceding 20 years. In addition to the convictions in north Wales, there are investigations or prosecutions in progress in the north-west, the north-east, south Wales and some home counties.
The report presents a woeful tale of failure at all levels to provide a secure and decent childhood for some of the most vulnerable children. It covers the lives of children whose home circumstances were so bad that those in authority, to use the jargon, took them into care. The report reveals that, in far too many cases, not enough care was then taken. Elementary safeguards were not in place or not enforced. Many children were harmed rather than helped. The review reveals that those failings were not just the fault of individuals—although individuals were at fault. It reveals the failures of a whole system.
The review team found evidence of good work done by many children's homes despite adverse circumstances. It considers that residential care remains an important option for looking after children in trouble, but that staffing is a chronic problem.
The report reveals a list of major faults. Many children are placed in homes unsuited to their particular needs because there is too little choice, too little planning and too little forethought. Some children go through a damaging succession of placements. Children are at risk in small unregistered homes. More than a third of children in residential care are not receiving an education. Children in foster care can be at risk of abuse, and safeguards intended in the Children Act 1989 are not being uniformly implemented.
There is no requirement for residential maintained special schools to be inspected for welfare purposes. Some children abscond from residential care and become homeless, and some remain untraced. In the past, children who ran away and were traced were often returned to the care of the people who were abusing them.
Disabled children, children with emotional and behavioural difficulties and young children are at higher risk of abuse or harm when living away from home. Bullying and sexual abuse by other foster children
328
is encountered. Bullying appeared to be ignored in some children's homes. The mix of fearsome children and vulnerable children amounts to abuse by the system that is supposed to provide protection.
Vetting child care staff and foster parents must be improved. Unacceptable delays arise in checking criminal records. Staff who suspect child abuse can be deterred from coming forward for fear of victimisation by other staff or managers. Some directors of social services say that they are reluctant to dismiss staff, as their decisions can be overturned on appeal.
The criminal justice system is ineffective in deterring offences against children and in securing convictions. Its failures are most marked where the victims are most vulnerable—the very young and the disabled.
Prison Service policy to keep children in separate accommodation is not being achieved. As a result, there is suicide, self-harm and endemic bullying. Boys aged 15 to 16 are still being remanded to prison because there is not enough secure accommodation.
The report concludes that, although there are no grounds for complacency—and, by God, there should not be—the repetition of abuse in children's homes on the scale that has occurred in the past is now unlikely.
The report makes 20 principal recommendations designed to improve safeguards in foster and residential care, in schools and in the penal system to provide more effective safeguards and checks to deter abusers from working with children, more effective avenues of complaint and independent advocates to whom children should have access, more vigilant management, effective disciplinary and criminal procedures and effective systems of communication between agencies about known abusers. The report also calls for changes to ensure that the criminal justice system provides children with better protection from abusers.
I thank those who produced the report. The situation that it describes cannot be allowed to recur or—where it continues—continue any further. It must provide a spur to all concerned to ensure that, in future, children living away from home for long periods get a safe, decent and positive upbringing.
This is a most serious report, and the Government are taking it most seriously. We have set in train the following action. Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons has today published a report on young prisoners which reaches many of the same conclusions as Sir William Utting. The Home Office is ensuring that standards to safeguard young people in prison, which are being developed by the Prison Service, incorporate the welfare aims recommended in the report.
My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Employment and for Wales will be making improvements to the welfare safeguards for children in maintained boarding schools and will be working with the education service to achieve that. The chief inspector of social services in England is assessing local authorities' compliance with essential management and staffing safeguards which are supposed to be in place already. The Welsh Office is implementing with determination the Adrienne Jones report on child care and protection.
The Department of Health and the Welsh Office are already committed to two important changes recommended by the report: the creation of a statutory

329
general social care council to regulate standards of conduct and practice by social services personnel, and the statutory regulation and inspection of small children's homes.
We are actively reviewing the way in which the courts treat children and other vulnerable witnesses. We are preparing a White Paper on social services that will set out detailed proposals for improvements in the regulation of social services. With the encouragement of the Prime Minister, we are setting up a ministerial task force—to be led by me—involving Ministers from all relevant Departments and a small number of expert advisers from outside the Government. Its first job will be to prepare the full, comprehensive Government response to the report.
We will be consulting widely and carefully with all the public and voluntary agencies concerned before giving that detailed and comprehensive response. The report acknowledges that the review panel was not able to assess the costs of implementing its recommendations or what the spending levels on children's services should be. It also emphasises that any extra resources must be matched by managerial and professional effort to improve performance.
The recommendations made in the report will be considered as part of the comprehensive spending review, covering the whole range of services for children, including social services, juvenile and criminal justice and education. After careful consideration and consultation, we will put forward a full programme of policy and management changes to deliver the safer environment to which children living away from home are entitled. The programme will be clear, affordable and enforceable. It will ensure that high standards are set and that whatever standards are set will be met.
Finally, I should make it clear that many dedicated people are doing a good job looking after vulnerable children living away from home. It is never an easy task, and they deserve our thanks. We owe it to them and to the children they look after to root out and punish the wrongdoers and to put into place a system that helps rather than hinders their efforts. Vulnerable children living away from home are the responsibility of us all. Many of them have been badly let down. This Government will ensure that in future they are looked after better.
Mr. John Maples: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement and for the very prompt publication of Sir William Utting's work. I thank Sir William and his team for the enormous amount of work and effort that must have gone into the report.
The level and extent of child abuse have horrified many us. When stories first started to emerge some years ago, I frankly found it difficult to believe that they were true. There have now been so many such stories that there can be absolutely no doubt about their nature and extent. Sir William Utting's report lists a catalogue of failure in that respect. The problem has to be addressed. The previous Government began that process and set up the inquiry. We shall support the present Government in carrying forward the process.
We are talking about the most vulnerable people in society. They have often already been abused. Their natural family arrangements have broken down, and foster
330
arrangements have often broken down, too. There may be only a few thousand such children, but they are children for whom the state has assumed the role of parent. We owe it to them to do better, protecting them from abuse at the least.
None of that should detract from the fact that many, many dedicated people work with and care for such children. The appalling cases of abuse that too frequently arise should not stop us acknowledging the excellent work that is done. I think that I am right in believing that most abuse takes place in residential care and less in foster care, because it is easier to detect in foster care.
As fostering has, rightly, become more widespread, residential care has declined. There are relatively few people with experience of managing residential care. That presents problems for commissioning and inspection. Perhaps we need to consider commissioning and the provision of care on a regional, or even national, basis. Perhaps inspection should follow a similar pattern. Many county councils do not provide care directly, and children are often placed away from their local authority area, leading to less frequent visits and inspections. In addition to the welcome action that the Secretary of State has announced, will he consider implementing regional arrangements, in an attempt to overcome the problems that some county councils have?
Many children are in care because fostering arrangements have broken down. Will the Secretary of State consider giving even more encouragement to greater training and support for fostering in difficult cases, when that might help to keep the fostering arrangement alive? That would keep more children out of residential care.
Strong measures have already been implemented to keep paedophiles out of child care. I am told that they are working, but different blacklists cause a great deal of complexity. Will the Secretary of State see whether there is a way of combining into one list all the different registers that it is incumbent on social services departments to inspect?
Often those under suspicion resign before they are sacked, and criminal charges are not brought. They can often escape being placed on the registers. Can the Secretary of State find a way of ensuring that they go on the registers? Should the registers contain more soft intelligence about suspicions, even when there has been no dismissal or criminal charge?
We all realise that a balance has to be struck between individual rights and the interests of children, but does the Secretary of State think that we should move further in the direction of the protection of the child, even if that means some erosion of people's rights? Perhaps working with children in residential care should be seen as a privilege to be earned rather than a right.
We are at one with the Government in wishing to do everything possible to ensure that those vulnerable children for whom the state has taken on the role of parent are protected from abuse. I assure the Secretary of State that we shall give positive and constructive consideration to any proposals to achieve that which he may bring before the House.
Mr. Dobson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the report and our initial response. I share his concern about children being placed in homes of any sort far from their local authority area. The more indirect and

331
distant the location of the children, the more difficult supervision becomes. We are stepping up work on recruiting foster parents and giving them additional training and encouragement. Most foster parents do a good job, but we have to remain eternally vigilant about the possibility of abuse by the vile minority of foster parents.
We are working with the Home Office on an effort to establish a common list of people who should not be employed in any way in the care of children or be involved with them. We intend to include what is euphemistically described as soft information on those lists. However, there is a balance to be struck. It will always be difficult to decide what should be done in such cases, but if a person has been accused of offences against children in a succession of previous locations, but never tried or found guilty, given the weight of evidence, the balance should be in favour of protecting children from them.
Mr. Joe Ashton: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the report. Is he aware that, because of the incidents that he has mentioned, some of us have severe doubts about reducing the age of homosexual consent from 18 to 16? I refer to the dangers of boys being abused by persons in positions of trust, care or authority.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the European Court would rule that we must come into line with the general age of consent at 16 in Europe, but that many European countries have exemptions for young people in positions of trust, care and authority? Is it not time the age of consent was 18 for boys and girls in these circumstances? That might make it more difficult for a carer or a person in authority to make an approach.
Will my right hon. Friend convey what I am saying to the Home Secretary, in addition to what we have told him in private meetings? I am not alleging that homosexuals are paedophiles; far from it. Many of us are not against 16 as the age of homosexual consent, but we are extremely concerned about vulnerable boys and girls.
Mr. Dobson: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. Other Ministers and I are indeed considering linking a change in the homosexual age of consent to 16—I would support that—to the introduction of a law that would make sexual activity with young persons by people in authority, heterosexual or homosexual, unlawful and punishable.
There is a great deal of heterosexual abuse in children's homes, and we must use every measure available to us to stop it. We may come up with proposals to bring the age of consent for any sexual activity down to 16, but to raise it for cases involving the exploitation of a position of authority. That goes not just for children's homes but for teachers, football coaches and anyone else.
Mr. Paul Burstow: In adding my party's welcome for the report and the Minister's statement, I also have a number of questions to ask him. I hope that the message that will go out is that the rehabilitation of residential care is an important element in the whole provision of child care.
In respect of the task force, will the Minister be able to tackle the Berlin walls between education, health and social security—walls that often get in the way—
Mr. David Hinchliffe: And social services.
Mr. Burstow: Indeed. Those walls get in the way of dealing with child care services in the right manner.
332
Does the Minister agree that, if Government Departments in Whitehall cannot co-ordinate their activities, we cannot expect town halls to do so?
Will the task force also become a standing committee that can deal with the development, implementation and oversight of a child care strategy? There clearly needs to be monitoring of the implementation of the recommendations.
Will the Minister publish any reasons why the task group might decide not to implement any of the 20 key recommendations?
Can the Minister offer us any reassurance in relation to finding ways of instilling confidence in staff who may suspect a colleague of abusing someone in care? Such people need fast-track access to confidential briefings of managers in which they can raise such matters.
Will the Secretary of State take up the point in Sir William's report that, with only 8,000 places now available in residential care, there is a need for greater choice and a need to address that expansion in a controlled way with quality at its heart? Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman look urgently at the fact that the Government's funding review will not report until next summer? Urgent action is needed. Next summer is too far away. Will the right hon. Gentleman return to the House with a statement on the release of resources into this area sooner rather than later?
Liberal Democrat Members will do all we can to support the Government in taking forward the recommendations, because we believe that we in the House, those in the town halls, and everyone involved in the care of children, must do better and must do more in future.
Mr. Dobson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the report and the Government's initial response. My personal view is that, to some extent, because of the emphasis on the superiority of care in the community, people working in residential care for all sorts of people, not just young people, have felt themselves to be regarded as second best, second rate, and not receiving the attention that they deserve. Some of the things that have happened may well have been a product of that feeling. We must restore morale among the staff.
With regard to Berlin walls, the task force, which I shall lead, will include senior representatives from the various Departments. As the hon. Gentleman says, if we in Whitehall cannot work together, it is difficult to expect people in town halls and county halls to do so in the way that we expect.
We shall report to the House in due course on our full response to the report. We have already taken some action, by way of advice, on helping staff who feel that things are going wrong to report that things are going wrong. I confirm that one of the limitations on local authorities has been the absence of a choice of places, which has, in some cases, led them to send children to places that were quite unsuitable for them.
Mrs. Llin Golding: I welcome the report, and I am pleased that the Government are committed to doing so much to improve the lives of children who have often been neglected by previous Governments.

333
Will the Government consider implementing the Pigot report which will do so much to remove the stress that children feel when giving evidence in court, enabling them to give evidence outside court rather than face the terrible trauma of having to appear in person?
Mr. Dobson: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on her work over the years on this issue. We are considering the Pigot report carefully, but, in view of the evidence, we may find ourselves in a dilemma. It is possible that the legitimate effort to try to protect child witnesses is reducing their credibility as witnesses or, if carried too far, could reduce their credibility as witnesses. That may be one of the explanations for the decline in the prosecution success rate in recent years.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his excellent statement, just as I congratulate Sir William Utting, whom I know well, who has tremendous ability and professionalism, on the report that he has produced. General Sir David Ramsbotham, who was mentioned by the Secretary of State, also has tremendous ability and is doing a wonderful job.
When I was involved in a Select Committee that had responsibility in this area, we met many young people who were members of NAYPIC—the National Association of Young People in Care. They made it very clear to the Committee that places in residential homes were vital, yet the number of those places is now down to about 8,000. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that will be action, not only to sustain the current level of places, but to open a number of new residential homes? Such homes are ideal for many young people who have difficulty and who have been abused in their own homes.
Mr. Dobson: I will say that we will do whatever is necessary to ensure that local authorities that have to take children into care and place them have places that are suitable for those children; and I certainly recognise that, for some children, that involves places in residential homes. The residential homes must be suitable, because—to return to my earlier point—some of the children are quite fearsome and difficult to deal with. Such children can be very threatening to children at the other end of the spectrum of vulnerability and to put the two groups together is an abuse by the system rather than of the system.
Mr. Hilton Dawson: I speak as someone who, before coming to the House, spent 15 years as a child care social worker and the past eight years as a manager of residential and foster care. During that work, I managed and worked with many excellent residential social workers, who gave selflessly of their time and ability and all their experience to aid and assist children and young people in care. The same can be said of foster carers.
Some of the best times of my recent experience came from working in care groups with young people who—despite, in many cases, having the most atrocious background—can be articulate and strong and show a real commitment towards improving good practice in residential care and in ensuring the welfare of other young people in care.
334
I hope that the task force to consider the report, which needs to work across all departmental boundaries, will set children's rights at the heart of its work. I hope that it will give a statutory basis to the need to provide local in-care groups to involve young people in policy formulation at local level. I hope that it will set up a new national organisation for young people in care, because NAYPIC is sadly defunct. I hope that it will give real and fresh consideration to the idea of a children's rights commissioner to implement the United Nations convention on children's rights across the country
We need to change the culture of this country. We need to make this country child-centred. We cannot discuss the most vulnerable children in our society only when reports such as this come out. Children need to be at the forefront of our concern constantly. I hope that every hon. Member will contribute to that debate and I hope that many hon. Members will join the all-party group for children and young people in care, which I am aiming to set up—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have to call the hon. Gentleman to order. Before the Secretary of State responds, I remind hon. Members—especially new ones—that when a Secretary of State makes a statement, it is for Back Benchers to question that statement, not to make a speech or a statement on the statement. I know that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) gained a great deal of experience relating to this issue before coming to the House and it is a pleasure to hear him. I simply remind the House of these conventions. There is a great deal of unanimity, so I ask for brisk questions and I am sure that the Secretary of State will oblige in his responses.
Mr. Dawson: Madam Speaker, may I just ask two quick questions?
Madam Speaker: I have just looked up the hon. Gentleman's background and, because I am so soft and sentimental, I shall allow him a couple of quick questions, so that he can show the rest of us how it should be done.
Mr. Dawson: Will my right hon. Friend address the issue of pay in residential care and qualifications in residential care? That is the only way that the esteem, standing and competence of residential care will be increased, to the benefit of all children.
Mr. Dobson: I shall answer my hon. Friend's two final questions together. We will do whatever is necessary to ensure that the staff of residential homes are good-quality staff who really care for the children. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the help that he has been giving to the Department. He went so far as to bring some of the children into the Department; some of those who are having to respond to the report have met some of them. That is a good step forward. My hon. Friend has been giving a great deal of help to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). We are involving some of those children in our response to the convention.
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there has been tremendous success in the substantial fall in the number of children in care over the past couple of decades or

335
more? Sir William Utting, Sir Herbert Laming and many others have been committed to improving children's services. However, the children left in residential care are often the most troubled and troublesome, and the most complex and costly.
Will the right hon. Gentleman look carefully at the point that has been alluded to about the way in which children are shunted between special education, mental health services, social services for children and prison institutions? There is a danger that those difficult children will be passed from one agency to the next. The right hon. Gentleman may feel that progress has been made by the appointment of Norman Warner, who did so much to improve children's social services, as the special adviser to the Home Secretary. I believe that it is an encouraging step.
Will the right hon. Gentleman go into more detail about how he plans to see training improved? Too often, people have had work experience in residential settings in order to pursue their career in the community and elsewhere. Until we reverse the hierarchy of status and rewards, these children will not receive the continuity, care and supervision that they deserve.
Mr. Dobson: On the last point, we are looking at improving the general training of people involved in social services departments. We are concentrating attention on those involved in residential care, because, as I have said, that has not been the first priority for anyone in the system for quite a long time. I share the hon. Lady's view about the problem of young people, who may have been troublesome at some time, being passed from agency to agency. As a standing condemnation of all of us, not just those working in the child care system, it is a salutary thought that 22 per cent. of people in prison were formerly in care.
Ann Clwyd: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and the quick action that he has taken in response to the recommendations; if only that had been the case 20 years ago when the north Wales tribunal evidence first came to light. It was known to the authorities, but no action was taken. I remind my right hon. Friend that some of my constituents who were abused in those north Wales homes have given evidence to the tribunal. It has been a considerable ordeal for them, particularly as the perpetrators of some of the abuse against them are still at large.
Some names have been mentioned during the tribunal. They have not been made public, but they will be published at the end of the tribunal. May we have an assurance that, in all future investigations of this kind, when names are named, they will be investigated by the police and that prosecutions will be taken out against them if the evidence is there?
Mr. Dobson: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's concern, but I do not think that I can give a blanket guarantee that every inquiry will automatically release names. There may be circumstances in which it would be wrong to do so; it would depend on the circumstances. My general view is that there needs to be a cogent reason for not disclosing names, but there may occasionally be such a reason.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the statement. I am puzzled by the fact that there is to be one
336
for Scotland as well, but that there is no mention of Northern Ireland. We live in a kingdom where people move back and forward, and there are problems at each stage.
I support the general thrust of the report. Sir William Utting previously gave us a fine report recommending the setting up of a general social services council. No mention has been made of that. How far down the road are we towards that, or must we wait several more years before it comes into being?
On the subject of abuse, is it not important that, when people have been found guilty in a court of law of paedophilia, they should not be appointed to posts where they can continue to abuse children? When questions are asked, is it a sufficient answer that the person who made the reappointment took advice on it? Surely there should be greater protection for children who have been abused when in care.
Mr. Dobson: I thank the hon. Gentleman. We expect to publish the details of our proposals for a general social care council fairly early next year, and to proceed as quickly as possible to get that through.
On the appointment of people to posts when they have been found guilty of abuse, we have made changes in the law already. Clearly, some change in practice is also required.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: As I also worked in the child protection system for many years, may I welcome the report and my right hon. Friend's response to it?
With reference to the general social services council, is it not a fact that the social work profession pressed the previous Government over many years to bring in a proper regulatory framework? It is disgraceful that the previous Government did not act on that issue, when there was a consensus in the social work profession that it was a key element in protecting children and young people in care.
May I raise with my right hon. Friend a point that has not been mentioned so far? The league tables for school performance were published yesterday. Will he, together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, examine the impact of the emphasis on school performance on youngsters who are in care? It is a simple fact of life that many head teachers are glad to see the back of youngsters in care because they affect the school's performance and position in league tables.
Bearing in mind the fact that, when children end up in care, it is a sign of some failure in the care system itself, will my right hon. Friend look at the preventive elements of the Children Act 1989 and consider how we can ensure that those elements work more effectively, to prevent youngsters from ending up in care?
Mr. Dobson: On my hon. Friend's last point, we are looking at what can be done. On school performance, again we are looking with the Department for Education and Employment at the impact of exclusions from school of children who may be extremely troublesome and disruptive, or may simply disrupt the exam tables. We need to examine that carefully.

337
There is clear evidence, particularly among younger children, that if they move from school to school, their education suffers desperately. Some of the children who are not getting a fair deal in a residential home are not getting anything like a fair deal at the various schools to which they are sent. We want to do something about that.
I do not want to go roaming over what has gone wrong in the past 20 years, but it is clear that, if we demand higher standards of performance from staff in social services departments, we should make it clear what we expect of them, and put in place a regulatory framework that enables them to do their jobs properly.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement. He will be aware that the circumstances described in the Utting report will continue to be of great concern to people in Cambridgeshire, in the light of the Laverack case and similar circumstances associated with that.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the sense of impermanence in management in residential homes is a feature of the problem? Management is often short-lived, and staff move between residential homes, as do many of the residents on short-term placements.
Does the Secretary of State agree that part of the process of dealing with such movement and of raising the morale and status of residential social workers is to give support to managers and staff to take longer-term placements as part of a structure for their career? Does the right hon. Gentleman also agree with me that, while there must be no compromise in the scrutiny of staff in residential homes for their appropriateness for the task, that should be positively presented as a process of giving the assurance that residential social workers are not the object of suspicion but are treated as professional staff in whom we can have greater confidence in future?
Mr. Dobson: As for the hon. Gentleman's last point, we live in a world that is full of dilemmas; one example is that we want to give encouragement to people who are doing a good job and extra encouragement to those who are doing an average job, but want to come down like a ton of bricks on those who are doing a bad job. There are always dilemmas.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the impermanence of staff and management. We want to ensure that staff stay far longer in the homes where they are working. Those of us who were fortunate to grow up in a home with our own parents had the exclusive commitment, love and support of just two people. That is what happens if we are really lucky. We are faced with children who have the exclusive love and support of no one. There is a turnover of people for whom they may have developed some affection and trust. We shall never be able to substitute for an ordinary, well-working family, but we should try much harder.
Mr. Jonathan Shaw: As the third former social worker on the Government Benches to ask a question of my right hon. Friend, I shall be brief.
I welcome the report, but does my right hon. Friend agree with the section that highlights the need for better regulations for private fostering agencies? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the increasing number of private fostering
338
agencies in north Kent that are primarily serving London boroughs that find it difficult to recruit fostering? Will he ensure that greater regulation is brought to bear on those agencies?
Mr. Dobson: I certainly agree with the point that my hon. Friend is making. As I have said, it is clear that problems arise when children are away from the area in which they have grown up and from the local authority that is responsible for them. The further they are away from the direct responsibility of the local authority, the more that applies. That is not an attack on any agencies. However, the minute that there are boundaries between the local authority and the group of people who are responsible, more difficulties will inevitably arise.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: As a former chair of social services in a London borough, I welcome the Secretary of State's statement and all its good intentions to protect children in care. I welcome especially the commitment to keep residential care going, and to provide adequate training and pay for the staff. Will the right hon. Gentleman, together with his Cabinet colleagues, ensure that this year's local government settlement will reflect his good intentions? Will he also ensure that local authority social services departments have enough money to carry them all out?
Mr. Dobson: We will do our best, but it is not all a matter of resources. It must be recognised that some well-run homes are cheaper to maintain than some homes that are badly run. Child abusers used to get paid; they were not doing it for free. We will provide whatever resources we believe to be necessary to provide a stable home life for these vulnerable children, in the way of buildings and properly qualified staff. It will, of course, take time to recruit the necessary staff and give them the training that is required.
Mrs. Joan Humble: As another former chair of social services I, too, welcome the report and the Government's response to it.
My right hon. Friend will be aware that one of the common threads through many child abuse cases in recent years is that the young people did not know to whom they could complain, or were not believed when they complained. What action will he take to ensure that young people in care, especially now that so many of them are in foster homes and are isolated, know to whom they can turn if they have a concern, and ensure that their concerns will be taken seriously?
Mr. Dobson: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that she requires. We want a system in which children can complain and, if they are telling, be believed.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am bringing this to a close. No doubt we shall come back to this issue in a number of ways.

Points of Order
4.21 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have heard, as will the House, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster say about an hour and a half ago that it is essential that the political neutrality and integrity of the civil service is maintained. I understand that your attention was drawn to an incident during the debate—the Liberal Democrat debate—on public services on Monday, when a note was passed from the box occupied by civil servants to a Government Back Bencher, who then used that material in the debate. The hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) drew attention to that at the time, and the occupant of the Chair took note of it, so I am sure that it has come to your attention.
Can you give us an assurance that that practice will be discontinued immediately, and that the person responsible will be identified? Can we be given some indication as to whether it was a civil servant or a political adviser?
Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising his point of order, because it gives me yet another opportunity to remind the House of the conventions that relate to the officials box. I made a full statement about this matter a year ago, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, but it is apparent that some Members and officials need to be reminded of the salient points. I am happy to take this opportunity to do so.
The officials box is intended for civil servants and political advisers with civil service status whose attendance is deemed essential by the Minister concerned. Their admittance into the box is by my permission, and their function is to provide information and briefing to Ministers as required.
The only Members who should be in communication with officials in the box are the Minister concerned, the Parliamentary Private Secretary or, in the latter's absence, another Member operating with the Minister's authority. Officials in the box should not provide information to any other Member, nor should Members engage in social discussion with officials in the box.
Those in the box are required to conduct themselves discreetly at all times, and should on no account show any partiality while they are present.
I regret to say that, in recent weeks, there have been instances of every one of these requirements being breached. I trust that there will be no recurrence.
As regards the particular incident to which the hon. Gentleman refers, my investigations have revealed that there was indeed a breach of the conventions. The Minister concerned has expressed his regret to me, and I accept it.
I am drawing this statement to the attention of all parliamentary clerks and to the Cabinet Secretary. I do not want to see any recurrence at any time.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I always take responsibility for matters for which I am responsible. I was one of those Members who, when in opposition, used to draw attention to this rule frequently. The person who breached the rule on Monday was one of the my
340
political advisers. It was not his fault. I had failed to draw this rule to his attention. I apologise to the House. It will never happen again.
Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance—not for the first time—on two points.
First, is it in order for the Prime Minister to refuse to retract an incorrect statement about another hon. Member, even when his error has been drawn to his attention? Secondly, although I recognise—as, I think, does the House in general—that, since 1 May, the format of Prime Minister's Questions has been changed, I was not aware that it was in order for the Prime Minister to ask an hon. Member to answer a question during Prime Minister's Question Time. If it is in order, is it in order for me to answer that question now—or has the Prime Minister forgotten that he is Prime Minister, and does he mistakenly think that I am?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Perhaps I can bring the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) up to date. I sat on those Opposition Benches for 18 years and asked all sorts of questions, some of which were difficult to answer. Sometimes, when a Minister was asked a difficult question, he would ask me one. I understand that, and the hon. Gentleman must understand it. In the real world, he must get used to the idea of being on the losing side. I have been inured to defeat for many, many years. I say to the hon. Gentleman: stop whingeing, stop whining and get on with the job.
Madam Speaker: Perhaps I might respond to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), as he asked me a question. I shall deal first with the second part of his point of order. Of course, all Ministers are responsible for the decisions they make. They are the ones who should be responding to questions; they should not be asking them. The Executive are responsible to the House, and should be answering questions.
Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: May I finish my answer first?
In answer to the first point made by the hon. Member for Buckingham, let me say that all Ministers—indeed, all Members of Parliament—are responsible for the comments they make. That has nothing whatever to do with me.
Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Does it deal with this matter?
Mr. Dobson: Yes.
Madam Speaker: Well, I am not going to allow a debate on the matter, but, if the right hon. Gentleman is raising another point of order, I must accept a point of order from the Secretary of State.
Mr. Dobson: As I understand it, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) objected to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's saying that he had been

341
a special adviser to Mr. Jonathan Aitken. My right hon. Friend was relying on the current copy of Dod's guide to the new House of Commons, published in 1997, which states that clearly. If the hon. Gentleman objects, he should take the matter up with Dod's.
Madam Speaker: I shall draw a line under that. I call Mr. Dalyell.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have a dreadful suspicion that I may be on the losing side, but let me try in any case. It is a matter of whether the House of Commons should have a say before important events take place, rather than being presented with a fait accompli.
You may recall, Madam Speaker, that you were kind enough to call me at Prime Minister's Question Time. I asked about Madeleine Albright and her visit to the Arab states. On 20 November, a vital meeting will take place between our Foreign Secretary and those of China, Russia, the United States and France. The issue may be military action or not military action.
Would it not be a matter for the House of Commons if the Foreign Secretary at least asked if he could make some kind of statement before attending the critical meeting in Geneva, which may affect what happens throughout the middle east? Should not the House have an opportunity to have a say before a decision is made?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is never on the losing side—as far as I am concerned, he is usually on the winning side. I remember granting his Standing Order No. 24 application for three minutes only a few days ago, when he was able to raise this issue—an issue about which I know he feels passionately. He has also made other submissions to me about it.
342
I was delighted to be able to call the hon. Gentleman today. He was one of the few hon. Members whom I had discretion to call at Prime Minister's Question Time, when he was also able to raise the issue. If the Minister wishes to come to the Dispatch Box and make a statement about a meeting that he may attend tomorrow or on Friday, I will, of course, be in the Chair to hear it; but it is for the Minister to determine whether he wishes to make a statement.
Mr. Andrew George: I am sorry, Madam Speaker, to have to interrupt the proceedings of the House to raise a matter that is of great concern in my constituency—
Mr. Eric Forth: Is this a point of order?
Mr. George: Yes.
Madam Speaker: I must make it clear, because I want to be helpful to hon. Members, that a point of order does not have to be on a serious matter, but it must be a matter to which I, as Speaker of the House, can respond. I must have some responsibility.
Mr. George: My point relates to a missing fishing boat with four fishermen. I know that the House will be as concerned as I am about this matter. I seek a ministerial statement on this incident and on the searches that are being carried out to ensure that the boat is found.
Madam Speaker: I quite understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. He is asking me whether a Minister has given me notice that he wants to make a statement on that matter. The answer is that I have not been given notice of a. ministerial statement, but those on the Government Front Bench will have noted the hon. Gentleman's concern, and I hope that they will pass on his comments.

Lead in Paint (Health and Safety)
4.30 pm
Miss Melanie Johnson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the manufacturers and retailers of paint stripping equipment and fluids to provide consumers with information about lead in paint manufactured before 1960; to require the Secretary of State to provide information to the general public about the dangers of lead in older paint; and to provide for the testing of children under the age of three years living in older housing to determine whether they are at risk from lead in older paintwork.
With all this talk of being on the winning or losing side, I trust that on this subject there will only be winners, and that hon. Members will all be on the same side. Many hon. Members are parents, and I am sure that many of us have done do-it-yourself: I do so reluctantly, and seldom have time for it. Very few members of the public are aware of the dangers of stripping older paintwork. I was not aware of them until I heard the BBC's "Face the Facts" programme.
Older paint is that used in houses in the pre-1950s, and certainly pre-1960s. High levels of lead were used in paint manufacture at that time, but have since been phased out. Such paintwork constitutes a serious hazard. We have known for some time the general hazards, which resulted in a reduction of lead in petrol some years ago.
The paintwork in up to 8 million homes that were painted in the first half of this century still contains significant amounts of lead. About 50 per cent. of the population live in older homes. The young are at particular risk, because they are more susceptible than adults to the effects of lead in their bloodstream. Pregnant women are also at risk, as are adults if they suffer lead poisoning.
A testing centre carried out random tests on 10 children and five adults over a month. Three of those children had lead poisoning, and were severely affected. Some of those tested were poisoned through exposure to paint. The adults had stripped paint using hot air strippers—I gather that blow torches are the worst possible thing to use—and the children had eaten small amounts of paint.
Low levels of lead in the population as a whole, and particularly in children, tend to skew abilities downwards, and have other side effects. People are exposed to risk in two ways: I was not aware of either of them until recently, and I am sure that many members of public have no idea about the risks either. Adults are exposed when they strip paint, and children are exposed when they eat very small flecks or specks of paint that are lying on the floor. Children may be playing on the floor with toys that pick up specks of paint. If they put those objects in their mouths, it may result in lead poisoning. A child of two or three years of age needs to put only a tiny speck in its mouth each day for about two months. Such a speck would fit on the head of a matchstick, but over time that is enough to cause serious lead poisoning.
There are also problems with milder forms of lead poisoning. Many people are not aware that the symptoms produced are exactly the same as those for all sorts of other problems that are caused by, for example, a virus. People could experience repeated and unexplained stomach ache, diarrhoea or sickness, which may show that there are rising levels of lead in the blood. The average
344
parent, and, I fear, the average doctor, would not necessarily worry, even if such symptoms were repeated, that a child was suffering from lead poisoning.
Children who have ingested 600 or 700 microgrammes of lead per litre of blood will develop encephalopathy, which is a serious medical condition. Before the poison accumulates to that level, there is damage to the bones, nerves, bladder, kidneys, heart and brain. Lead is a serious poison.
It is possible to treat the condition by removing the causes, but that can be done only if it is known that the person is acquiring the poison. The process by which that is done is called chelation, which is the medial extraction, the clawing back, of lead in the bloodstream. I am not a medical person, but I am assured that that process is time-consuming and difficult, not least because lead remains in the bone, and as the lead is removed from the blood of people with serious blood poisoning, the lead in the bones enters the bloodstream.
That means that permanent correction of the condition is difficult and expensive. It is only by repeated and expensive medical treatment, and if the condition is caught in time, that serious damage can be prevented.
A consultant at a London hospital estimates that about one child a week is being admitted to hospital with dangerously high levels of lead in the blood. There is a terrible human cost, because the health of those children will never be the same again. Some children have died from the condition. There are also serious health risks for adults. The condition relates to health and quality of life, but as matters are currently arranged, there is also a financial cost.
Some areas of the country are more affected than others. I do not want to over-dramatise the problem, because the paintwork in older homes is safe if it is left alone, if it is not chipped and if there are no children. However, if the paint is removed by the wrong technique, it is damaging to adults and children in the vicinity. Interestingly, professional decorators are advised to take elaborate precautions when removing older paint, but at the moment there is no mandatory requirement on do-it-yourself equipment manufacturers to print on hot-air and other paint-stripping equipment advice about how it should be used. Perhaps, under such circumstances, such tools ought not to be used at all.
It is ironical that leaflets currently supplied with DIY equipment in the United States are not available with the same equipment in this country, although the leaflets are printed here and placed in the packets that are to be sold in the United States.
In 1992, the United States passed the Lead Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act, which provides a national framework for dealing with the problem. Many states have their own programmes now—for example, for testing children's blood lead levels and for ensuring that people who sell homes are advised of any known high-lead paint work. Canada, Australia, France and other countries are also taking action.
As I have said, children are especially at risk-and children of all classes and backgrounds face the risk. One small speck a day can lead to serious poisoning. Parents need to know to be watchful. They need information. They and doctors need to think about the possibility of lead poisoning at low levels if there are persistent symptoms of a type consistent with lead poisoning.

345
No general leaflets are available. I hope that we can have a public information campaign that will help to raise general awareness, as well as specific information aimed at DIY enthusiasts, parents and general practitioners.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Lady is running out of time. Could she please bring her remarks to a conclusion?
Miss Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Young children should be tested, initially through targeting and sampling. Most of all. I want to ensure that people are aware of the risks. Lead in paint need not be a major health hazard, if we act sensibly and make information available.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Miss Melanie Johnson, Mr. Charles Clarke, Dr. Lynda Clark, Mr. John Gunnell, Mr. John Healey, Ms Oona King, Mr. Tom Levitt, Mr. Chris Pond, Dr. Phyllis Starkey, Ms Dan Taylor and Mr. Michael Wills.

Lead in Paint (Health and Safety)
  LEAD IN PAINT (HEALTH AND SAFETY)
  Miss Melanie Johnson accordingly presented a Bill to require the manufacturers and retailers of paint stripping equipment and fluids to provide consumers with information about lead in paint manufactured before 1960; to require the Secretary of State to provide information to the general public about the dangers of lead in older paint; and to provide for the testing of children under the age of three years living in older housing to determine whether they are at risk from lead in older paintwork: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6 February, and to be printed [Bill 85].
Orders of the Day

  Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill
  Considered in Committee.
  [SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]
  Ordered,
  That the Bill be considered in the following order, Clause 1, Schedule, Clauses 2 to 13, new Clauses, new Schedules.— [Mr. Raynsford.]

  Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill
    Clause 1

      REFERENDUM
      4.43 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 7, at beginning insert
      'Subject to subsection (1A) below,'.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 13, in page 1, line 7, leave out
      '7th May 1998 or such later'
      and insert 'such'.
      No. 14, in page 1, line 8, after 'prescribe', insert
      '(being a date not earlier than one month after the publication of the Government's bill for the establishment of that Authority)'.
      No. 4, in page 1, line 10, at end insert—
      '(1A) The referendum shall not be held until a period of two months has elapsed after the publication of the Government's proposals, save that the details of the electoral arrangements may be published at a later date.'.
      Mr. Hughes: I shall also speak to amendment No. 4. The other two amendments have been tabled by those on the Conservative Front Bench.
      Two issues to do with the Bill's preparation and the timetable are matters of procedure. There is nothing novel about them—Ministers have heard me make the point before—but we Liberal Democrats think that they are of constitutional and practical importance.
      It is important that the House gets its procedures in the right order. I understand that the Government, having only recently come to office, are trying to get this part of the constitution agenda through as quickly as possible—which I welcome—but they are not proceeding in a logical order. They put out a Green Paper, set a target date for the conclusion of the consultation period—the end of October—and collected in the conclusions. I had hoped that the Minister would beaver a little harder. I asked him to supply me with a list of all the responses and publications by today so that we would know what was involved. The answer was that they would be ready by 1 December. That is not the most useful date, as it does not enable us to have the material for today's debate. I regret that.

      347
      Not long ago, the Minister said that there were more than 1,000 responses. As I have told him, that is not very many. During the general election campaign I surveyed my constituents and received 6,000 responses. I do not think that people in Southwark, North and Bermondsey, although very good at communicating, are unrepresentative.
      Following the conclusion of the consultation period, we should have had the Government's response so that we would have knowledge of the White Paper and the proposals—not a Green Paper, in draft. If we are legislating to put on to the statute book a provision for a referendum—either on a specific date, 7 May, or another date—we need to know on what the people will be asked to vote. Ministers may say, "They will vote on this question or that question," but we know that people will vote on what is behind the questions—for example, what does an assembly mean, what does an authority mean, what does a mayor mean and what will they do?
      Ministers should not take the House for granted—it is not a matter in which the public are generally interested—and say, "We want a blank cheque. We want the power to hold a referendum before we know what we are asking people to vote on." The same point was made about the Welsh and Scottish legislation. I made an offer to the Government, and I do not understand why they did not accept it. I said that, if they published the responses to the consultation in November and then produced, even at the beginning of February, a White Paper, we would co-operate in getting a short Bill through this House and the other place in a matter of weeks. After all, as Ministers have said, the Bill deals with a limited number of points. It should have been done in that order and I regret the fact that we are now being asked to give the Government a blank cheque on the referendum.
      Mr. Eric Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so early in his speech. Is he not being a little tender with the Minister, for reasons that I cannot begin to imagine? Only today during Question Time we had lectures from the Government about open government, transparency and sharing with the people. During the modernisation debates we have heard about pre-legislative openness and the Government's desire to consult openly before legislation is introduced. Is not the Minister's behaviour quite extraordinary in the light of what his colleagues have been telling us just this afternoon about open government and the cracklings that we have heard about modernisation?
      Mr. Hughes: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to the band of London Members, following his move from somewhere further north and west. One can exaggerate matters, and I think that he has exaggerated a little. I should be happy to be firmer, harsher or angrier with Ministers—
      Mr. Forth: Less tender.
      Mr. Hughes: Indeed, I am happy to be less tender with Ministers when the need arises, but I also believe that debates in Committee, albeit a Committee of the whole House, should be about trying to win the argument. I am hopeful, although with little reason to be so, that the Minister may respond positively and accept some amendments. That is the test.
      348
      This is the Bill's Committee stage. In good Committees, the Government will say, "Yes, that's a good idea; we agree with you." Next week, at the end of the Bill's consideration in Committee, if Ministers say, "No, we can't possibly do that or that, and that's a bad idea," they will be showing not only a lack of generosity of mind and spirit but a lack of willingness to reach the most agreeable solution. I shall be extremely disappointed, as will voters, if the Government produce a consultative Green Paper and then a White Paper and a Bill that they will not consider amending.
      If Ministers hear good arguments, I hope that they will put away the briefs from civil servants in the Box—who, it has been confirmed, can communicate only with Ministers and their parliamentary private secretaries—and accept them.
      The Bill deals with a matter that is both constitutional and practical. Amendment No. 4 suggests that the referendum should not be held until two months after the Government have published their proposals. Our stance is different from that of the Conservatives, who propose that, if necessary, the date could be moved from 7 May 1998. We do not argue about the date; we are quite happy that the referendum should be held on 7 May 1998, which is the logical time to hold it, because we do not want to delay London's annual voting cycle.
      Even if Ministers do not accept our first argument—that, constitutionally, the order of events is the wrong way round—I hope that they will say that at least two months will elapse before firm proposals are made. As Ministers will see in our amendments, the only matter that Liberal Democrats believe should be reserved and not placed on the table is the nature of the electoral system. If we are to have an electoral system that commands widespread support, we may have to put our heads together on that matter—as was done in Scotland, where agreement was reached.
      The objective is to establish a Londonwide government that will have permanent security and not be a Greater London council mark II, established by a Labour Government and thrown out by a different Government. On the previous occasion, paradoxically, the GLC was abolished by a later version of the same party. The Inner London education authority also was abolished by the Tories.
      Mr. Forth: We were flexible and modernising.
      Mr. Hughes: They were flexible in some things, but inflexible when someone with a view they did not like took power, especially if they were across the river from here.
      If there is to be a proper and informed vote in the referendum, people will have to read, consider and debate the proposals. That process cannot occur overnight or in a week. We think that, at the absolute minimum, two months will be required between publication of a White Paper and the vote. If we are not to move the date from 7 May, we must have the White Paper by the beginning of March. I cannot imagine why it should not be possible to have the White Paper by then. The experience of the Welsh referendum shows that, if time is not provided, we could be asking for trouble.
      Mr. Eric Pickles: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I would not want to

      349
      get in the way of his making a cosy deal on proportional representation with his friends in the Labour party. He suggests that we are dealing with practical rather than constitutional matters. The use of referendums is quite unusual under our constitutional system. If we are about to set a pattern, we should not use a referendum as a blank cheque. If we are to consult the people, the people have a right to know what they are being consulted on before they vote.
      Mr. Hughes: By definition, I do not share the hon. Gentleman's politics, but I agree with the point he has made, which is important. This is a constitutional innovation for the mainland of the United Kingdom. We have had only one United Kingdomwide referendum—that on Europe. Paradoxically and a bit nonsensically, it was held after we had gone in. It should have been held before we went in. There have been referendums in Northern Ireland and, of course, the two recent referendums in Scotland and in Wales.
      Regional government in England, which my colleagues and I strongly support, appears to be extremely popular in London and less popular elsewhere, although there is a strong view about it in the part of the world from which the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) originally comes. We ought to ask people for their opinions. Even if opinion polls in London say that 80 per cent. of people want a democratically elected Londonwide authority, we should test that finding. As regular referendums on constitutional issues are a constitutional novelty, we must be absolutely sure that people know what they are being asked to decide.
      Mr. Ken Livingstone: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Conservative party's establishing the Greater London council and then seeking to abolish it is nothing new? The London county council was created by Lord Salisbury, who then tried to abolish it 10 years later, making a speech in another place in which he claimed, although it was run by the dear old Liberals at the time, that there was no experiment so revolutionary or socialistic that it was not being practised at county hall. It seems to me that nothing changes.
      Mr. Hughes: To be completely honest, I did not know that Lord Salisbury tried to abolish the LCC 10 years after it was established, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that information. It strikes me that many of the best ideas are painted as socialistic and revolutionary. I am proud to represent Bermondsey.
      In the 1920s, when Bermondsey was run by a Labour council—the old Bermondsey borough—it had revolutionary and socialistic ideas such as public baths and slipper baths which were free to the public. The Daily Mail and other newspapers of the day said that it was a disgrace and a waste of taxpayers' money. There was a solarium to try to deal with tuberculosis, which was regarded as a scandalous abuse of public finances. I share the hon. Gentleman's view that perfectly reasonable and sensible ideas are often presented as loony by certain organs of the press, although later they become the majority view and are hugely appreciated.
      I campaigned in the Welsh referendum. As my name suggests, I have more than a little Welsh blood and I am very proud of that. Those of us who supported the yes
      350
      campaign nearly lost the referendum, partly because there had been no agreement on the core elements of the proposals. There was no agreement, for example, that Cardiff was the only and obvious place for the Assembly always to meet.
      I was campaigning in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). People said that the Assembly would always be in south Wales. My family comes from Snowdonia, in north-west Wales. A local farmer there told me, "It would do no good for us." There was no agreement about it. There was no agreement about the cost and whether it was money well spent. Nor was there agreement on whether the quango issue would be addressed properly.
      Above all, people felt that they had been given the proposal so recently that they had not had a chance to test it. That is no good; when it happens, many people do not vote. If the proposals are produced late, people either do not vote or get the sense that the Government are pushing things through.
      One of our concerns about the new Administration, whose constitutional agenda we generally welcome, is the danger of their being too authoritarian. I do not say that because I do not accept what the Minister says about the consultation paper being honest. As I have said to him publicly and privately, I accept his and his colleagues' good faith. I want to ensure that we get the best form of Londonwide government. It is in all our interests—the Minister's electors, my electors and the electors of Members representing London constituencies and beyond.
      I hope that we will not try to bounce the electorate into anything. In later debates, we shall discuss the question and the form of the assembly. Amendment No. 2 is about not bouncing people by giving them information too late. My hon. Friends and I hope that the Government will accept that, at least as a minimum, there is a clear two-month space between publication of the proposals and the referendum, which we on these Benches hope will be on 7 May.
      5 pm
      Mr. Richard Ottaway: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 13 and 14. As they take a very different form from amendment No. 2, we request that you, Sir Alan, exercise your discretion at the end of the debate to allow a separate Division on amendment No. 14.
      For once, the Conservative party agrees with the Labour party—not on the many things on which the Labour party has changed its mind in recent weeks, but on the need for reform of London government. It is one of the Conservative party's proudest achievements in 18 successful years of power that we put in place the right conditions to enable all 7 million Londoners to turn their city into the greatest capital city on earth.
      The Committee will know that London is one of the world's leading financial centres. We have an economy the size of Russia or Saudi Arabia. London is home to more of Europe's largest companies than any other European Union city. It is the leading site for foreign exchange dealing, international bank lending and equity trading. It has more foreign banks than any other city and more United States banks than New York city. Many right hon. and hon. Members present will be aware of the expertise, skill and mastery the City displays on a daily basis. From the stock exchange to the London

      351
      international financial futures exchange to Lloyd's, we have a watertight case to call London the world centre of financial excellence.
      London is also the world's centre of artistic excellence. As the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said yesterday:
      "London's leisure industries are at the heart of what makes it a world-class city. They make a major contribution to the economy of London and to the quality of life of Londoners as well as the millions of visitors."
      Our universities are world class, from King's college and the London School of Economics to University college and Imperial college. All have global reputations as centres of academic excellence.
      The Conservatives believe that the time is right to modernise and reform our capital city's system of government. The time is right to ensure that London's government is reshaped and ready for the challenges of the 21st century. We want to build on the tremendous success and prosperity in our city which flourished during our time in government, and make the best even better.
      The Bill will give each and every one of London's 5 million voters the chance to vote in six months' time in a referendum on the Government's plans for their Greater London authority. I welcome the Government's generosity in sharing their less than detailed deliberations on the proposals—the 65 questions—with us, the House and the people of London in the Green Paper "New Leadership for London". I welcome the fact that the Government have given us all a taste of what may be to come.
      Despite the intimation that a White Paper will be published in the spring, we on the Conservative Benches would rather have welcomed the publication of a Bill setting out solid, detailed proposals well before the referendum in May, before London goes to the polls, before its voters are asked to give their opinion on what may or may not happen to their city's government in the next millennium. So, too, would the people of London—my constituents in particular.
      The Greater London authority proposal comes in two parts. It is a Siamese twin of a proposal with a directly elected mayor moulded to a directly elected assembly. The package is to be offered hand in hand to Londoners, linked as inextricably as cheese and wine or, if the subject is not too sensitive for the Labour party, as Benson and Hedges.
      We shall explain later our widely supported objection to grouping those two substantial and significant proposals in a single, 24-word question, putting them to the electorate on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. That is unsatisfactory. Asking Londoners to make their decision about reform before the Government have put the meat on the bones of their policy is equally unsatisfactory. They will be asked before there are any serious, detailed proposals on the table and before they know what the planned changes will mean for them.
      Sir Paul Beresford: Does my hon. Friend agree that more concerns emerged on Second Reading? The Government say that they want a mayor for London with power and strength, but during the debate the Minister said that they also want a London authority that will shackle him and tie him down. That tiny glimpse is one reason Londoners need to understand the details.
      Mr. Ottaway: My hon. Friend is right. One of the interesting features of the Second Reading debate is that more speeches were made against the detail of the proposals than for them. That is why we should have the last word in detail before Londoners go to the referendum.
      The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): What was the Second Reading majority?
      Mr. Ottaway: Why are the Government asking Londoners to decide on something that the Government have not been able to decide on? Why are they asking the views of Londoners when they have only a hazy view themselves? Why are they putting the option of reform to Londoners when they do not know the details themselves? So far, the details are wrapped up in a 61-question consultation document.
      The Government are saying, "We want you to say yes, but we do not quite know what the question is. We want you to say yes, but we do not yet know what we want you to say yes to." It sounds like the new Labour version of "Blind Date": "My girl friend has agreed to marry me, but I do not know who she is yet. All the Government say I should do is cross my fingers and hope for the best." Londoners are being asked to express their views before the Bill setting up the Greater London authority has been published. They will have to make up their minds before the Bill has been debated and examined in this place or anywhere else around the capital.
      Once upon a time, the Labour party contended that pre-legislative referendums, such as that proposed for London, were the wrong way to proceed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) reminded the House last week that the Secretary of State for Wales once said that the trouble with pre-legislative referendums was that there were so many questions that could not be answered. He was right, and boyo he should know.
      Without the legislation having passed through its parliamentary stages, no one can know exactly what the Government have in store for London. No one can know what plans they have for the capital's future. No one can know what the Government are up to. How can the public know what they are supposed to be deciding on? How can people be sure that the details of the Government's proposals are right for them and for London? How can they be sure that they are not being deceived? The position is very unsatisfactory. It reflects poorly on a Government that came to office on a platform of openness and freedom of information and on their confidence in Londoners to take decisions for themselves. Above all, it reflects poorly on the Government's idea of what they think democracy for London is all about.
      Within 200 days, the public will be asked what they think of the idea of a directly elected mayor and assembly.
      Mr. John Wilkinson: Things are not even as clear as that—the schedule refers only to an elected mayor, which is why we have tabled an amendment. This is the most fraudulent blank cheque proposed in recent times by any legislature for municipal politics.
      Mr. Ottaway: My hon. Friend is right. The Bill refers to a
      "Greater London authority, made up of an elected mayor",
      who could be elected by the assembly. It is all very vague, and we hope to put it right later on.
      How can the public know what they are supposed to be deciding? How can they be sure that the details of the Government's proposals will be right for them and for London? It is all a poor reflection on a Government who came to office on a platform of openness and freedom of information.
      Within 200 days, the public are going to be asked what they think of the idea of a directly elected mayor and assembly, yet they will have little idea of what powers either will have, once those powers are laid down by Parliament—the only body that can decide on them. With the referendum only a few months away, we have still not even seen the White Paper.
      On Second Reading, the Minister gave a commitment to publish one in the spring. The Oxford Dictionary says that spring is from 20 March to 21 June: I hope that today the Minister will be a little more precise. At the moment we have only a Green Paper containing a few principles and a series of questions, each one of which is linked to others. How can anyone be expected to form a view on a set of principles? However undemocratic and extraordinary that may seem to us and to voters across the city, that is exactly what the Government are asking Londoners to do.
      On Second Reading, the Minister said that he had received some 1,200 responses in the Department during the consultation period that ended last month—hardly a ringing endorsement of the proposals, hardly a mandate from the people of London with which to launch such a major reform. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said that his constituency alone had produced 6,000 responses. My party has received many more—
      Mr. Raynsford: Tremendous.
      Mr. Ottaway: Well, if we can get more than 6,000, I should have thought the Minister can, too.
      What details does the Green Paper give away? The Greater London authority will be inclusive, small, effective, influential, audible, strategic, democratic, efficient and consensual. That sounds to me suspiciously like the noble aims that led to the old GLC. What Londoners want to know and have the right to know is the devil in the detail. The Government are asking them to say yes in a referendum based on principle alone.
      A range of issues need to be faced up to in clear and precise terms, but the legislation will not be available by the date of the referendum to tell us what those details are. The Committee deserves better; so do the people of London; so does everyone with an interest in London's future, from the City to the boroughs to the man on the Clapham omnibus.
      The Government have given away no details of the timetable for the advice that they want on the electoral arrangements for Greater London—matters covered by clause 8. It is all very well saying that the Secretary of State has powers to set a timetable to require the Local Government Commission for England to provide its report
      354
      on the arrangements, but there is no mention of the precise timetable that the Secretary of State intends to follow. Why not? When does the Secretary of State intend to act? When does the Minister expect the final report to be issued? What about the interim report? The Bill does not say, the Minister does not say, and nobody knows the answer.
      Does not the Minister think that Londoners should know about something so important now? Who has a vote—and where—is fundamental to the shape, the impact and the consequences that the Government's reforms will have. Nor will the Government let on anything about the method of election that will be used to elect the assembly. Will the details be in the White Paper? If we do not have the electoral report there could be some difficulty here. The Government have not said whether there will be multi-seat constituencies, single-seat constituencies or even a single Londonwide constituency. The only way to resolve these matters is to publish the Bill before the referendum.
      Why is the Minister asking Londoners to express a view before he does?
      5.15 pm
      Then there is the cost of the proposals. The Government will not say how the GLA will be paid for. Will the detail be in the White Paper? Will there be a levy on the borough councils, or directly on council tax payers; or will fares rise for those who use London's transport system; or will the money come from the uniform business rate? The Minister has not told us because he does not yet know himself.
      Then there is the question of elected representatives and the bodies that will report to the GLA. Elected members will be in the majority in the myriad new organisations that will come from it. Will the details of this be in the White Paper or the Bill? What local knowledge and expertise will these representatives be expected to have? Will they simply be the choice of their respective parties? Will they be accountable directly to Londoners or just to the assembly? The Minister has not told us because he does not know yet.
      Conservative Members believe that referendums should be held once the electorate have been given the full facts about a proposal, putting them in the best possible position to judge its merits or lack of them—
      Mr. Raynsford: Exactly what we are proposing.
      Mr. Ottaway: I therefore look forward to publication of the Bill and the Minister's acceptance of our amendment. He seems to think that a White Paper can be as detailed as a Bill: it cannot be. That is why we want a separate vote on our amendments. The electorate must be aware of the pros and cons and aware that Parliament has done its job of scrutinising the legislation. Good intentions are not enough: good intentions can change. Good intentions do not necessarily make good law. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, look at what happened in the Welsh referendum. The relevant legislation might be amended by Parliament when the House eventually has the chance to consider it.
      Some minutes ago the Minister, from a sedentary position, urged me to remember the size of the Government's majority on Second Reading, thereby

      355
      displaying a degree of arrogance that shows he is not listening to the voters. May I take it that he is not prepared to accept a perfectly good amendment? Is he saying that the White Paper will be the last word? Of course he cannot say that, because the House may quite possibly amend a proposal that appears in the White Paper as the legislation goes through.
      Holding a referendum on a loose set of flimsy principles is like asking the people of London to sign a blank cheque. Not even the Minister, I dare say, would consider that sensible—yet it is what he is doing. The Government's approach is profoundly undemocratic. While it is right to consult the electorate on changes of such importance, the fact remains that that should be done when, and only when, all the questions have been answered inside and outside the House; when all the details are known; when the House has discussed the proposals and decided their final form; when the final blueprint is before the people of London.
      The Government are saying, "Give me a yes and trust me to sort out the details later." That is precisely what the recently elected Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) did when he was leader of Croydon council. I wrote to him asking what the proposed GLA would take away from Croydon council. He wrote back to me in September last year, as the then leader of the council, about his party's plans for a strategic authority:
      "Local councils will not be losing powers to this new body".
      He trusted his own party when it was in opposition—and now look what has happened: a year later, the Labour party's Green Paper on London government describes 14 diminutions of the boroughs' powers.
      It sounds rather like a U-turn to me. That does not give me much faith in the Government's ability to stick to a policy and it cannot give the hon. Gentleman much faith in his party's ability to stick to a policy, but then he does not need me to tell him that.
      Trust the Government. The electorate will wonder whether to trust them as they did on tuition fees. They will wonder whether they should trust them as they did on tobacco advertising. That is not much of a record to endear the Government's decision-making abilities and political judgments to London's 5 million voters.
      I want to know as much as possible about the reforms. I have set out a series of unanswered questions that are likely to remain unanswered before polling day. When will the Government realise that it is not just my hon. Friends and I who want to know, but London's 5 million voters, 32 boroughs, many councillors and the Corporation of London? Other London Members of Parliament and those whose constituencies fall outside the London boundary but whose areas will be covered by bodies under GLA control, such as the proposed police authority, want to know, as do the 10 Members of the European Parliament and the Government office for London. Each and every one deserves to know precisely how the Government's reforms will affect them and how the creation of a London development agency will affect them, politically, financially and strategically.
      When will the Government wake up to the fact that their failure to disclose detailed information on reforms before polling day is not something they can so readily ignore in the democratic society I thought we lived in. How can the Government so easily refuse to make available such vital and necessary information when what
      356
      they are proposing has such fundamental repercussions for all concerned about London? Why do they have so little regard for democracy in our capital city?
      Throughout debates on the Bill, I have been astonished by the Government's lack of confidence in their proposals. Not only do they want to push through the plan for a directly elected assembly, lumped in with a directly elected mayor, but they will not surrender the detail of their reforms. The Bill should be about choice. With the Government's proposals as they stand today, the Bill denies choice. It denies us all, inside and outside the House, the detail that we should have before voting on the Government's reforms for London. Londoners are to be asked to give unconditional support for the Government's reforms. They ask all of us who live in London to sign that blank cheque and forget about what could happen as a result.
      Londoners must decide whether they want regional government or a strengthened borough council system which, without a shadow of a doubt, remains wedded to the capital's electorate. Where the Government simply want to change, to create more politicians and more bureaucrats, the Conservative party believes in power at the lowest level. I much regret that the Government will not give more information, as they should. As matters stand, the people of London will not have until after the referendum the details of those far-reaching proposals which, if implemented, will mean considerable changes in the government of their city.
      London's 5 million voters deserve better. This is too important a matter for Conservative Members to fight for anything less. Those who live in the world's greatest capital city have the right to know about the devil in the detail before the referendum on 7 May. I urge the Committee to accept amendments Nos. 13 and 14.
      The Chairman: In the spirit of answering questions, I hope that it will assist the Committee's consideration of this group of amendments if I say that I am ready to accept a separate Division on amendment No. 14.
      Mr. Forth: I must confess at the outset that I have not yet quite reached the state of persuasion of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) that reform of the way in which London is governed is necessary. The clue to my reservations came in my hon. Friend's remarks, in which he rightly praised the extent of London's success, expressed in so many different ways. Whether we consider its success in commercial or cultural terms, the happy thought that we can all share is that London has been a phenomenal success, not least in the past 10 years. That must surely lead one to consider how that has come about without this much-vaunted additional level of bureaucracy that we are now discussing.
      I say that simply to put in context my few remarks on the amendment. However, I am sure that, in due time, I may come to be persuaded that those extra levels of bureaucracy will somehow benefit Londoners in a way that is not yet clear to me—or, I suspect, to the majority of Londoners.
      The Minister said that he had had 1,200 responses to the Green Paper. Out of 7 million people, that is not an overwhelming endorsement of the Green Paper. If I share with the Committee the information that one of those responses was from me, and it was not a glowing support

      357
      for the Government's proposals, that will cast some doubt on the Government's proposals. When the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) not unreasonably asked for a bit of detail, nothing was forthcoming. When he gets that list, I hope that he will find my name on it; then perhaps he can ask me what I said to the Minister.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman may not have seen my question on the Order Paper asking Ministers whether they would publish the list, and place it in the Library, by 17 November. I did that expressly so that we would have that information, including the right hon. Gentleman's submission. We shall get that information by 1 December and we shall be able to see the evidence in the Department, but that will not be much good to the Committee. I see no good reason—the right hon. Gentleman will agree—why we could not have that in good time, even in summary form and even if we had to go across the road to look at it.
      Mr. Forth: Of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Committee would not want me tediously to repeat what I said earlier when I intervened in the hon. Gentleman's excellent—if I may say so—speech.
      I want to query the nature of the referendum process itself. I must confess—I am obviously in one of my mildly heretical moods this evening—that I am not yet desperately impressed by referendums as a means of political decision making. The Bill is a good example of why not. All here well understand that the nature of the questions asked very much determines the likely answer, and timing is crucial. The popularity of the Government or whomever is asking the question will colour the answer.
      Given all that, it is obvious that, if I wanted—it is doubtful, but let us say I did—to vote for an assembly, and, following the questioning of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South, we were able to wring out the detail in time, and if that assembly were to be based on some form of proportional representation, which would no doubt be favoured by the Liberal Democrats, I would be in a dilemma. I would want to say yes to the assembly but, if I did not want an assembly based on proportional representation, how should I vote? Or, to follow the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford), supposing I wanted a powerful mayor, unshackled by some superficial or superfluous assembly, how should I vote? I am being given no option.
      The referendum, which is being offered as some great consultation process, is nothing of the kind; it is a question formulated to get the answer required by those posing the question—the Government of the day. It is no more and no less than that. Therefore, before we endorse the referendum process in essence, principle and substance, we should be sure that we understand what the Government seek to do and how they intend to go about it.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the case for a referendum in respect of Scotland and Wales rests on the fact that the House proposes to cede substantial powers elsewhere in the United Kingdom? The House has no powers to cede on
      358
      behalf of Greater London. Is not this something of a cop-out by the Government, who, because they cannot make a decision themselves, want to put it to the people?
      Mr. Forth: I am tempted to agree with my hon. Friend but I am prevented from doing so because I believe that the referendum process in Scotland and Wales was flawed in that important regard. When were the people of England ever asked what they thought about all this? After all, it is the people of England who are ceding political power and are paying for most of the process, yet they were never asked. What price a referendum in those circumstances? I concede that the same argument does not entirely apply to London.
      Mr. Pickles: May I correct my hon. Friend? Part of the Metropolitan police area lies outside London, so the changes in respect of the Metropolitan police will affect my constituency in Essex. My constituents will not have a vote either.
      Mr. Forth: I think that I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am tempted to digress on one of my favourite hobby horses, which would be the definition of London, but I shall not, Sir Alan—
      The Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman anticipates me. If he looks at the selection list, he will see that I have tried to ensure that there can be discrete debates on a variety of subjects. I appreciate that there is some interlinking of argument, but it will assist the Committee if hon. Members try as hard as possible to stay within the bounds of the amendment, which is concerned with the date of the referendum and not with the content of the questions or any other matter.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful for that guidance, Sir Alan, and I am sure that, even in their enthusiasm, my hon. Friends will not tempt me to digress any further than my natural inclinations would allow.
      Those were my preliminary remarks; I now begin the substance of my speech. I want to agree both with my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South and with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, because their remarks were key to the point at issue.
      Let us suppose that we are going to have a referendum and that people are going to be asked to vote on those matters. It is not only not unreasonable but absolutely essential that people in their maturity are given the opportunity to study the proposals carefully and to discuss them and consult among themselves to determine what they think before being asked to vote.
      The central question is whether the Government are prepared—or even able—to give us sufficient information in the form of a White Paper, a Bill or any other supporting document so that people can come to a mature judgment. That information must cover all the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South and possibly even more. It must cover the nature of the proposed assembly and answer the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley by covering in some detail the nature of the proposed relationship

      359
      between the assembly and the mayor. Otherwise, we as voters will be unable to make a sensible judgment or vote in the referendum.
      Sir Paul Beresford: The matter goes further than that, because some of the responses from some of the elected London borough councils have consisted of a list of questions. They want to know what powers are to be taken away, what the financing will be like and whether they are being top-sliced. Initial indications from the standard spending assessments are that money is being moved out of London, but councils want to know whether more money will be taken from them along with their powers.
      Mr. Forth: The Minister was not listening to my hon. Friend's valuable intervention, and he is not listening now. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will feel the need to ask his questions again and that he will succeed in catching the Minister's attention. Unless we get answers to those questions at the end of this part of the debate, we shall not know how we are going to vote on this issue or on others.
      I thought that that was what we were here for—to discuss the matter and to elicit answers from the Minister. The Minister's failure to listen will make answering difficult, although all the evidence gathered today in this Parliament is that Ministers do not listen to what is being said here and, if they do, they still do not give us any answers. Perhaps new ground will be broken tonight, which will be an exciting moment for Parliament, but I shall not hold my breath.
      Nevertheless, we must ensure as best we can that detailed answers to our questions are forthcoming now, so that we can make up our minds on the amendments. Subsequently, the Minister must give an absolute guarantee that sufficient detailed information of the sort requested by my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon, South and for Mole Valley and answers to their questions will be available in time for voters to give proper and mature consideration before being asked to vote in the referendum next May. Unless those answers are forthcoming, the Minister can draw his own conclusions about what we shall all be forced to do.
      Mr. Alan Clark: My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) has quite rightly emphasised that the devil is in the detail. I realise that the Minister probably has some arguments in reserve that he will deploy when winding up. He will probably cite the lack of time, the fact that some of the details have to be settled with reference to other parties and the need for consultation—all the usual flannel with which his officials will brief him.
      However, one question relates directly to the date: it is absolutely fundamental and, unless it is answered, all our discussions are almost valueless because they are taking place in a vacuum. That question is: what is the cost of what is being proposed? It is totally unjust for the people of this city to be invited to vote on a matter, of which they may or may not approve in principle, without their decision being related to what it will cost them.
      The scheme has been talked up with descriptions of what powers will be given to the mayor and what benefits will accrue from having a mayor and assembly, but at the back of all that hype is colossal expenditure. My hon.
      360
      Friend the Member for Croydon, South listed various sources from which revenue might be derived, but even if every single one were milked for revenue, there would still not be enough at the disposal of the new bodies to meet the grandiose claims made for them.
      It is said that they will deal with traffic congestion, get rid of pollution and impose a green regime across the inner city and there are many other wild ideas—often touted by the Evening Standard, which has behaved in an extraordinarily irresponsible manner in respect of this whole topic from start to finish. If there is to be any realism in the fulfilment of those pledges, a colossal sum of money will be involved. That sum has to be drawn from somewhere and it will be drawn from the people of London. We all understand the Chancellor's pledge that the overall level of taxation will not be raised, and we know that we can trust his word. Therefore, the money will have to be raised locally.
      There will probably be some hypothecation—at least, we hope there will. Will there? Perhaps the Minister can answer that question—it would be original and inventive of him to do so. If Londoners are to be asked to contribute an enormous sum of money—which they will be, through various indirect taxes and a huge loading on their council tax—it would be useful for them to see in advance some indication of how that would be hypothecated.
      Such things can easily be calculated, at least in general terms, and it would be possible to put them in good time—even sticking to the existing date—so that those who are to vote in the referendum can carry such considerations in the forefront of their mind. I hope that the Minister will assure the Committee that he is going to ensure that that happens.
      Mr. Pickles: I imagine that the Minister must now be feeling a little embarrassed, having told us on Second Reading that he had received 1,200 responses. I put out a regular newsletter to my constituents—33,000 households. I do not get 1,200 responses back, but I get a number of responses that approaches 1,000. A figure so low is a sign that one should consult the people about one's proposals—the people are waiting to read the proposals before making a significant contribution.
      I have noticed the Minister nodding while my hon. Friends raised their points, as if to say, "Yes, I have the answer to that," "We know what we are going to do there," and "Don't worry, everything will be sorted out." If that is the case, what is the Minister scared of? Why does he not produce the Bill or his White Paper? Let us have the information so that the debate can be properly worked out.
      Referendums are not usual in our constitutional system. We have had a series of them, but they might best be described as a means of getting the Government off the hook. Generally speaking, with the exception of the two referendums in Scotland and Wales, they have been held against a background of a known position. Previously, the only referendums we had experienced had been on small local issues such as whether or not the pubs should open in Wales.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: On the issue of the referendums on Scotland and Wales—serious matters for the kingdom—does my hon. Friend accept that the no White Paper has yet been forthcoming on the detail? As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway)

      361
      rightly said, the devil is in the detail. What guarantee is there that the Government will produce serious detail about their proposals in time for a referendum on the date that is now proposed?
      Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Nothing in the Bill would force the Government to do anything. They need not do a single thing from the time that the Bill becomes an Act until the time of the referendum. As my hon. Friends have said, it is important that, before we make such important decisions, the full facts must be known. After all, we shall be faced with a question at the referendum where it will be possible, no matter what one's view are and unless one is violently opposed to both a mayor and an assembly, to vote yes.
      This may be the first of many referendums, so it is important to get the ground rules right. Before the people are asked to express a view in the referendum, we must ensure that the consultation is real and complete. We know that, at this referendum, substantial parts of the Metropolitan police area will be disenfranchised. Therefore, even if the full facts are known, some of the people who will be affected by policing decisions will not have an opportunity to vote.
      The Government have a duty to explain. If they intend to use referendums as a constitutional device—if they are to become a regular feature—they should not be used as a cynical and sinister way of trying to increase the number of people who vote in local government elections. The Government should explain to the people exactly what they are being asked to endorse.
      If we are to move forward in a process of "trust the people", those people have a right to complete disclosure. After all, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South said, the devil is in the detail. The Minister's position is now like that of the red queen in "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland". The Government are saying, "Never mind about the evidence or what the people think, let us have a judgment now." The only answer given by Labour Members is to say that they had a large majority on Second Reading.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is my hon. Friend as astonished as me to see so many Conservative Members present, anxious to debate these matters, while the Government Benches are virtually empty? Labour Members are not prepared to ask their Government for details about the financial consequences of the Bill. The Government are relying on the Lobby fodder who voted for the Bill on Second Reading. They have now been told to go home and not trouble this Committee.
      Mr. Pickles: That is an important point, which I was about to mention. We are in danger of treating the citizens of London like Labour Members of Parliament. The view seems to be, "We do not care what they think or what they do as long as they turn up." The public should receive more respect from the Chamber than the Government Chief Whip offers to his Back Benchers.
      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Pickles: A Labour Member. How nice to see him.
      Mr. Corbyn: I could not help but hear what the hon. Gentleman said about the alleged lack of Labour
      362
      Members in the Chamber. Can he explain why, on a matter as important as world climate change, only two Tory Members were present this morning? They had nothing to say about pollution in London or anywhere else and most Conservative Members stayed away. It may be that they had businesses to go to—I do not know. The world should be told.
      Mr. Pickles: I think that the—
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not allow himself to be led down that route. I should remind him that the amendments are tightly drawn. Some of the issues that he is covering now will be dealt with in later amendments.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Pickles: Of course, Mr. Lord. My only response to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is to say that we saw how he voted on Second Reading.
      Before people reach a decision they have a right to full disclosure. They need to know what the mayor will do and what powers he will have. They need to know whether an elected assembly will take powers away from the boroughs. The Minister for Local Government and Housing has talked to the Local Government Association and explained that there will be a tight settlement. We know that money will go away from London. We need to know whether additional money will go away from London because of the cost of the new assembly.
      Mr. Howard Flight: May I ask my hon. Friend what information people will have before the referendum on the future of the City of London Corporation? I think that the public believe that this is all about electing a new Lord Mayor of London and something that will take over the corporation. It is of major financial importance to know whether revenues from property rates will accrue to the new organisation or stay as they are. Central to knowing what one is voting for is knowing how the new arrangements will interact with the City.
      Mr. Pickles: I must tell my hon. Friend that I am the bringer of bad news. Nothing in the Bill explains that. There is no duty on the Government to explain any of those important things before the people of London vote.
      The people need to know whether powers will be taken from the boroughs. People within the London area come from distinct communities—that is where their roots are and where the power is. Before they are allowed to vote, that issue should be clear. We know that the strategic authority will have enormous powers on planning. The London boroughs will deal with only small considerations. Before people sign away the powers of the London boroughs, the consequences need to be explained in a White Paper or a draft Bill.
      In reply to a question before the recess, the Minister for Transport in London suggested that the strategic authority might care to consider the finance of London Underground. I understand that that suggestion has been withdrawn, but most of the major decisions on London Underground will have been taken long before the assembly comes into being.

      363
      If we are to use referendums as part of our constitutional system, they should have legitimacy. If people are asked to take decisions without full knowledge, the legitimacy of the referendum is undermined. After all, on Second Reading many Labour Members seemed to think that the new strategic authority was to be a rebirth of the Greater London council. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) is shaking his head, but he should read the Second Reading debate. It is clear from that that a substantial proportion of Labour Members thought that the GLC was coming back.
      We have the strange position in which Conservative Members are in general agreement with those on the Government Front Bench in that we both do not want to see the GLC come back. If Labour Members are so confused about the powers of the new strategic authority—they have had the benefit of reading their manifesto commitments—what chance does a member of the public have unless there is absolute disclosure? A system that treats the people as a rubber stamp treats them with cynical contempt.
      Mr. Livingstone: I did not intend to participate at this stage of the debate, as there are more important substantive matters to come but, having listened to so much appalling twaddle and knowing the Conservatives' record, I have been provoked.
      It will come as no surprise when I say that I have disagreements with my party on some of the details of its proposals for a new government for London. However, it is a bit much for the Conservatives to complain that the proposals are ill thought out, given the method of consultation used for the abolition of the previous London government, when 98 per cent. of the responses to the consultation were opposed to abolition, and, on the basis of 2 per cent. support, the Conservative Government went ahead.
      I recall that the entire exercise was not even agreed by the Cabinet. When the late beloved leaderene decided that she wanted to abolish regional government in London, she was told by the then Secretary of State for the Environment, who went on to become Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), that it was barmy and, after a study at the Department of the Environment, that it could not be done. His successor, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) gave the same advice in the month before Mrs. Thatcher, at a meeting drawing up the Tory manifesto, sidelined the Cabinet by putting the proposal in the manifesto, when the Cabinet had not agreed to it.
      There was no discussion and no consultation. The only study done in the Department of the Environment said that the plan would not work and was barmy. Having won the election on that and being seized by a fit of manifestoitis, the Conservatives had no plans for abolition and no prospect of having any plans for the abolition of the council within the two years before the next Greater London council election. They needed emergency legislation to abolish the election. It was passed in the House and overturned in another place, and the Government were forced into a humiliating retreat. They knew that it would take them 18 months to work out how to do it. It was a nightmare.
      The guilty men and women who voted for that nonsense back in 1983 are in no position to question the fact that Labour has had a consultation, and asked genuine
      364
      questions of Londoners. We shall, however imperfectly, put a question—or two, if I have my way—to the people of London next year, and detailed legislation will then be introduced. That is a much more structured approach than the nonsense that we had before.
      Sir Paul Beresford: At the beginning of his speech, the hon. Gentleman said that he had difficulty with some of the details. There were few details; there are few details. From past debates with him, I suspect that, after the referendum, he will have further arguments about the legislation, but it will be too late. Would he not prefer to allow the public to see more details beforehand? That would follow the position that he has taken over many years.
      Mr. Livingstone: Londoners clearly want an assembly or a government of some kind.
      Sir Paul Beresford: You do not know that.
      Mr. Livingstone: Every opinion poll for the past 10 years has shown that. The specific nature of such a body will require long and detailed legislation that will take the best part of a year. There is no prospect of that legislation being squeezed into the timetable for this Session. Therefore, if we waited for a referendum to consult Londoners, the plans would probably be put back to 2000, and we would not get a mayor before the next election. However imperfect the arrangements may be, at least they give Londoners a chance to elect an assembly and a mayor who will be in office before the year 2000.
      Sir Paul Beresford rose—
      Mr. Livingstone: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not give way to hear the same point made again. If the Government's plans are agreed to, Londoners will at least be consulted.
      There are serious points on which my party is split, and important amendments to consider. I would have hoped that, instead of time-wasting, the Committee could debate serious matters. Dare I ask whether a filibuster is looming? That would merely take time away from the serious consideration of important issues.
      Mr. Wilkinson: How refreshing it is to have the authentic voice of the Labour party in London participating in this important debate. I would not dream of referring to the remarks of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) as appalling twaddle, but as usual his sense of history was rather colourful and not exactly scholastic.
      It would be helpful for the Committee to focus more closely on amendments Nos. 13 and 14. Why are the Labour Government so keen that the referendum should be held on 7 May 1998? I suggest that they hope that the date will be useful for their election campaigns in the boroughs.
      The record of Labour authorities in London is abysmal. The Government hope that there will be so much hype and such excitement about the issues of the referendum that their record will not come under the close scrutiny that it deserves. I can assure Ministers that, in my own borough of Hillingdon, it will. We have particular

      365
      problems relating to planning, for example, which the electors will want to address, as they did in the Uxbridge by-election. That may not be the case in other boroughs.
      With regard to the length of time between the publication of the White Paper—or, as we insist, the publication of the Bill—and the referendum, there is much of great constitutional significance. The Liberals, as ever, are acting as the sweepers to the Labour team. They are happy with a two-month period between the White Paper and the referendum date.
      Those of us who have been in the House for a while recognise that the White Paper process is a serious one which does not affect this House alone. It is a process of pre-legislative consultation which should encompass public opinion as a whole, interested bodies, industry, commerce and the City of London. The consultation must be meaningful. In the light of the representations made, many of the original proposals submitted must be reconsidered.
      We are led to believe by Government spokesmen that if we are lucky, we will get the White Paper in the spring. That hardly allows time for the definitive proposals, which will be published only with the legislation, to be produced.
      I would go further and say that the people of London should not be required to have a referendum on the future governance of London until the Bill is through both Houses, but I shall not quibble; amendment No. 14 is satisfactory, allowing one month between the publication of the Bill and the referendum date. I would have hoped that in a spirit of good will, the Government would allow the stages in this House—the Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading of the Bill—to be completed.
      The trouble is that the Government regard the entire exercise as an attempt to seek popular approval in a referendum for a model of government—a prototype—which will be appropriate for the European elections. That is not spelt out in precise terms; nothing is. The Green Paper is the vaguest Green Paper that I have ever read.
      By rights the Government should by this stage have presented the House with infinitely clearer proposals. There is no expectation that even by the early spring, when the White Paper is due to be published, they will have formulated their ideas clearly. One might have imagined that they would have done so by the election. Instead, it was an exercise in sloganeering about how wonderful an elected mayor and assembly would be. There was no effort to analyse the policy and spell it out, either in the election campaign or in the Green Paper.
      As there has been such a policy vacuum, the people of London should at the very least have a month to consider in careful detail the precise proposals for which the Government will seek the approval of the electorate in the referendum.
      It is not right that the people of London should be the guinea pigs for constitutional change. I use the term "constitutional change" advisedly, because the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), admitted that the proposed assembly is a prototype for regional government for England as a whole. If it is so, the people of London need
      366
      much more than the one month that we anticipate between the publication of the Bill and the date of the referendum to make up their minds. It will be an issue that transcends London itself, and the people of London will wish to judge, in reaching their conclusion on referendum day, whether they wish to set a precedent that could be used in the further modification of our traditional forms of government.
      6 pm
      The Government's proposal is a constitutional monstrosity. They are seeking approval for something which even by 7 May will be largely unclear. They are expecting the people of London to accept as an act of faith that all will be well even though they will probably receive no clear explanation of how the assembly is to work, how the mayor will be able to obtain approval of his budget from the assembly and how the necessary moneys will be raised. The people of London are being asked to accept the biggest constitutional blank cheque in municipal history.
      Mr. Andrew Lansley: I support amendments Nos. 13 and 14, from which two issues arise. The first—probably the more important and certainly the one on which many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have focused—concerns the fact that, at the point at which the electors of London will be asked to comment on the Government's entirely vague proposals for a mayor and an assembly, those proposals will not be before them in their full form, and certainly not in the form of a Bill.
      The Government might, if they wished to comply with the spirit of amendment No. 14, produce a draft Bill. We understand that, on a number of issues, they intend—and it is an entirely laudable intention—to anticipate the introduction of legislation, and the more important the legislation, the more important it is that that should be done. Before a Bill is presented to the House for the first time, it should be the subject of a draft Bill that has been the focus of substantive consultation.
      We are all aware of the numerous bodies in London and the numerous policy areas that will be affected by the Bill when it comes before us. With my constituency interests at heart, let me say that many of those interests relate not only to London but to London in its national context, and they too must be the subject of consultation.
      It is entirely right, given the importance of the issues that are to be raised, that the Government should use the opportunity to present a draft Bill before proceeding to present a substantive Bill to the House in the 1998–99 Session. Surely it is entirely possible that the Government could proceed by publishing a draft Bill in the earlier part of 1998. Consistent with that, the Government could ask for a referendum, having acceded to the amendments, during 1998 without necessarily imperilling their timetable for the introduction of legislation and hence the introduction of a mayor and an assembly.
      The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) is no longer in his place, but I would take issue with him that it is necessarily the case that to accept the amendments would be to delay the Government's timetable for the introduction of a mayor and an assembly.
      As I have said, the first issue is whether the electors should have before them the proposals that will be set out in the Bill. Surely it is vital that they should. On Second

      367
      Reading I referred to the apparent anomaly of the Labour party having sought a mandate in its manifesto for the introduction of a mayor and an assembly, only to throw it away.
      Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend talks about full disclosure, but surely there needs to be substantial disclosure. The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who, like most Labour Members, is not in his place, argued that the entire process would be put in jeopardy if it were delayed because of the introduction of a Bill. Surely an indication of what the Government propose to do in relation to powers, functions and finance will be necessary.
      Mr. Lansley: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is clear that the Green Paper does not raise 61 questions that will become matters of detail at a later stage, so it is not possible to vote on the basis of proposals in the Green Paper that represent a substantive understanding of what the mayor and the assembly are to be.
      It is of considerable importance to many, not least to my hon. Friends, to understand what is to be the relationship between the mayor and the assembly, because that determines whether the assembly should be composed of separately elected individuals or those drawn from the London boroughs. What sort of scrutiny and powers is the assembly to have in relation to the mayor? The Green Paper merely tells us that there needs to be a mechanism for the resolution of conflict. Indeed there does, but what is to be the mechanism, how is it to work and what are to be the respective powers?
      We are in the business of constitution making and, as we shall find in due course in relation to some of the documents published on Scottish and Welsh devolution, that is not about everyone agreeing all the time. There must be a clear understanding of respective powers and of how conflicts are to be resolved.
      One of the key issues is the relationship between the proposed Greater London authority and the London development agency. We do not know now what stage will be reached in the publication of details about the development agency and its relationship with the Greater London authority. Littered throughout the Green Paper are references that imply that the GLA is to be construed as a body that is taking to itself responsibilities of central Government and exercising those in relation to London. Other parts of the Green Paper make explicit reference to the GLA as analogous to a county council.
      It makes an enormous difference to voters to know which we are talking about. If we are talking about a body that is essentially decentralised and using central Government powers, it would seem that there is a stronger case for the involvement of the boroughs in ensuring that that approach is consistent with borough strategies and priorities. If we are talking about a body that is analogous to a county council and by extension will be drawing many powers to itself from the boroughs, that will involve a substantial degradation or diminution of borough responsibilities—a matter to which the boroughs might like to respond.
      Mrs. Teresa Gorman: My hon. Friend may not be aware that I served on Westminster city
      368
      council. I remember the appalling delays and difficulties that ensued because those involved in planning had a foot in both camps. The business community and others in London should be made well aware of the problems that will arise, unless wording is precise, as a result of delays in central London activities, especially the development of properties.
      Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. The Green Paper is indeterminate as to whether the Greater London authority will issue planning guidance, in the manner of the Secretary of State, or create a structure plan, in the manner of a county council. To those of us concerned with land use issues, the manner in which the development, control and land use powers are to be determined, and the influence that the Greater London authority could exercise over those powers, is of the essence.
      When it comes to voting on whether there should be a Greater London authority in the manner described, many people in the outer London boroughs will ask, "What powers will this body have in relation to the green belt and green space in London; and what influence can it have over development control in our borough?" The answer is not clear. It is not in the Green Paper.
      At this stage one has to ask what the Government are trying to achieve by their timing of the referendum. The timing is, on the face of it, simply to reiterate the Government's intention to introduce a Bill to provide for a mayor and an assembly. They are, in effect, mandated to legislate for a mayor and an assembly, because that was in their manifesto, and it is the opening comment in the Green Paper.
      I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood that, if Ministers are looking for a referendum to play its proper part constitutionally in relation to this issue, they have two options. They can legislate for a referendum to take place once a Bill has secured its passage through both Houses, so that the voters of London can, in a constitutional manner, act as a democratic legitimising body for the intentions of Parliament and so that Parliament can submit its determinations to the electorate to secure their agreement. That option is entirely preferable constitutionally.
      Alternatively, if this is to be an advisory referendum, which I suspect is the Government's intention, the Government should seek the advice of the electorate substantively on the issues that arise from the manifesto. When Labour went to the polls on 1 May, it did so on the basis that it would introduce a mayor and an assembly for London, but not knowing what the mayor and the assembly would do.
      Sir Paul Beresford: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are trying to persuade the public at large in London that one of the assets of the Government's proposal is that the management, control and organisation of London would be more efficient? However, when he touched on planning, he touched on the very area on which I have severe doubts. People need to know what will be the relationships between the boroughs, the new Greater London authority and the mayor, the Government office for London, the regional development agency association and the Government. Should we not reflect on the fact that London is so important to this country that it

      369
      is unlikely that there will be any final decision anyway, and that it will have to be taken by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions?
      Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend makes his point very well. From my reading of the Green Paper, and from my knowledge of planning issues, it seems to me that it would be very difficult in relation to any major development and planning issue that arose in London to know how the Secretary of State, who remains a court of appeal in relation to the powers of the Greater London authority and the boroughs would exercise his powers if the Government office for London were absorbed into the Greater London authority.
      I suspect that the Green Paper is moving towards a situation in which the Greater London authority is both analogous to a county council, as one would understand the term outside London, and would exercise many of the powers and responsibilities of the Government office. Yet outside London these are separate bodies, and for jolly good reasons.
      I come now to the second issue arising from the amendments. Why 7 May 1998? What is important about that date? From the electoral administration point of view it is cheaper and easier to have the votes on the same day. I entirely take the point, as a saving of £2 million to £3 million could be achieved. However, when examined in rather more detail, it becomes a little more strange.
      Are the issues to be determined in the two elections the same? In theory they are not, because the issues relating to the mayor and the assembly are issues for a considerable time ahead. The issues to be determined on that matter are the strategic governance of London from 2000 onwards, not the policy priorities now for London as exercised by the boroughs. There is an important difference between those issues, which suggests that they should be separated.
      6.15 pm
      How will the boroughs interact with the referendum? Existing councillors of London boroughs were elected in 1996 and therefore without a mandate in relation to the Government's proposals. I suspect that, although London boroughs will have their own views on the referendum, they will be unable to acquire a mandate—which they might seek to do—at the local government elections next May to influence the introduction of legislation. They would benefit from the Government making further and faster progress in presenting their proposals through a White Paper and a draft Bill, so that councillors and candidates can seek a mandate to change the governance of London.
      At the moment, the boroughs will not interact with the referendum because they will be conducting their own campaign. Technically, the borough elections will be held without knowledge of whether the people of London support a mayor and an assembly.
      Mr. Wilkinson: Is not the most likely reason for selecting 7 May for the referendum that, without the election taking place on the same date, the turnout in the referendum would be totally derisory? It would be even worse than the Welsh referendum, and it would be
      370
      patently clear that there was no democratic mandate for what the Government propose. This is the only way in which they can ensure at least a 30 per cent. turnout on the day.
      Mr. Lansley: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has made that point, as he has saved me the trouble of having to do so, and he made it better than I would have done. I am sure that he is right.
      I shall dwell not so much on the politically manipulative aspects of the Government's proposal as on the constitutional aspect. It seems highly undesirable in constitutional terms for the Government to invite the people of London to vote on the referendum issues, which relate to the governance of London after 2000, while the people of London should focus in the local government elections on the government of London and the policy issues that affect London from 1998 to 2002.
      Mr. Pickles: Does it not go a stage further than that? Will not the people of London elect their various borough councillors not knowing whether they will be stripped of power?
      Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, the council candidates who will present themselves to the electorate in the run-up to 7 May 1998 will be unaware of the context in which the second half of their term will be conducted—with what powers, under what circumstances, and so on. From 1998 to 2000, they will know that they are exercising the current set of powers and be able to deal with the issues, but they will have said to the electorate, "Give us an opportunity to run this borough through to 2002." But for the subsequent years, 2000 to 2002, they may not have the power.
      Sir Paul Beresford: Or the money.
      Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The money will have gone—indeed, I suspect that a great deal of it will have gone—into the coffers of the Greater London authority, perhaps substantially more than is currently spent by the London boroughs.
      Let me return to the question of political manipulation. It seems to me that, in the run-up to the 7 May local elections next year, the decision to hold a referendum on the same day will have a political impact. It is a perfect device employed by the Government to avoid addressing some of the real issues. By that time—in this context, the presence in the Chamber of the Minister for Transport in London is helpful—the Government should have begun the process of telling the electorate what they meant by "an integrated transport strategy". It was clear that they had no idea what that meant when they secured office on 1 May.
      The same applies to the questions that were presented in the Green Paper in relation to the government of London. It turned out that the Government's policy consisted of 60 questions—or however many were involved in the transport strategy document.
      When we come to the elections next May, the Government will doubtless say, "Don't worry precisely what we mean by an integrated transport strategy in London now. You can vote for a Greater London authority." The Green Paper, which I consulted, makes it

      371
      clear that there will be something even better: a genuine integrated transport strategy. I quote from the Green Paper. The heaping up of adjectives before the word "transport" knows no end.
      It strikes me that the device that is being used—the holding of two elections on the same day—is intended to allow the Government to escape from the critical issues, and, in many instances, to escape the criticisms that will fall on Labour local authorities in such areas as Hackney and Islington by saying, "With one bound you, the electorate, will all be free. The critical issue is whether you vote for a Greater London authority. If you do, all your problems will disappear in the future, because the Green Paper says that the Greater London authority will be more effective" —and all the other adjectives that go along with whatever the GLA is supposed to do.
      There will be a very undesirable conjunction on 7 May. I understand that, in practice, it is an administrative convenience, but I feel that administrative convenience should take second place to political need and constitutional desirability, and I consider it constitutionally desirable for the Government to proceed. I see no reason why such a timetable should be used, and no argument was presented for it on Second Reading.
      It would be entirely consistent with the Government's timetable to introduce the mayor and assembly in 2000, and to bring in legislation in the parliamentary Session of 1998–99. It would be perfectly possible, in advance of that, to hold a referendum in, let us say, September 1998. It would be perfectly possible, in advance of that, to present a White Paper and a draft Bill. The Government would have to go a long way to convince Conservative Members that they were not competent to achieve that.
      Such action would put things in their proper order. Perhaps, when we consider other issues in relation to the Bill, we shall suggest ways in which the Government's failure to spell out what they intend to achieve, and the way in which they will achieve it, can also be put in order.
      Mr. John Horam: If I understand the Government's position rightly, the commitment made by the Minister in response to the genuine unease that is felt about the problem means that they are saying that they will produce a White Paper in the spring. I do not know where the Minister made that commitment, but I understand that that is the nature of it.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) pointed out, the first question to be asked is what is meant by "the spring". The Minister should tell us exactly how much time he would expect to elapse between the publication of the White Paper and the referendum that he expects to take place on 7 May. Are we talking about four weeks, six weeks or two months? "Spring" is an extraordinarily elastic term, which allows the Government to do pretty much what they want. If the Minister is really talking about producing a White Paper at the very beginning of a local government campaign in London, I think that that would be a travesty of any proper consideration of the Government's proposals, separate from the existing governance of London.
      There is a more important point that will have a resonance for hon. Members who are long enough in the tooth to have been in the House for some time. White
      372
      Papers can be pretty white. White Papers can be pretty elementary, and pretty skeletal. I do not make that point in a party sense; I am talking about Parliament versus the Executive—the way in which the Executive treats Parliament.
      When I was on the Back Benches under the last Government, I was shocked and scandalised—and said so in a debate—by a White Paper produced by my own Government proposing the privatisation of the railways. I felt that it left unanswered so many fundamental questions about—for instance—the way in which the privatisation would be carried out that it constituted an abuse of the procedures of the House.
      I pose the same question to the Government now, not on a party basis but simply on the basis of how they hope to treat Parliament during this process. After all, the Government have said things about that, and they are doing things about it—for example, by modernising our procedures. They have raised hopes that they will proceed in a more composed way than Governments have proceeded in the past.
      We need to know first what the Government mean by a White Paper. As I have said, a White Paper is pretty elementary, and I feel that the Government are left with far too much room in which to manoeuvre. The Minister has a problem—one with which we are all acquainted. If he had to produce a Bill, he would have to secure agreement from his colleagues on the Government committee that authorises the drafting of Bills. He knows well enough that he would not secure the agreement of his colleagues. They would say, "You have not got the referendum through, and we therefore do not know whether the legislation will be passed. How can we justify the expense of constructing a Bill, and all that goes with that—the time of the Parliamentary Counsel, for example?"[Interruption.]
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Far too many private conversations are going on, especially near the Chair. I am finding it difficult to follow the debate.
      Mr. Horam: As I was saying, the time that the Parliamentary Counsel would need to devote the necessary attention to detail could not be justified. The Minister has a problem: he knows that he could not produce a Bill, even if he wanted to.
      I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). Why not produce a draft Bill? The whole point of producing a Bill is that it is a necessary intellectual exercise, in which those involved must go into the minutiae. As has been said repeatedly, the devil is in the detail. The point is well made: as Disraeli said, if you have a good point repeat it, repeat it, repeat it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cliché."] Disraeli had some rather good clichés.
      I am saying that, if it is possible to embark on the intellectual exercise that is necessary to produce a Bill. that will resolve some of the points about which people are concerned. After all, the Government are producing a draft Budget next week or thereabouts. That process is normally shrouded in secrecy, as was pointed out by the previous Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke).
      It is extraordinary that the Government should produce a draft Budget dealing with a subject that is renowned for secrecy, but should not produce a draft Bill dealing with a

      373
      subject on which there should be consultation—on which, indeed, consultation is taking place. They have got themselves into an absurdly illogical position. That is one suggestion: the Government should commit themselves to producing at least a draft Bill, while not committing themselves to a final Bill. After all, the Minister knows that he cannot do that.
      I want to be helpful to the Minister. I hope that I am being helpful. Even if he cannot do that, he could, this evening, give some clothing to the White Paper proposals that he may produce. Can he tell us exactly what a White Paper would cover? My hon. Friends the Members for South Cambridgeshire and for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) mentioned planning. Planning is a major consideration when a new body is being put into an existing arrangement in which there are several London boroughs, government of London organisations and, indeed, the Government themselves. Problems will occur because of the sheer complexity of the proposals, and it would be sensible to deal with those problems in detail now.
      The Government should address the concerns of hon. Members and the citizens of London by spelling out this evening how the White Paper will be structured. Can the Minister give us more information about the chapters that it will contain and the headings that it will cover? Will it contain the detail that we would expect from a proper White Paper? That would assuage some of my doubts about the excessive room for manoeuvre that he has given himself, which we suspect will be exploited as usual by the spin doctors. The House will be given the minimum information that is consistent with parliamentary adequacy, and the people of London will not be given the detailed information they need to make a valid judgment on the Government's proposals.
      6.30 pm
      That lack of information is one of the reasons why the response to the consultation was so pathetic. Only 1,200 people responded, many of whom may be opposed to the proposals. As we know from an earlier intervention, one of those responses came from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), so perhaps there were 1,201 responses out of 7 million people in London, including 5 million electors.
      Mrs. Gorman: Does that not suggest that the people of London are far too canny to want to be lumbered with this great expense? We are signing a blank cheque, and it may turn out that there is not enough interest in the proposal to go ahead with it. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that we should not allow the same to happen with this proposal for London as happened with the Welsh referendum? Only 20 or 25 per cent. of the people in Wales showed any interest, whereas the Government talk about the result as if it were a great victory for them.
      Mr. Horam: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Minister has a problem. He is linking the referendum to the elections on 7 May, in the hope that it will boost the turnout and will conceal the fact that people are not as keen on his proposals as he wants them to be. He has an interest in having a real debate about the proposals.
      374
      It is no good resting on a consultation process that yields 1,200 responses. If my calculations are correct, that is 0.0002 per cent. of the people and institutions of London.
      Mr. Pickles: Does my hon. Friend realise that that take-up is less than the average double glazing salesman gets?
      Mr. Horam: I do not know whether 0.0002 per cent. is the proportion of London Labour Members present in the Chamber at the moment. I noticed that the hon. Members for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) briefly appeared, no doubt so that their names would appear in the debate, but suddenly vanished. They said that 2 per cent. was an unacceptable figure. The Minister would be delighted with 2 per cent., given that only 0.0002 per cent. responded to his overtures.
      The Minister has a responsibility to the House to flesh out this evening the ground that he proposes to cover.
      Mr. Raynsford: I shall do so.
      Mr. Horam: I am getting nice smiles from the Minister. My hon. Friends will want to intervene in his speech to find out what ground he will cover in the promised White Paper, when he intends to publish it and when we will have some clear-cut proposals that the people of London can debate.
      Mr. Laurence Robertson: I do not want to speak for long, but I believe that a fundamental issue is at stake. As this is a matter of such importance, it is extraordinary that people in Scotland, Wales and now in London are being asked to vote merely on the principle, and not on any details. It is odd that referendums come before legislation. These referendums have major constitutional implications. Expenditure matters will have to be considered, and powers will have to be shifted from one body to another.
      The public are concerned about the honesty of politicians. I am a new Member, and I have noticed a great deal of dishonesty. The way in which the Government have behaved since they took office is not as the electorate might have expected. There have been betrayals. Many Labour supporters refer to the Government's U-turns as betrayals. They have made U-turns on tuition fees, cold weather payments and tobacco advertising.
      The people of London will be asked to vote on a proposal about which they know very little. The last time they were in office, the Labour Government had their fingers burned, because they proposed legislation before the referendums and could not get their business through the House.
      The name of the London authority also raises an issue of honesty. It is now to be the Greater London authority, whereas in the past it was the Greater London council. Are the Government frightened to go back to that august body, or is this change of name yet another smokescreen?
      More particularly, I want to know exactly what the authority will do. Will it be yet another tier of bureaucracy? From my travels around my constituency and throughout the country, it is clear that people are tired of politicians and of government, yet the Government

      375
      want to create further tiers of bureaucracy and more levels of government throughout the kingdom. These proposals have many more constitutional implications.
      Where will the balance of power lie between existing London authorities and the new authority? What will be the division of power? What will the new mayor of this great authority do? Will he be powerful or not? Will he chair council meetings, and if so, which ones?
      Mrs. Gorman: Who will serve on the authority? As I understand it, there will be some well-paid jobs in the assembly. I have heard that the lord mayor will be paid about £100,000. What will happen to the district councils if people flock to serve on the new authority? District authorities are established bodies which handle local issues, but they may be undermined.
      Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is right. No one has any idea what will happen.
      Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend may like to ask for a small pause in our discussions, as there is no one on the Government Front Bench. The Liberal Democrats and the Government are arranging a stitch-up beyond the Bar.
      Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but, as there is now someone on the Government Front Bench, I shall continue.
      I cannot answer the questions that I have posed. It is up to the Government to explain to the House and to the people of London the role of the new authority and the mayor, and how that will affect the role of district authorities. If a £100,000 salary is to be paid, many people will be asking how they can become mayor of this great body.
      As the Government get into further difficulties, they start to retreat into themselves. I advise them not to keep putting up smokescreens, because it is not doing them any good.
      On a wider constitutional issue, the Government should explain to the people of London and to the House whether they are creating yet another region of Europe. There will be some sort of government in Scotland and Wales, and the Government have not yet published their plans for regional government in England. Will the Greater London authority be yet another of those regions? That would have important implications. These matters should be explained not in a White Paper, but in full legislation before the people of London are asked to vote on it.
      Mrs. Gorman: I speak from experience as a councillor and as someone who is not a lover of referendums. In fact, I am not a lover of extra government, because I think that we should have the least possible government. If the Opposition's role is to give more power back to the individual, the less government we have the better. We should not take powers away from the individual and give them to central bodies.
      One of the things I do to keep in touch with London, and with London opinion, is a little radio programme on Sunday mornings with the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who is no longer in his place. That is declared in the Register of Members' Interests. We invite people from London to telephone about matters that worry them. The radio programme enables us to find out much
      376
      more about the views of Londoners than we are ever likely to discover through the referendum. People worry about law and order, but, of course, there are already strategic bodies such as the police and the fire service to deal with such matters. Therefore, the new authority need not become involved in that.
      People worry about their dustbins being regularly emptied and about the cleanliness of their streets. Those functions are carried out fairly effectively, certainly in the Conservative boroughs in London, although I cannot say the same for Camden and Islington, where the streets are filthy and the rates are such that most people try to leave them. They certainly send their children to school outside those boroughs. People are worried about education in London, but I do not think that there will be any suggestion of the new body taking over council powers, because the councils will fight like hell to keep them.
      It might be a good idea to take the power to control schools away from many London boroughs whose schools are atrocious. The rare exceptions are Wandsworth and Westminster. They run good schools, but, of course, they have Conservative administrations.
      People worry about transport and roads.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady is embarking on a Second Reading speech. The debate is tightly drawn and deals with the date of the referendum.
      Mrs. Gorman: Thank you for reminding me of that, Mr. Lord.
      Londoners have strong views, and offering them a blank cheque referendum will not let us know whether they want a detailed say. The referendum question will require just a yes or no and the Government owe it to the people of London to say that, if not enough of them vote in the referendum, they will not proceed beyond it. I should like to hear the Minister's view on that, because there has been little response.
      We must take account of the serious difficulties that arise with another layer of government. That will be evident on planning issues. Such strategic matters should be reflected in the information that the Government give to people before the referendum. If it is not, people will be voting for a pig in a poke. If people are not told what the authority involves, they will not know whether they want it. The Minister must deal with some of those issues or we shall be debating nothing more than bread and circuses. We have had a blank cheque, a pig in a poke, bread and circuses and the devil in the detail. The new authority may be an abomination.
      Before Londoners are asked to decide on the issue, they must know that if not enough of them take an interest in it in the first place the Government will take note of that. I am putting to the Minister the matters that Londoners are interested in enough to phone up about on a Sunday morning after breakfast and before they get down to cooking the lunch. I have used this opportunity to pass that information on. I know that my hon. Friends back me in calling for information, and I hope that the Minister will deal with these important matters.
      Mr. Flight: I should like to deal in more detail with the point that I put to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). The referendum is self-evidently to endorse Government proposals. What

      377
      has been aired so far is not simply a replacement for the GLC. The City is in the middle of London. Financial services represent 23 per cent. of our national income and are crucial to our prosperity. London citizens need to know the proposals for the City corporation. That is fundamental in several key areas. Will the authority have tax powers, will it make the City uncompetitive, will it have planning powers and will it be relevant to the efficient operation of the most capitalist part of our economy?
      6.45 pm
      It is not good enough to seek a blank cheque. [Interruption.] Labour Members find that funny. It is a jolly good cliché, but if they damage the City of London they will find it difficult to get cheques out of anybody. The referendum is about the future of London and the most important part of our economy. If the Government wish properly to consult people, they must advise people of their proposals about that most important part of London. There is no reason why the proposals cannot be set out in detail in a draft Bill or a proper Bill with adequate time for digestion before the referendum. The referendum should not be held until these matters have been resolved.
      Mr. Raynsford: The debate has been protracted and not entirely illuminating. I was frequently reminded of literary images of conversations among a group of dead souls who were endlessly repeating the same clichés—how they tripped off their tongues—and trying to reassure themselves that the world had not changed on 1 May. The world did change, and the Conservatives are in opposition. Labour is in government and we have positive proposals to give the people of London the right once again to determine who governs their city.
      The Conservative party took away from the people of London the democratic right to elect their own citywide authority. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I am getting on with it, and if Opposition Members will bear with me they will hear a few simple facts about their party's record when it was in power.
      We take no lessons from Conservatives about the exercise of democracy. They did not believe in consulting Londoners before abolishing the GLC. They did not make proposals for draft Bills or other constitutional innovations to allow people an opportunity to test their proposals before they abolished the GLC. The Conservative party did not publish anything before producing a paving Bill which, using their majority, they rammed through the House. The people of London had no say. It is pure hypocrisy for Conservative Members to suggest that what we are doing is undemocratic.
      Sir Paul Beresford: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Raynsford: No. The Government are committed to ensuring—[Interruption.]
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order.
      Mr. Raynsford: Thank you, Mr. Lord. I have listened for approximately an hour and a half to a protracted
      378
      debate with frequent Opposition interventions. They might have the courtesy to listen briefly to me before intervening.
      The Government are committed to ensuring that the people of London have full information about our proposals before they vote in the referendum on whether they wish to have a new strategic Greater London authority comprising a directly elected mayor and a separately elected assembly. We have already demonstrated our commitment to full public consultation. Within three months of coming into office, we published a Green Paper. We circulated many copies of the summary version of it. There has been extensive media coverage and a substantial response to the Green Paper. We received more than 1,200 responses, and they are still coming in after the consultation closure date, which has meant that it has taken some time to analyse the responses to 61 questions.
      I put it to Conservative Members and to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who first made the point, which many of them repeated, that putting out a newsletter—which probably asks the electorate whether they endorse the hon. Gentleman's actions in relation to a popular issue such as repairing council houses—will almost certainly elicit a good and positive response, but he will probably understand that the responses to 61 questions are not necessarily as simple as those to his question.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I do not intend to protract my comments, but, as an exercise in democracy, I am happy to tell the Minister that our surveys had four pages of questions—I concede that they were not all answered—and that that produced 5,000 or 6,000 answers, so I still think that the Government could have done a bit better in relation to responses from Londoners.
      Mr. Raynsford: I am not going to enter a debate with the hon. Gentleman about the wordiness of Liberal Democrats' literature and the number of questions that they pose. I will say only that we have had a full and comprehensive response from a wide range of London organisations and individual Londoners. We are analysing those comments carefully because many valuable contributions have been made in the consultation. We take that seriously and we will pay good heed to it before we produce our final proposals.
      Mr. Lansley: The Minister makes the point about the previous Government's consultation, or lack of consultation as he alleges, but perhaps he will be able to help me, because my memory is not as good as his. I recall a White Paper on London, I think in 1994, which was published by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), when he was Secretary of State for the Environment, and which sought widespread consultation. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House now or at an early opportunity how many responses there were to that consultation.
      Mr. Raynsford: The most striking thing about that consultation was that the then Government did not choose to ask the people of London whether there was a need for a strategic authority for London, despite which 30 per cent. of respondents said that they wanted a strategic

      379
      authority for London. That showed Londoners' response to the bogus attempt at consultation by the previous Government.
      We have said clearly that we are consulting the people of London and we will lay before them the full details of the Government's proposals in a White Paper. We will also ensure that every household in London receives a neutral and factual summary of the White Paper, setting out the proposals on which they will be asked to vote, as well as other initiatives, to ensure that everyone knows what the issues are.
      Mr. Pickles: Give us the date.
      Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will come to that. He is terribly impatient. I assure him that I will give him the answer that he is looking for. We intend to publish the White Paper—[Interruption.] If Conservative Members could restrain themselves, they might be interested in this. We intend to publish the White Paper during or before the week commencing 23 March.
      The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) asked whether the definition of spring was within that period. He made the point that spring technically begins on 21 March. Therefore, we intend to publish the White Paper at the earliest opportunity in the spring. That will allow six weeks for the issues to be considered fully by the people of London, before they vote in the referendum on 7 May.
      Mr. Wilkinson: The Minister is making a point of great importance in announcing that, some six weeks before the referendum day, the electorate of London—every household-will receive a copy of the White Paper. Will the Government facilitate the issue of literature to the contrary? For example, will the no campaign—if such a campaign materialises—have freepost facilities?
      Mr. Raynsford: I have said that we will publish a factual and neutral summary of the proposals. There will be no public funding for either a yes campaign or a no campaign. The Government will set out the options and invite the people of London to make a choice. That is the right and proper course for the Government to follow.
      The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) talked about the merits of publishing legislation and giving a period of perhaps a month for people to consider it before they voted in a referendum. Legislation is of necessity often very technical. The Bill to give effect to our proposals on London will inevitably involve many technical provisions. The idea that the electorate of London should have one month to absorb highly technical legislation, while the concept of giving people six weeks to digest a White Paper expressed in clear English is rejected, shows a curious sense of how to ensure the best possible public consultation.
      Mr. Ottaway: Will the Minister give an undertaking that there will be no changes between publication of the White Paper and the First Reading of the Bill—that there will be no changes between the detail of the White Paper and that in the Bill?
      Mr. Raynsford: Of course I cannot give that undertaking because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the
      380
      first thing that will happen after the White Paper's publication is the referendum, and if it produced a no vote, there would clearly be a change in the Government's position. It is preposterous to suggest that we should give an undertaking that there will never be any change in our White Paper proposals.
      We are holding the referendum on 7 May deliberately to gain the benefits from combining the poll with local government elections. That will result in a considerable saving in public expenditure, which I would have thought all hon. Members would welcome. Separating the referendum date from the local election day would probably result in additional public expenditure of some £2 million to £3 million and could reduce voter turnout. That is not in the interests of democracy or of economy, and the Government do not intend to propose that.
      As for the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Croydon, South, I cannot believe that he is suggesting that the interests of democratic choice are best served by asking the people of London to scrutinise a Bill with 100 or more clauses.
      Mr. John Hayes: The Minister wants the referendum to be held on the same day as local elections. Is that because he fears the possibility of a derisory turnout in the referendum, thus removing the mandate to act? I am mindful of course of the experience in Wales. To support what I have said, may I tell him that I was in Greenwich this morning discussing the matter? Not only had no one to whom I spoke heard of the Minister, but no one had heard of these proposals.
      Mr. Raynsford: It was a mistake to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has only just arrived in the Chamber and clearly did not listen when I spelled out the obvious financial advantages. Before he says anything more, I advise him that he does not appear to have honoured the normal parliamentary courtesy of giving a Member of Parliament notice that he is visiting his constituency.
      We propose that Londoners will have the chance to scrutinise clear and comprehensive proposals in the White Paper. It will then be for Parliament to scrutinise legislation, taking account of the content of the White Paper and the verdict of the people of London. People who suggest that the referendum should take place after Parliament has completed consideration of a Bill support a strange constitutional concept that would make the House subordinate to a referendum. Our referendum will precede parliamentary consideration. This House will have the final say. That is right and proper, and in accordance with the constitution of this country.
      Mr. Pickles: I want to press the Minister on a couple of important points. He said that he will produce the White Paper in the early part of March. Is he giving an undertaking that the Government's preferred position on important matters—who pays, where the powers come from, the respective roles of the mayor and the strategic authority—will be explicitly laid out for the people of London?
      7 pm
      Mr. Raynsford: I must make it clear to the hon. Gentleman, who obviously has not been following the Government's statements, that the decisions will be

      381
      spelled out in the White Paper. We are not yet in a position to do so, because we have not completed the analysis of the responses to the Green Paper. We are rightly carefully considering all those matters before we reach a decision. We will spell out in the White Paper our proposed framework for the new authority, including all the relevant considerations about how that authority will be constituted, what its powers will be, the relationship between the mayor and the assembly, how the assembly will be elected and all other considerations of which the public will need to be aware before reaching a decision in the referendum.
      Sir Paul Beresford: A few other considerations have been mentioned in the debate, the key ones being the source of the financing and the Government's suggestion that the new authority and mayor will be more efficient. Will the Minister explain how they will be more efficient?
      Mr. Raynsford: The White Paper will spell out what the Green Paper showed—winding up the complex and undemocratic raft of quangos left by the previous Government and creating a more streamlined and coherent administration will achieve significant savings and ensure that the objective we have spelled out in the Green Paper is met. We do not envisage its resulting in an increase in public expenditure. That is not what we are interested in; we are interested in good, efficient administration that will ensure that Londoners themselves have a democratic say in how their city is governed. We want them to have the prospect of an efficient authority delivering the services that Londoners want.
      The proposal favoured by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is close to our proposal. He wants a reasonable period for consideration of the White Paper proposals before the vote. We are not far apart. We believe that six weeks is adequate; he would like it to be two months. If it had been possible to complete all the work necessary within that time, we would have wanted to do so. However, we are working to a tight time scale and we want to provide a full opportunity to consider and discuss all the relevant issues with all the interested parties.
      The hon. Gentleman obviously recognises the difficulties, because his amendment specifically exempts the electoral arrangements from the requirement of two months' notice. I hope that, having received that assurance, he will feel that he does not need to press his amendment.
      The hon. Gentleman rightly raised a question about information on responses to the consultation. We have taken advice on that, and I am pleased to tell the House that the Government are now able to place in the Library a list of the responses by 21 November. We can do a little better than we had originally expected, to ensure that hon. Members have access to the list of organisations that have responded to the consultation.
      In the light of those assurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), as it is neither practicable nor desirable.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: As has been said, we are constitution—making. That is why we are on the Floor of
      382
      the House and not upstairs in Committee. It is important to have this debate, although I did not expect a debate about whether we have a pre-legislative or a post-legislative referendum to be quite so extended. If I may make some observations about the style of participation, it is fair to say that the debate has been a little thin on Labour attendance, but equally a little thick on Conservative repetition. Conservative Members took 123 minutes to make two points over and over again.
      I share with the Minister and the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) the view that it is a bit rich to hear from Conservative Members that there should be more time for consultation. Anyone who has been involved in local government, let alone the debate about the Greater London council—I served on the Standing Committee that debated the abolition of the GLC and the Inner London education authority—will remember that, first, there was not any real consultation, and secondly, when there was, the Conservative Government paid not a blind bit of notice to what anybody said.
      I say seriously to the hon. Member for Brent, East that it would be wonderful if we had, for the first time in my political memory, a Government who, when they consulted, went by the results of the consultation. I do not refer to the issue that we are debating; the Minister knows that I share his view that the overwhelming majority of Londoners are in favour of Londonwide government. However, we are close to having a Government announcement about their views on the London health service. I sincerely hope that they have listened to the responses, that the consultation will mean something and that we do not have, with this Administration, consultation exercises that are then blithely ignored.
      The hon. Member for Brent, East made a suggestion that the House will encourage. He said that the former Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, was advised by everyone that she should not abolish the GLC, but she took no notice. It would be great evidence of openness of government if we knew civil service advice before we voted on Government proposals. To take a topical example, I do not think that the chief medical officer is terribly keen on back-tracking on tobacco advertising. If, on government and regional government, we heard civil service advice as well as the Government's view, we would be better informed.
      I am looking forward to the document that the Government say they will produce in the spring. I do not know whether we ever get entirely factually neutral documents, but if the Minister seriously wants it to be a neutral as possible, we will happily collaborate and willingly say that, although we may not support all the proposals, they at least honestly represent the Government's view. It is important that electors are not misled and that they are given information.
      I was amused by the Conservatives' suggestion that there might be funding for the yes and no campaigns—the Tories have not yet decided whether they will be on the side of the yes or the no vote. Perhaps we will hear tonight whether the Conservatives, having originally been against London government, will now say that they are in favour of some form of London government. The Liberal Democrats may not like the exact proposals, but some democratic London government is better than none, so we will be on the side of the yes vote.

      383
      If the one or two London Conservative Members who are present decide to be on the side of the no vote, they will suffer in the ballot box in the local council elections. The prizes may well go to those on the side of the yes vote because it means being in favour of London government. Being in favour of democratic government is positive, whereas being against it is negative.
      The hon. Members for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley)—the Conservative speeches were notable for the number of speakers who are not London Members—suggested that we should have a draft Bill. We are in favour of draft Bills, but I said that if we are to have the White Paper in March, we will not get a draft Bill in March. It will be a service to hon. Members if we can have a draft Bill after 7 May, but before we start the summer recess.
      Establishing England's first proper regional government will not be easy, and the Bill creating that government will be long and complicated. As the Minister and colleagues who were Members when we abolished the GLC—under a Tory Administration—will know, there are many difficult issues. It would be helpful if we could first examine draft legislation.
      The Minister made two concessions, for which I am grateful. He told us that, this week, we will be able to see the list of respondents. That represents progress. I did not quite understand—perhaps he will tell us—whether the documents or only the list will be placed in the Library this week. Nevertheless, that concession is certainly better than the original date of 1 December, because we will have the documents before the second day of the Bill's consideration in Committee.
      Mr. Raynsford: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. The list will be in the Library, and copies of it will be available for inspection in the Department.
      Mr. Hughes: That is very welcome. It would have been better to receive the list before today, but I will not be churlish about it. We will have a chance to see the documents before the second day of the Bill's Committee stage. We will at least know who said what, including what the right hon. Member for Beckenham—
      Mr. Forth: Bromley and Chislehurst.
      Mr. Hughes: Yes—so that we know what the right hon. Member for somewhere near Beckenham submitted.
      The Minister said that the Government are now committed to producing the White Paper in the same week as spring begins—spring does not always begin on the same day—which is a firm commitment and represents progress. The Liberal Democrats should have preferred to have two months between the White Paper and the vote, because we think that that would be better. I gather that, by definition, civil servants always say that such matters will take a long time.
      The Liberal Democrats take a different view from that of the Conservative party. We are not arguing that it is possible to produce the Bill before we have the referendum—which would slow down the proposals. We do not think that that would be an appropriate sequence of events.
      384
      As only a matter of two weeks separates the Government's position from ours, we should move on to other aspects of the Bill. If the House wants to vote, it can do so once; but it will not be detained by a second vote. If you, Mr. Lord, are able and willing to select amendments Nos. 13 and 14, I will not press our amendment.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendment proposed: No. 14, in page 1, line 8, after 'prescribe', insert
      '(being a date not earlier than one month after the publication of the Government's bill for the establishment of that Authority)'.—[Mr. Ottaway.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 118, Noes 339.

      Division No. 90]

      [7.12 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Johnson Smith,

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Baldry, Tony

      Key, Robert

      Beggs, Roy

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Blunt, Crispin

      Lansley, Andrew

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Leigh, Edward

      Brady, Graham

      Letwin, Oliver

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Lidington, David

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Butterfill, John

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Cash, William

      Loughton, Tim

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      (Chipping Barnet)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Chope, Christopher

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Clappison, James

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

      Madel, Sir David

      (Rushcliffe)

      Maples, John

      Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

      Mates, Michael

      Cran, James

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Evans, Nigel

      Norman, Archie

      Fabricant, Michael

      Ottaway, Richard

      Fallon, Michael

      Page, Richard

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Pickles, Eric

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Prior, David

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Randall, John

      Fraser, Christopher

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Gale, Roger

      Robathan, Andrew

      Garnier, Edward

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Gibb, Nick

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Gill, Christopher

      Ruffley, David

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Gray, James

      Shepherd, Richard

      Greenway, John

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Spring, Richard

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Swayne, Desmond

      Hayes, John

      Syms, Robert

      Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

      Horam, John

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Hunter, Andrew

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      385

      Townend, John

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Tredinnick, David

      Wilkinson, John

      Trimble, David

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield) Yeo, Tim

      Viggers, Peter

      Yeo, Tim

      Walter, Robert

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Waterson, Nigel

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wells, Bowen

      Mr. Oliver Heald and

      Whittingdale, John

      Mr. Stephen Day.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Clapham, Michael

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Ainger, Nick

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Allan, Richard

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Allen, Graham

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Clelland, David

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Coaker, Vernon

      Ashton, Joe

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Coleman, Iain

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Connarty, Michael

      Austin, John

      Corbett, Robin

      Baker, Norman

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Barnes, Harry

      Cotter, Brian

      Barron, Kevin

      Cousins, Jim

      Battle, John

      Cranston, Ross

      Bayley, Hugh

      Crausby, David

      Beard, Nigel

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Darvill, Keith

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Best, Harold

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Blackman, Liz

      Davidson, Ian

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Denham, John

      Boateng, Paul

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Borrow, David

      Dismore, Andrew

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Doran, Frank

      Brake, Tom

      Dowd, Jim

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Drew, David

      Breed, Colin

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Edwards, Huw

      Browne, Desmond

      Efford, Clive

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Burden, Richard

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Burgon, Colin

      Flint, Caroline

      Burnett, John

      Follett, Barbara

      Burstow, Paul

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Byers, Stephen

      Fyfe, Maria

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Galbraith, Sam

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Galloway, George

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Gapes, Mike

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Campbell—Savours, Dale

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Gerrard, Neil

      Caplin, Ivor

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Caton, Martin

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Cawsey, Ian

      Godman, Norman A

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Goggins, Paul

      Chidgey, David

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Church, Ms Judith

      Gorrie, Donald

      386

      Grant, Bernie

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      MacShane, Denis

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Grogan, John

      McWalter, Tony

      Hain, Peter

      McWilliam, John

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Marek, Dr John

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hancock, Mike

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hanson, David

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Marshall—Andrews, Robert

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Martlew, Eric

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Maxton, John

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Meale, Alan

      Heppell, John

      Merron, Gillian

      Hesford, Stephen

      Michael, Alun

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hill, Keith

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Milburn, Alan

      Hoey, Kate

      Miller, Andrew

      Home Robertson, John

      Mitchell, Austin

      Hood, Jimmy

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hope, Phil

      Moore, Michael

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Morley, Elliot

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Mountford, Kali

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Mudie, George

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hutton, John

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Norris, Dan

      Illsley, Eric

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Jamieson, David

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Jenkins, Brian

      Olner, Bill

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Öpik, Lembit

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Pearson, Ian

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pendry, Tom

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Pike, Peter L

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Plaskitt, James

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Pollard, Kerry

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Pope, Greg

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Pound, Stephen

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Keetch, Paul

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Primarolo, Dawn

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Purchase, Ken

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Leslie, Christopher

      Radice, Giles

      Levitt, Tom

      Rammell, Bill

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Rapson, Syd

      Linton, Martin

      Raynsford, Nick

      Livingstone, Ken

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Livsey, Richard

      Rendel, David

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Lock, David

      Rooker, Jeff

      Love, Andrew

      Rooney, Terry

      McAllion, John

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Rowlands, Ted

      McCabe, Steve

      Ruane, Chris

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      McDonnell, John

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Salter, Martin

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Sanders, Adrian

      387

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Tipping, Paddy

      Sawford, Phil

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Touhig, Don

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Trickett, Jon

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Truswell, Paul

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

      Singh, Marsha

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Tyler, Paul

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Smith, Miss Geraldine

      Wallace, James

      (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Watts, David

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

      Webb, Steve

      Snape, Peter

      White, Brian

      Soley, Clive

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Spellar, John

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Willis, Phil

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Winnick, David

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Wise, Audrey

      Stringer, Graham

      Worthington, Tony

      Stunell, Andrew

      Wray, James

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      (Dewsbury)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Mr. John McFall and

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out from 'Authority' to end of line 10.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 5, in page 1, line 11, leave out 'question' and insert 'questions'.
      No. 18, in page 1, line 11, leave out 'question' and insert 'two questions'.
      No. 12, in schedule, page 6, line 2, leave out from 'Paper' to end and add—

      'Q1. Are you in favour of regional government for London exercised by an elected Greater London Authority?
      Put a cross (X) in one box:

      YES

      NO

      Q2. Are you in favour of the Greater London Authority made up of:

      (A) an elected assembly with a mayor elected from the assembly; or

      (B) an elected assembly and a separately elected mayor.
      Put a cross (X) in the box of your choice.'.

      No. 19, in schedule, page 6, line 3, leave out from `paper' to end and add—

      'Q.1. Are you in favour of a directly elected mayor for Greater London?

      Yes

      No

      Q.2. Are you in favour of a directly elected assembly for Greater London?
      388

      Yes

      No'

      Mr. Hughes: We have reached what is probably the most important debate in Committee, as it deals with a fundamental matter—what the electorate in London will be asked in a referendum. The Liberal Democrats are strongly in favour of regional government, and we hope that it is approved by the electors in the English regions. We are happy that the referendum in London will take place on 7 May next year, and that democratically elected local government will be restored.
      I would go further, and say that the Greater London council was not securely established regional government, but developed from the old London county council. We are pleased that we stood on the same platform as the Government and supported regional government in London. We shall certainly continue pushing for regional government in London to be followed by regional government elsewhere in England.
      Mr. Forth: More bureaucrats.
      Mr. Hughes: There will be not more but fewer bureaucrats, who will certainly have much more accountability than there is now or than there ever was under the Conservative Government, who handed over London government to people who were unseen and unknown, sitting in Government offices and running huge budgets. They were never elected, or able to be removed, by the people in whose name they acted and who paid their wages.
      Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough): As it happens, I voted to retain the Greater London council. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the arguments for London are very different from those for the regions. Let us take the east midlands. People in Lincolnshire have no desire to be run by Leicester. Does he accept that the arguments for London are quite different from those for elsewhere in the country?
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Hughes: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. As I recollect, he was a member of the GLC some time ago in his pre-Lincolnshire life.
      London is different for two reasons: it is a capital city, and it has a history of regional government. My party has been absolutely clear that, although it believes that the powers exercised in his part of the world in, for example, the health service, which is controversial in Lincolnshire, by officials in the regional outpost of the NHS should be exercised by democratically elected people, none the less, regional government should not go ahead in Lincolnshire without the authority and approbation of the people—not least because it is one of those counties that does not naturally belong in a region as easily as some.
      This week there was a lobby for the north led by the hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Gunnell). Perhaps people in the north want regional government more acutely and more urgently. There are the boundaries of the south-west, Cornwall and the north-east. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. London therefore rightfully comes first.

      389
      The Liberal Democrats are proud that, before the election, my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) and the then right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) came to an agreement that there should be a programme of regional government. The Cook-Maclennan joint consultative committee was set up by the two party leaders—it was not easy in negotiation—and concluded:
      "Both parties endorse the establishment of an elected authority for London, with the consent of the people of London in a referendum, which would act as a powerful voice for the capital and work with the boroughs and other organisations in London."
      Then came the point on which the two parties differed. The Labour party also proposed an elected mayor for London. We acknowledge—and did so then—that there is a difference of view about one of the key aspects. For us, today's debate is about the package; what proposal will be put to the electorate in May next year.
      The Liberal Democrats are strong believers in real devolution from Whitehall to the regions. The issue for us is not about local government giving up powers. In my book, local government should hold the powers it has—although I have arguments about its structure. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and others prompt me to say that the issue is about taking power from civil servants and central Government and giving it to elected people at a regional level.
      My hon. Friends and I are clear that, above all in London—the arguments are overwhelming—regional government needs to be fairly elected; for without that, it will not be seen to be clearly representative. If we end up with an electoral system or an elected assembly which could, for example, mean that the government of London was run by a minority political view, we risk the authority's abolition in a very short time.
      My hon. Friends and I are strong in the view—we are different from the Government in this respect—that the authority should have tax-varying powers. We do not back off from that; we think that that is proper. Tax raised from London taxpayers goes into a national kitty. It is allocated by central Government to the regions, and spent on services in the regions. We hope that, in time, taxes raised from Londoners for services given to Londoners should be decided by Londoners. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That does not necessarily mean—before Conservative Members say it does—a penny extra in taxes.
      Mr. Forth indicated dissent.
      Mr. Hughes: It does not. The right hon. Gentleman must know that, as a matter of logic and honesty. If we give some of the central Government administration to regional government and give the power to collect money from the region, the total could be exactly the same. Indeed, the cost might go down. Perhaps regional government is more efficient than central Government.
      Mr. Wilkinson: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify that? Liberal Democrat spokesmen have traditionally argued that a small local supplement on income tax would be necessary to fund regional government. In the case of London, are the Liberal Democrats flying in the face of
      390
      all those previous statements and saying something quite new? What are we supposed to believe—what they say on the hustings or what they say in the House?
      Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has reminded me that I promised him a copy of our proposals. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) will help by giving them to him now, so that he can read the full monty and not have to hear a summary from me. There is plenty of time to read them before the Committee sits again. I apologise for not giving him the proposals earlier.
      There are a variety of ways in which we can collect money for London, but we believe, as the Government argue—
      The First Deputy Chairman (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. The amendments are nothing to do with collecting money or raising taxes. He must stick to the subject of the amendments that he has tabled.
      Mr. Hughes: I was distracted, as you saw, Mr. Martin, by the intervention of the hon. Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). I accept your rebuke, and return to the straight and narrow, as always.
      The central matter of the debate is whether we have a mayor elected from a London-wide assembly and accountable to it, or whether we have a directly elected mayor. Our amendments relate both to the clause and the schedule. We Liberal Democrats are not in favour of a take-it-or-leave-it proposal. We are in favour of posing the questions to the electorate, but we are not in favour of denying the electorate the right to give answers.
      The Government are proposing that, in theory, Parliament has a chance to alter their proposals. But the electorate have no choice other than the one that the Government give them. I know that Ministers will say—rightly—that they went to the electorate with a proposal for a London-wide authority comprising an assembly and a mayor. Their manifesto never said that there would not be two questions—it did not say that there would be, either. We argue that the choice of the make-up, style and balance of power in London should be left to the electorate and not determined by the Government—even if they get their proposal through Parliament.
      Conservatives propose a choice. They propose that the electorate will be asked either whether they want a directly elected mayor or whether they want a directly elected assembly.
      Mr. Ottaway: It does not say "or".
      Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman says that their proposal does not say "or". Indeed, one could vote yes, yes, and there would be a directly elected mayor and an assembly. But one could also vote yes, no, as many Conservatives wish—we disagree—and have a mayor and nobody else. That is apart from the Conservatives' amendment that would create a cabal of local government leaders who would hold the directly elected mayor to account. We shall debate later whether local government leaders should do that job.
      The Liberal Democrats ask two simple questions. The first is the logical first question: "Do you want a democratic government for London—yes or no?" If the

      391
      answer is yes, a second question would be: "What sort of government do you want?" We do not think that it is beyond the wit of Londoners to understand or answer that question.
      One choice is government on the Westminster model, in which the primus inter pares—the Prime Minister—is chosen from among the elected Members of Parliament. The Prime Minister is accountable to this place, and loses his or her authority if this place takes it away. That is the model proposed for the Scottish Parliament. The alternative has never been tried in this country—a separate election, so that, whatever the view of the assembly of the day, the directly elected mayor remains in office, at least potentially, for the whole term, irrespective of democratic support.
      We believe that there should be two questions. It could be argued that there should be more, but the essential difference is between those who want only one and those who want more than one.
      The debate is simple. To their credit, the Conservatives have tabled proposals for two questions. We have also put forward two questions—different from the Conservatives' questions. The Government propose one question. The principle of two questions—"Are you in favour of a London government?" and "Are you in favour of a directly elected mayor or a non-directly elected mayor form of government?" —is more important than the exact drafting of our amendment or any other. I ask hon. Members to vote for our amendment, without necessarily signing up to the specific wording. We need to establish the principle of two questions.
      Mr. Forth rose
      Mr. Hughes: Let me just finish. I undertake to the right hon. Gentleman, who desperately wants to intervene again, that I am happy to negotiate with hon. Members from both sides to find the best wording for two questions that could establish whether people want London government and what sort of government they want.
      That is detail, which can be sorted out before next Monday, when we conclude the Committee stage, between Committee and Report, or even between the consideration in this House and consideration in the other place. If we at least agree tonight that there should be two questions, we shall have made great progress, reflecting the differences of view in London, which will not otherwise be expressed.
      Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman has made the Committee a characteristically generous offer, which I am sure we all want to consider. Will he extend his generosity to an undertaking that it would be essential for the negotiating process that he envisages to provide for the questions—two or more, however many there may be—to allow Londoners to express a view on whether they want a mayor without an assembly, or an assembly without a mayor? That key option is missing from his formulation. If I want a mayor and no assembly, I cannot support his amendment.
      Mr. Hughes: That is a valid point. Some Conservatives have taken that position. I would rather have discussions that left that as an option. I am in favour of opening the options to the voters, not closing them. That must be
      392
      the way forward. We are trying to achieve a system that Londoners say they want. I am happy to have a debate about the best form of government, on radio, on television or in the streets and boroughs of London.
      No proposal ever made by women and men is perfect. No Government get it right all the time. I accept that many Labour Members believe that their proposal is the best available, although some have a different view.
      Mr. Forth: There are not many of them here.
      Mr. Hughes: That is true.
      I know the pressure that Labour Members are under, but I ask them to vote for the amendment, not because they sign up to the words in detail, regarding them as unamendable, but on the basis that it would start a process of considering the options for more than one question. If we do that, we can start trying to find the best form of government. Even if some hon. Members do not want any form of London government, at least we have to give people the choice.
      Mrs. Gorman: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern to let Londoners have the biggest say. What level of turnout would he consider necessary to make the vote valid? We have already heard—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman wants to get into that, because it has nothing to do with the amendments. There are other amendments on that. Perhaps the hon. Lady could intervene in those debates.
      Mr. Hughes: I was with you that time, Mr. Martin. I was about to tell the hon. Lady that amendments on that were coming up later, and we could debate the matter then, if she was patient. Some of my hon. Friends are particularly ready for that debate, which may come on Monday, so we have time to prepare ourselves.
      I sense that the mood of the House is not to spin matters out, but to put arguments in an orderly way. We may be able to conclude this debate and that on the schedule by the end of play today, so I shall not detain the House.
      7.45 pm
      One option is an assembly elected by the people under a fair process. That assembly would then elect its leader—the mayor—and the mayor would then choose the cabinet. That is what we want—just like the House of Commons. The alternative is a system that gives huge powers to the mayor, who has no necessary and direct accountability to the assembly.
      I have given the hon. Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) one of my happily not extremely rare copies of our response, submitted in time to the Government, available to the wider public from Friday in Marsham street—sorry, from Eland house; that is a nicer building. It is also available to other hon. Members if they want it. It is called "Home Rule for London".
      We set out clearly there our view that a cabinet headed by a mayor who is an assembly member provides the most responsive form of government—more responsive than a directly elected mayor. We are not saying that the idea of a directly elected mayor has no merit, but there are risks.

      393
      If one of my hon. Friends catches your eye later, Mr. Martin, I hope that we shall be able to elaborate on some of the risks.
      Israel changed its voting system not many years ago. The Prime Minister is now directly elected, not elected by the Knesset. That is a model.
      Mr. Livingstone: It is bleeding awful.
      Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman gives a characteristically succinct view. I have never heard the Israeli electoral system commended for giving stable government.
      Mr. Leigh: It is proportional.
      Mr. Hughes: It is a proportional system, with such a low threshold that the parties splinter all over the place. Many of us do not argue for that.
      A few places in the world, including the United States, have directly elected mayors. The mayor of New York was re-elected recently. However, not only is it not common in Britain—it is also very rare in Europe. Ministers try to hide the fact, but very few places in Europe have directly elected mayors.
      Mr. Forth: So what?
      Mr. Hughes: So nothing, other than the fact that it is an untried model. We believe that one reason why the rest of Europe has not gone down that road is that it gives too much power to one person and too little to the general body.
      The powers of the mayor can be qualified. We propose that, if 90 per cent. of the assembly thought that the mayor had gone mad or was corrupt, they could vote him or her out. We also propose that, if 10 per cent. of the electorate of London thought that the mayor had clearly gone off the rails, they should be able to vote that mayor out. If the Government win the day and there is a directly elected mayor, we shall be keen to ensure a power of recall to deal with such problems.
      There are also ways of unblocking logjams. If the assembly did not agree on a budget and the mayor took a different view, we propose that the mayor could call an election.
      But these are not comfortable systems; they are systems that require the overturning of a huge constitutional boulder. It is surely more democratic that a whole load of us should be collectively responsible, and act collectively as people whom the electorate can influence. We are a collective assembly of elected representatives accountable to the people we serve.
      Mr. Leigh: I recall that there was not much interest in the GLC until the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) managed to liven it up a bit. The advantage of a directly elected mayor is that it would generate at least some interest in the process. The hon. Gentleman seems to be talking about a re-created GLC which would result only in one huge yawn from most of the people of London.
      Mr. Hughes: No one is suggesting a re-created GLC—but I do not accept the point about a lack of interest
      394
      anyway. There was plenty of interest in the last general election, just as there would be in a contest between two philosophies of how to run a capital city, led by groups of people with leaders putting differing views. If the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats each put their views, under declared leaders, just as the electorate warmed to that in sufficient numbers at the general election—between 70 and 75 per cent. voted in it—they would do the same in London.
      There is, however, a danger to which the hon. Gentleman did not allude and which even the hon. Member for Brent, East may not now wish to defend. It should certainly not be permitted to change the leader the day after the election. If the Prime Minister leads his party into an election, the electorate requires a guarantee that he will be sitting in the biggest chair at the Cabinet table the next day.
      The alternative is equally dangerous—I say that as one of the people who has featured on this problematic road. If a mayor is to be directly elected, most of the debate will concern not policy issues or the structure of local government but who the mayor will be. Will it be Jeffrey Archer; will it be Ken Livingstone; will it be Richard Branson or one of the Spice Girls? [HON. MEMBERS: "Or Simon Hughes?"] Or me.
      Yet that is not the most important question. The most important question is: what will the elected person do? What will his policies be? So the electorate should be given the chance to decide whether they want an election dominated by a personality contest or one dominated by debates on the issues. If we fight the election in teams—that does not rule out independents taking part—we will get an election about politics and policies, not about personalities.
      We are asking the Committee to vote to allow the electorate of London to decide whether it wants the leadership to be accountable to the assembly or to be divorced from that accountability. The latter would be dangerous and novel, not to mention unwise. We have hitherto been relatively well served by our parliamentary system, and by the prime ministerial system of democracy. We think that that system should be tried, to begin with, in London too.
      Sir Norman Fowler: As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has said, this is one of the most important questions of these debates. There was a great deal in his remarks with which I fundamentally disagreed—on regional government, tax-raising powers and proportional representation—but luckily, as all that was out of order, I need not detain the House by responding to it. Fortunately, the one part of his speech that was in order was also the part that I agreed with—the need for two questions in the referendum.
      The fact is that, outside the ranks of the Government, very few support the proposition that there be just one question for the people of London. There is a consensus around the idea that there are two issues—possibly more, but at least two. They are: should we have a directly elected mayor; and should we have a directly elected assembly? My party supports a directly elected mayor, as I said on Second Reading and before, but we are not in favour of a directly elected assembly.
      We want two questions, in which view we are supported by a range of people and newspapers. The Times, speaking of the Minister's paper, said:

      395
      Two distinct issues require two different questions".
      The Daily Telegraph takes a similar view. The Liberal Democrats adopt a view different from ours as regards the policy, but they argue strongly for two questions. I venture to suggest that some Labour Back Benchers have also argued for two questions. In due course, the Committee will be fascinated to hear what the hon. Member for Brent, East has to say. It would have been fascinating to hear what the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) had to say—had he been here.
      There are others who support the Government's proposals but who also want a two-question referendum. Consider The Guardian's editorial, which the Minister—even on his own admission, I think—so misleadingly quoted on Second Reading. He broke his quotation in mid-sentence, thereby entirely changing the meaning. The quotation goes:
      "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" —
      at that point, the Minister broke off in mid-sentence, though the rest of it reads—
      "but he should make that argument in a campaign".
      The editorial continues:
      "The Government's package deal allows no room for those who want a mayor but no assembly or those who want an assembly but no mayor. We subscribe to neither view, but to deny them any expression on the ballot seems peculiar. After all, the whole point of a referendum is to allow all the people their say."
      That is what the Minister chose to use to support his case.
      It is not just opponents of the Government's position who want two questions: it is also their supporters. This all reveals an amazing lack of confidence in the Minister's and the Government's case. They do not seem sure enough of their own proposition to put it to the public in London. The Labour manifesto said that the purpose of the referendum was "to confirm public demand". How is that possible if the public are not allowed to express their views?
      The Government know that there is public support for a mayor, but not nearly so much support for an assembly—
      Mr. Raynsford: What is the evidence for that?
      Sir Norman Fowler: I hope that the Minister will accept our suggestion, and allow the public to decide. Why will he not allow the public to decide?
      Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman claims that there is evidence of support for a mayor but not for an assembly. Perhaps he could give the House that evidence. Perhaps he will tell us where that evidence is in terms of public opinion, not selective newspaper quotations.
      Sir Norman Fowler: These are newspapers such as The Times and The Daily Telegraph. [Interruption.]
      8 pm
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The Minister cannot behave like this in Committee.
      Sir Norman Fowler: The Minister is getting terribly excited and going red in the face. He is blustering.
      396
      Anyone would think that he was super-sensitive on the issue. Why is the Minister so sensitive and blustering? Why is he going so red in the face? Why is he smiling in that extraordinary way which indicates that he is on the defensive? Is it that the Minister knows perfectly well that he has a lousy case, which, so far, he has not done very well in defending, and he knows that he must defend it again?
      Mr. Dominic Grieve: Is it not extraordinary that the Minister should talk about public opinion? I thought that the whole purpose of the referendum was that it should be a sounding of public opinion. Otherwise, we need not have one. The Minister can go away and look at his opinion polls and his crystal ball, consult his colleagues, and get on with it. I thought that the referendum was the consultation process with the electorate.
      Sir Norman Fowler: My hon. Friend misunderstands the Government's purpose. The purpose of their referendum is not to find out what the public think. What the Government want is some sort of rubber stamp on the proposal that they are making. That is the whole point. That is why the Minister gets so indignant. That is why he is so sensitive. That is why he goes so red every time the issue comes up. It is the most revealing display that I have seen since the Deputy Prime Minister lost his temper on a particular issue.
      Mr. Pickles: My right hon. Friend is being quite unkind to the Minister. The Minister is a sensitive man. I suspect that he secretly agrees with my right hon. Friend, but there are others in the Government preventing him from following his natural inclinations.
      Sir Norman Fowler: I had better leave the Minister to compose himself, because at some stage he will have to respond to the debate.
      Sir Paul Beresford: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way for the Minister to help himself, since he wants the evidence, would be to have the two questions?
      Sir Norman Fowler: That is rather what I have been saying. That is the whole point of what I am saying, and what others have been saying as well. What I find so extraordinary about the Minister's attitude is that it is not always firm opponents of the Minister who are saying this. The Guardian is on the Minister's side. It is one of the few papers which thinks that the Minister is right. But leave that to one side; he has some supporters. But The Guardian is then asking why the Minister does not put it to the public. That remains the question. Why does not he put it to the public?
      Some hon. Members see this in terms of there being public support for a mayor but not for an assembly; and there is even less support for what some Labour Members want, which is a return, step by step, to the GLC. Conservative Members favour a directly elected mayor, but we would have an assembly made up of borough leaders. We favour that, because a mayor would have to work with the boroughs. There is no question about that.
      We reject the argument that that will simply lead to conflict. Our fundamental belief is that the structure suggested by the Minister has conflict built into it at every

      397
      stage—and not only conflict, but layer after layer of local government. That lies at the heart of why we propose a two-question referendum.
      It is important that we remember what the Government are proposing. They propose a directly elected mayor and a directly elected assembly, a regional development agency for London and a government office for London; and then we get to the stage of 32 borough leaders. Another piece of legislation coming in on the side, which the Minister might care to talk about at some stage, is the innovation Bill, which I understand will be introduced in another place, which will allow a directly elected mayor for boroughs as well. For the sake of argument, there could be a borough directly elected mayor.
      One does not have to be a reader of The Times or a paid-up member of the Conservative party to think that that process is getting out of hand. But even if the Minister fundamentally disagrees with what I say, I should have thought that it was common ground that there is a case to be debated. What we find so offensive is that the Minister and the Government simply will not answer that case. They simply will not approach that case and take it to the public.
      If ever there was inbuilt conflict, it is in the system that the Government propose. As the Minister knows, already, in the question that the Government are asking, they have revealed some of their internal uncertainty. At one stage, earlier in October, the question on the ballot paper was going to be: "Are you in favour of the Government's proposals for a greater London authority made up of an elected assembly and a separately elected mayor?"
      When the Bill is published, the order is reversed, and the mayor comes before the assembly. I would have loved to be at the Cabinet Committee which decided that order. With any other Government, I concede that it would be a matter of no consequence, but with this Government one can just see the spin doctors debating which should come first. Obviously, their aim is that the popular idea of the mayor should take the assembly with it.
      It takes no great powers of forecast to know what the next step will be if we have an elected assembly. The assembly will want more powers. There is no question about that. Whenever the Minister reveals what powers the assembly will have—we should remind him that it is not the White Paper that sets that down, but, as has been said, the Act of Parliament—those elected members will want greater and greater power. They will not be satisfied with an advisory role. They will argue that they are democratically elected, and will have an absolute and complete right to that.
      Anyone who has been in government knows that, if powers go to the assembly, they will not be given up by the Government. The one thing that I did learn during 10 years in government is that getting powers out of Departments is extraordinarily difficult. Government will devolve powers from other organisations, but when it comes to themselves, there is turf battle after turf battle. Therefore, the powers will come from the boroughs. That is the fundamental importance of the Bill.
      That is the issue that stands behind the Opposition's demand for two questions. Londoners should be able to say whether they want to put their future more and more in the hands of an intermediate regional assembly, or to
      398
      strengthen the borough council system which is closest to the public. We should be aiming not for a new elected assembly but for a mayor working with the boroughs. But when it comes to it, what is striking about the debate is the Government's lack of confidence in their arguments. They talk about reaching agreement and about consensus, but they are not interested in either.
      The Opposition's amendment simply divides into two the single question that the Government propose. If I may say so gently to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, that has the advantage of clarity over the slightly elongated and prolonged question in the Liberal Democrats' amendment—certainly over the second question. As I have made clear, there are several things, such as regional government, with which we simply do not agree. We do, however, support the principle of having two questions.
      As they stand, the Bill and the referendum will not give the public the right to have their say on the structure of local government in London. They are being denied a choice, and told that they cannot express a view. We believe that Londoners should be given the opportunity to judge for themselves whether London needs both a mayor and a directly elected assembly. That is why we shall support any amendment that gives them that choice, and asks Londoners two questions in the referendum.
      Mr. Livingstone: I suppose that I should start by declaring an interest, although I am not certain that I shall eventually have an interest—or whether I shall be allowed to have an interest—in the post under consideration. Being endorsed by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) has not helped in any way, but my recollection of his diaries is that there will be a few good meals and the odd glass of good wine going around if he is interested in becoming my campaign manager.
      I also have to say that I cannot support my party in the Lobby tonight because I have not heard a convincing argument to satisfy me and enable me to do so. I would, in the more liberal times that prevailed in my party before the election, have joined the Liberal Democrats in the Lobby in support of their amendment, which comes closest to my own views; but, as Labour Members know, shortly before the election, the standing orders of the Labour party were changed so that to vote against a Labour Government is now an offence against those standing orders and leads to withdrawal of the Whip and debarment from further candidature. One might think that an overreaction, given that we have the largest majority since 1935, but it might indicate that we did not expect to win so well.
      I would have been prepared to be persuaded on the question before us if I had heard any convincing argument about why we need a separately elected mayor—why we are going to turn our backs on the best part of 1,000 years of painfully slowly constructed parliamentary tradition and run maniacally in the direction of a presidential system—but I have been unpersuaded of the case throughout, despite listening carefully in my office to the debate on Second Reading.
      I did not vote against the Bill's Second Reading because it would have been madness to throw the whole Bill out and end up with nothing, but because I had not quite grasped the Government's argument I read Hansard

      399
      twice—the whole debate, every speech. I have to say that that was a hardship: it took several hours. I wanted to pin down the Government's detailed arguments in favour of a separately elected mayor and against the Liberal amendment, so I went through the debate and extracted all those arguments. Throughout the debate, Ministers said, "I am coming to that point shortly," so they will be glad to learn that I have analysed their argument, sentence by sentence.
      The longest speech in support of a separately elected mayor and against the amendment came from my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London. She said:
      "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."
      I can see nothing in that statement that cannot be fulfilled by the leader of a group, whether that person is called a mayor or a leader, in a normal parliamentary system. I agree with Ministers that an independently elected mayor without any assembly or check would be a nightmare and open the way for the most appalling abuse of power, so I do not find myself at all attracted by the Conservative amendment.
      My hon. Friend the Minister reached the crunch point when she said:
      "The two proposals are inseparable."
      She did not say why. She continued:
      "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."— [Official Report, 10 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 671.]
      Thus stirred by my hon. Friend's words, I went back and read all of the Labour Members' contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) said:
      "We can have a hung Parliament or a hung council; we cannot have a hung president"—
      that depends on how unpopular he gets with the public—
      "or a hung mayor—at least not in the electoral sense."
      He went on:
      "An assembly without a mayor, as the Liberal Democrats advocate, is a recipe for inertia."—[Official Report, 10 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 603.]
      That is one sentence in support of the Government's position.
      8.15 pm
      We then come to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), who said:
      "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."
      Tell that to the American people who watched Clinton and Congress locked in mortal combat over a Budget; tell it to the hundreds of thousands of American civil servants who did not get paid, from the Defence Secretary to the park keepers at collecting tills at the gates of the national parks. Such deadlock is an endemic feature of the American system—it happened three times in California between the governor and the assembly and I am certain
      400
      that it has happened on many other occasions. That system is a recipe for deadlock and simply saying that it will not be will not make it not so.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East went on to state:
      "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?"—[Official Report, 10 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 618.]
      I will tell him why. There is corruption—albeit not on the scale seen in America, which dwarfs anything we have here—but corruption is minimised because the leader of a council is like the Prime Minister in that his own party is scrutinising him every bit as much as the opposition. As leader of the Greater London council I never had any doubt that there were another 91 members of the council watching my every move. Labour members watched with the greatest dedication and concentration because, if they could catch me with my hand in the till, one of them might get my job. That is a powerful discipline. A separately elected mayor who is able to remain at a distance from the assembly and who receives a salary rumoured to be £100,000 will not suffer the same scrutiny from members of the assembly who are trying to get by on a loss of earnings allowance.
      Next, I read the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck). She said:
      "It will be the different, but complementary, roles of the mayor and the Greater London authority that will deliver those aims;"—
      achieving our policies for London—
      "and it is because those roles are so complementary that it is necessary that we put a single, simple question to Londoners."
      Unfortunately, her contribution in support of the Government was undermined when she went on to say:
      "Without a single voice for London, we cannot tackle those problems effectively."—[Official Report, 10 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 637–38.]
      We are not getting a single voice for London—we are getting two competing voices, locked into an institutionalised conflict.
      To round off matters, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) rose and said that he had seen such a system at work. He said:
      "Such a system of checks and balances works; I have seen it working in Seattle, one of the most prosperous and fastest-expanding but civilised cities on this earth."—[Official Report, 10 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 652–531
      I had the good fortune to go to Seattle for my holiday this year. No one would deny that it is a wonderful city, but there is the small matter of billions of dollars of investment from Asia—money out of Hong Kong—helping to boost the local economy. Nothing in Seattle's prosperity is inherently dependent on the structure of its government; it is especially well located for development on the Pacific rim.
      That was it—in an entire day's debate, that was the entire Back-Bench support for the Government's proposition. Pretty weedy, is it not? I do not want to undermine my own Front Benchers, so I have to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill)—my dear old friend—supported the Government in an earlier debate. I remember clearly that he also uttered one sentence in support of the concept: when I questioned him on why we should not apply it nationally and have a directly elected Prime Minister, he replied:

      401
      "it is horses for courses."—[Official Report, 6 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 726.]
      When we marshal the arguments that the Labour party has mobilised behind a separately elected mayor—one sentence from my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, two from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East, one from my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, one from my hon. Friend the Member for Putney and one earlier this summer from my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham—it is not exactly overwhelming; it makes six sentences in support.
      Mr. Keith Hill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recalling earlier and distinguished contributions by the hon. Member for Streatham, but I feel slightly hurt than in his careful analysis of the Second Reading debate he has omitted my observation, in an intervention, about the benefits of an elected mayor.
      I pointed out that, in the United States, the evidence is that elections for mayors have, almost without exception, high turnouts—normally over 50 per cent. —which is noticeable in a country that is notorious for low turnouts in elections of all descriptions; and it is higher than those for most local elections in this country. The public's involvement in local politics and the consequent democratic renewal is a powerful argument for an elected mayor, and my hon. Friend should take it into account.
      Mr. Livingstone: I take it into account, but I hope that my hon. Friend will excuse me if I demolish it. There is a better turnout for the election of American mayors because they have real powers. American mayors run the police force and the health service in their local areas. That is a major job. In terms of their spending impact on the general public, mayors spend more than the governor or the President. If we created an assembly for London without a mayor and we gave it those major powers, I bet our turnouts would be much higher. People would say the members of the assembly were responsible for tackling crime in London. If the assembly were given the power, it would get the turnout.
      The average American I have bumped into is never deeply consumed by the structures of government, and I have never been involved in any great debates on my holidays there about the wonders of the American structure of government. The Americans get involved in mayoral elections because mayors have real power. We have a low turnout in Britain because councils are now bound hand and foot by central Government. Councils are given budgets and left to decide what to cut, and that is why interest in local elections is declining.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The turnout for the American presidential election, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is normally about 50 per cent. I argue that that is because all the personality, all the money and all the personal campaigning do not persuade people about policies and real commitments. When it is merely a question of failed individuals fighting each other, the election becomes a turn-off not a turn-on.
      Mr. Livingstone: I find myself agreeing with the hon. Gentleman's comments. Anything that increases the
      402
      personality conflicts in politics will alienate the British public. They are sick and tired of the slanging match that sets up individuals against each other—cut off from parties, programmes and principles. A politician who says only, "Vote for me, because I am better than he is, and he is a crook," will not engage the enthusiasm of the British people.
      Mr. Leigh: What was the turnout in the last GLC election?
      Mr. Livingstone: The turnout was 44 per cent., which is not dramatically worse than the figures for mayoral elections. Mind you, Andrew McIntosh had a wonderful personality.
      The Minister for London and Construction is the man responsible for steering this great constitutional change through the House. I thought that I could rely on him, with his sharp and dry mind, to focus on the real arguments. Certainly his Second Reading speech contained some interesting points. In answer to an intervention from the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) he said:
      "go to New York, to see how that city has tackled the crime problem". —[Official Report, 10 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 592.]
      The crime rate has gone down in New York because the mayor has hired 7,000 new police officers. The crime rate could be brought down in London if another 7,000 police officers were hired. I hope that that comment from the Minister means that he will give the new, powerful mayor the power to raise taxes to hire extra police officers to make an impact. That is the logic of his argument.
      Earlier in the Minister's speech, I found the kernel of the Government's ideological support for their position. The Minister managed to get it down to two sentences—new Labour, very concise. We must remember that the Minister had built up to this point and all the way through his speech he kept saying that he was coming to it. He said:
      "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."—[Official Report, 10 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 590.]
      Is that the Government's justification for their proposal? I am prepared to give way to the Minister if he cares to intervene with some more reasons, but I fear that that is it—because that was what was in our manifesto. The Minister obviously thinks that it is an important point because it was repeated word for word in his article in The House Magazine this week, but we have been sold on a gimmick. Such gimmickry has dominated so much of the politics of the Labour party in the past few years. An idea hatches in Millbank tower, is passed up through the spin doctors, goes down well with a focus group in Chipping Sodbury, and suddenly we are all committed to the damn thing.
      There has been no debate in the Labour party. I went to what was called a consultation meeting of the Greater London Labour party, at which we discussed the proposal that appears in the Liberal Democrats' amendment. The Greater London Labour party assembled in conference and split into working groups to discuss whether we should have a separately elected mayor. The most crowded working group was the one that discussed the relationship between the mayor and the assembly. Nine

      403
      out of the 10 speeches opposed the principle of a separately elected mayor, but we were told, "You have got to have it because it was in the manifesto."
      No one can mobilise any more arguments for it than the Minister can. The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) referred to Labour's new legions as the terracotta army. That is unfair, because when you get close you can hear them all mumbling, "Its in the manifesto, it's in the manifesto." It's being in the manifesto does not justify a major constitutional change. I would like some more substance before we launch into a new method of government for which we have no background and which, looking at America, does not seem to be more effective.
      As I have said, the Minister repeated his arguments in his article "A New Mayor for a New Millennium", but the reality is that the case has not been made. Recently, an opinion poll showed, for the first time, that a majority of Londoners were more in favour of a mayor than of an assembly. A head of steam is building up, engineered by the media, but the argument did not persuade the Greater London Labour party delegates who sat and discussed it. We sat in the working group and we proposed a vote on the matter. We were told that we could not have a vote, but demand was overwhelming. The result was nine to one against a separately elected mayor.
      When the working party reported to the conference, we were forbidden to have a vote. That is not very democratic, when people are being consulted. Why could we not have a vote? Because those in charge knew that the Labour party leadership would face the embarrassment of the Greater London Labour party rejecting its proposal by nine to one. It is an absolute scandal that policy can be created like that. The policy has not arisen as a result of any detailed consultation with Labour party members in the House or in London.
      Before the election, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)—he is a dear friend and I love him deeply—had to come along and browbeat the London Labour Members of Parliament and then went off to browbeat the London borough leaders who were meeting in caucus. He said that we had to go along with the policy because the leader wanted it and we did not want a big upset before the election. The party has gone along with the policy because we do not want to rock the boat, but before we vote for a system that no one has been able to persuade us will work, we should rock the boat.
      I shall rock the boat a little more and say that we should trust Londoners. The Liberal Democrats' proposal would give Londoners a clear choice. If we were prepared to trust Londoners, we would have a debate in which Ministers could marshal their arguments and we could challenge them. If Ministers could persuade Londoners, Ministers would get their way, but they do not trust Londoners, which is why they will not be given a choice. Londoners will be told, "Take it or leave it." That is insulting to Londoners. We have just had a referendum in Scotland and we allowed the people to have two votes to decide about tax policy, but Londoners can have only one option.
      Londoners are told that they cannot have the assembly without the mayor. Why not? Is it because we are frightened that we might re-create the GLC? Is that the fear of Ministers as much as it is the fear of the
      404
      Conservatives? I am not ashamed of the role of the GLC. The record of county hall under the GLC and the London county council shows huge achievements for London. I do not expect everyone to agree with that, but we should not deny Londoners the chance to decide what system of government they want. I am deeply ashamed of the way my party has proceeded tonight, because it is an offence to Londoners and an insult to their intelligence.
      I do not believe for one minute that those who argue for a presidential system have demonstrated any real basis for proceeding with it. They do not have the right to expect the support of the House and they will not get my support until they can marshal much better arguments than the half dozen scrappy, monotonously repetitive sentences that they have been able to marshall so far.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Pickles: It is a great pleasure to follow that speech from the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), not least because he tackled some serious questions and managed to do so in an amusing way. The truth of his comments about the inability of the House and the people of London to address an important constitutional change will make Labour Members feel deeply ashamed when they read Hansard in years to come.
      The debate is encapsulated in a couple of sentences spoken by the Minister for Transport in London, on Second Reading. She said:
      "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."—[Official Report, 10 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 670.]
      The hard truth is that that is exactly what the people of London will not get an opportunity to decide, because it has already been decided, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) observed, by the terracotta army saying, "It is in the manifesto."
      Why cannot we have two questions? I believe that there is a case for a mayor for London, who could act as a catalyst, as do mayors in other cities. I do not believe that a strategic authority is necessary. The difference between the Minister and me is that I am prepared to argue the point in public and I am prepared to allow the people of London to decide—to pass judgment on whether I am right or the Minister is right.
      The hon. Member for Brent, East said that Scotland could cope with two questions, so why cannot the people of London cope with two questions? We have had an opportunity to have a good look at the Labour manifesto. If the hon. Gentleman consults it again, he will see that Scotland and in London are dealt with on exactly the same basis. There is no suggestion in the manifesto that there will be two questions for Scotland and only one question on a Greater London authority.
      We were promised on Second Reading that we would be given cogent arguments to demonstrate why it would be impossible to have a mayor without a strategic authority. None came. All we got was the strange mantra, "We won the election. We have a big majority. Our Back Benchers will support us, because if they do not, they will be thrown out of the parliamentary party and deselected. Therefore, we are right."

      405
      A large majority does not remove the obligation to explain and to justify one's actions. The mere fact that there are more Labour Members than Opposition Members does not release the Minister from giving us a reason for the Government's position.
      We are faced with three propositions: a proposition from Conservative Members that we should have a directly elected mayor; a proposition from the Liberal Democrats that we should have a strategic authority, from which a mayor might be elected; and a proposition from Labour Members that we should have both.
      I do not suggest that we are right and everyone else is wrong; I suggest that we have an arguable case that deserves to be put to the people of London. Why be so hesitant? If the Government are so convinced by the arguments and so sure that our proposition will not work, let the people of London decide. It is not such a difficult issue.
      Ultimately, Parliament decides in a democratic society. If we start to have referendums regularly—I am not entirely against the idea of referendums and I am attracted by some of what I have seen in the United States, in circumstances where there is a series of propositions to be decided—we must give the public a right to arrive at a judgment. If we do not ask a clear question, we will not get a clear result. The process is worthless unless the people have a right to decide.
      People can vote yes in the referendum if they are in favour of a mayor, if they are in favour of a strategic authority or if they are in favour of both. They can vote no only if they are opposed to all three propositions.
      We heard quotations from the Minister about the views of Londoners and about opinion polls and focus groups. He told us that the Government had looked into the matter carefully. We are used to seeing sham polls during election campaigns, suggesting that certain candidates have more support than others. It is likely that the polling organisations have begun to examine in detail the questions that they ask.
      We know that the Minister has given much thought to the questions. He said on Second Reading, in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman):
      "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 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."—[Official Report, 10 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 593.]
      The phrase "not…a satisfactory outcome" is rather ominous and sinister. The Minister is saying, in effect, that the Government are prepared to put a question to Londoners provided that Londoners say yes, but the Government are not prepared to put a question that allows the possibility of Londoners saying no.
      We have some experience of that. Some will recall that, shortly before the last election, the late Sir James Goldsmith approached one of the polling organisations—I think it was MORI, but I stand to be corrected—because he wanted to put down a question to be asked in an opinion poll that would have given a false reading of the support that he was receiving. The polling organisation rightly refused, because its integrity was on the line.
      406
      The question before us would not pass muster through a respectable polling organisation. Two propositions are put in a single question. That is no way to find out from the London public what they want. The Minister says that the majority of people support his ideas. Let him put that to the ultimate test-a referendum that should give him two resounding yes votes. Unless he is prepared to do that, there remains a great air of mistrust over the entire debate.
      Mr. Edward Davey: It was a pleasure earlier this evening to listen to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who made a powerful case against a directly elected mayor. It is a shame that the Labour party's illiberal standing orders do not allow him to join us, the Liberal Democrats, in the Lobby when the Division takes place. The hon. Gentleman would be welcome there.
      I shall explain why we, the Liberal Democrats, wish to argue for a two-question referendum so as to allow the people of London to choose the form of government that will govern them. I shall explain why we believe that we should trust the people of London to make that choice.
      The hon. Member for Brent, East said that the arguments for a directly elected mayor are very weak. The arguments for a one-question referendum are even weaker. The Government have justified offering only a one-question referendum—a take-it-or-leave-it referendum—by saying that they have a mandate as a result of the general election. They have elaborated on that on Second Reading and on other occasions. They say that the Labour party's election manifesto was a package and that it has to be presented as a whole. That is the package of the mayor, the assembly and the referendum.
      Let us examine that argument. Elsewhere in the Labour party's manifesto, there are other packages. How are the Government matching up in putting those into practice? They will tell us that they had a mandate to ban tobacco advertising. That was to apply, for example, to cricket, darts and formula one motor racing. The Government have unpacked that mandate and promise and broken them. It seems that they felt fairly happy in doing so.
      Why cannot the Government unpackage the London proposals? Why cannot they revisit the Labour party's manifesto and say that the mandate is flexible? The Government should take care when they rely on the mandate argument. Indeed, mandate arguments are often flawed; they are devices behind which Governments can hide. Parties that believe that a majority in the House gives them a mandate for detailed policy proposals are, in my view, guilty of arrogance.
      I accept that a mandate was achieved for the principle of democratic governance for London. My colleagues and I put that to the electorate and together we certainly achieved a large majority for the proposal. That was not in any way a mandate for a directly elected mayor.
      It is surprising that the Government have not learned from their lessons when in Opposition. The previous Government abolished the Greater London council on the basis of one line in the Conservative party's manifesto in the 1983 general election. There are many other examples of the previous Government driving incredibly unpopular policies through the House on the basis that they had a mandate.
      We all know that, when voters go into polling booths, the vast majority of them have not read every word or sentence in our parties' manifestos. It is dangerous and

      407
      arrogant to suggest that a vote on one day gives a party when in Government a mandate to implement all of its policies with every i and every t. It is a question of trust. If the Government showed that they were prepared to put trust in the people, they would legitimise the principle of democratic government in London to a far greater extent.
      The history of government in London shows how unstable it has been. There have been many structures of government over the past 100 years. We started with the London county council. We heard earlier, in an intervention from the hon. Member for Brent, East, that, 10 years after the then Tory Government created the LCC, they were trying to get rid of it. Eventually, it was abolished, to be replaced by the GLC, which in turn was abolished. It is important that, in introducing a new London government, we ensure that it has much greater legitimacy than its predecessors so that we do not continue chopping and changing and reinventing the wheel every two or three decades.
      The only way in which we shall achieve full legitimacy for the new London government is by giving the voters a choice. That choice will strengthen the future London government so that another Government presiding in this place 20 or 30 years down the line will not feel so able to abolish or reform London government or to gerrymander the results of elections for that government.
      I do not understand why the Government lack confidence in these matters.
      Mr. Raynsford: We do not.
      Mr. Davey: If that is so, they should accept the Liberal Democrat amendment.
      Surely the point of a referendum is to introduce a much more detailed mandate on a policy proposal. Why not let the voters come to decisions on all aspects of the Government's policy proposals and not merely on the package as a whole? Let the Government unpack their proposals and give the people of London a proper chance to register their voice. What would the people decide if the options were open to them? The answer is that we do not know.
      On the basis of the amendments, three potential options would be open to the people. We do not know for which they would opt but we on the Liberal Democrat Benches believe that they would not support the Government's current proposal. They would not back the proposed US-style system of a separately elected mayor and assembly. I feel that, as the details of the Government's proposals are more widely known, support for them will decrease.
      The problem with a directly elected mayor is that one person can never represent the range of views that are contained in a city such as London—a city with such a varied range of cultures, such a wide variety of socio-economic groups, and, indeed, voting patterns. With debate, with choice, I believe that people would see that problem.
      A separately elected mayor with a separate mandate from that of the assembly can never be fully accountable to it. He or she would always be able to point to his or her separate mandate and ignore the views of the assembly. Vast powers would be placed in the hands of one person, who could be held to account only every four years. Such a concentration of power causes genuine
      408
      concern as the details of the Government's proposals are more widely debated. That is why one question is not enough. A take-it-or-leave-it question is characteristic of eastern Europe before the wall came down—a sort of Albanian referendum, or, as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) argued earlier, a rubber stamp referendum. It does not offer choice.
      8.45 pm
      It is even more astonishing that, after widespread consultation, the Government are still sticking to their one-question proposal. We have not yet had the chance to read the replies to the consultation; we shall do so with great interest. When we have spoken informally to people who replied to the consultation, they have expressed concerns about the mayor, as have many London local authorities and London-wide organisations, for example London Youth Matters. They believe that an all-powerful mayor would leave them stranded from the democratic process, because they might not have access to his or her office, where all the power would be concentrated.
      The Green Paper gives some idea of how powerful the mayor will be. We are told that the mayor will set the strategic objective for London; that he or she will have certain powers of appointment; that he or she will speak up for London, increase competitiveness, attract investment and push forward major civic projects. We are told in particular that he or she will propose budgetary and strategic plans. The fact that huge financial power will be in one individual's hands sets a very worrying precedent.
      The Spice Girls might not have been quite so popular over the past few months—
      Dr. Jenny Tonge: Who?
      Mr. Davey: The Spice Girls. I believe that my hon. Friend had not heard of the Spice Girls until very recently.
      If the Spice Girls suddenly became more popular, perhaps Baby Spice or Mel B would stand for election. The huge budget for the whole of our capital could be decided and plans could be put forward by Mel B, and the assembly would not have the power to ensure that she spent the money wisely. Surely it makes much more sense that the assembly has power over the budget.
      I hope that the Government will think again and allow a two-question referendum in the form that we propose. If they have enough faith in their arguments, they will, and Londoners will respect them for it. However, if the Government continue to distrust the people of London to choose the form of government most appropriate for them, they risk setting up a constitutional structure of conflict and insecurity, one that may not stand the test of time and one that could potentially be a disaster.
      I urge Ministers to use the referendum to get a real mandate for democratic government for London and give the new authority real and lasting legitimacy.
      Mr. Forth: The debate has surely illustrated—better than anything that one could have anticipated—the hazards of referendums as a mechanism for policy making. To those who are sceptical about referendums, that comes as no surprise but, even to the enthusiasts, for this way of seeking political decisions, it should have

      409
      become pretty obvious by now that, at least, it is unsatisfactory, and, at worst, it can be very dangerous. We need only glance at the amendment paper and note the wording of the proposals that have been set before the Committee to gather very quickly that all this has the potential to go very wrong.
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made a very generous offer earlier, but, on reflection, I am not sure how it can be followed through. I think that the hon. Gentleman was saying that, although his wording might not be ideal, if we could go along with it—or something like it—we could all chat among ourselves afterwards and, in some way, return to the matter later. I doubt that that is the case in procedural terms, but it shows that, even after giving all the thought that I suspect the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends gave to the matter, and even after they came up with the rather convoluted formula that is offered to us in the amendment, the hon. Gentleman—albeit in a spirit of flexibility—is saying, "Well, if that does not ask quite the right question, I would be prepared to talk about something that does." In fact, as the hon. Gentleman conceded to me at the time, his question fails to offer a key option to the people of London—an option that must surely be available to them.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I agree that a variety of options are available. What we must do first is escape from the idea that there is only one option. Once we have broken out of that cell, we must consider what options are serious runners. I would say that the option presented by the Tories—the option of having only a mayor—is worth considering.
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but, in my current greedy mood, I will press him and see whether I can carry him a little further down that road. He conceded what to many of us is a very important point. The whole argument revolves around that point, does it not? Let us put aside for a moment the question whether we think any of this is a good idea—whether it is necessary, or whether, as one of my hon. Friends suggested earlier, there should be an option on the referendum voting form called "None of the above".
      I pose that as semi-serious suggestion. Why are we forced to say one thing or the other? Many people may want to turn out and cast their vote rather than staying at home and saying, "I do not want any of this, thank you very much. I do not think it is necessary." Those people may think—as the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) said so eloquently—that it could be damaging, or that it would not work. That may be a question that people would want to consider; but there are others, are there not?
      The difficulty underlying the proposals revolves around the inadequacy of the process of asking questions involving very complicated issues in a simple form. Among the issues that we are considering, or asking the electorate to consider, is not just the question whether there should be an executive mayor, never mind whether he emerges in the assembly or is directly elected; not just whether there should be an assembly sitting, as it were, on top of the boroughs; but, crucially, the relationship that would exist between that mayor and that assembly: how
      410
      they would interrelate, how they would react to one another and the precise relationship of the checks and balances involved. Those are crucial questions.
      Dr. Tonge: Will the hon. Gentleman give us the benefit of the experience of his party? I know that it has recently posed two totally different questions in the form of a single question, and has put that question to its membership—or what membership it can identify. I understand that that is quite a problem.
      Mr. Forth: It may or may not surprise the hon. Lady—who does not yet know me all that well—that I was not greatly in favour of that exercise either. The point that I was trying to make is that it is surely unreasonable to ask people to make a decision on such important matters without going fairly deeply into the way in which the institutions concerned are expected to work. It is not good enough to ask, "Do you want a mayor?", without giving people some idea of the proposed relationship between the mayor and the boroughs, the mayor and the assembly, the assembly and the boroughs or any permutation of those.
      As I pose those questions, it becomes obvious that it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to reduce those matters to the formulation that is perforce required in the referendum. That is my point. I have not even dealt with the other crucial permutations. The electoral system is a subject very dear to the hearts of Liberal Democrats. Many people may like the idea of an assembly, but only if it is under the traditional, single-Member, first-past-the-post system. They may be familiar with that system and want to identify directly with their assembly member, as they do with their Member of Parliament.
      Mr. Wilkinson: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. The Labour Government's draft proposals would do away with that close, democratic, territorial connection. Many Conservative Members, including me, would be quite happy with a directly elected assembly containing assemblymen who represent our boroughs. My constituents want someone whom they can identify as fighting for them and their interests. If they cannot have that, why on earth should they vote for what my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) called a pig in a poke?
      Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let us be fair to the Labour party. It is consistent in its view of representatives. Its Members of Parliament—I think that we now call them the terracotta army—are expected to do nothing in the House, and to have little or no relationship with their electorate. We shall be told next week that it expects its Members of the European Parliament to have no relationship with their voters. It would be consistent for Labour to argue that members of the assembly should have as little relationship with their electorate as Labour Members or Members of the European Parliament have with theirs under the Labour party's other proposals. Funnily enough, I do not condemn the Labour party for that, because at least it is consistent.
      When talking about those options to our voters, we are in danger of making an awful lot of assumptions about the formulations. We should not simply ask them, "Do you want an assembly?", without telling them about the relationships between the mayor and the boroughs or

      411
      the assembly, or what electoral system will be used. Even if we had complete clarity on those issues beforehand, there would not be a sufficient range of options in the questions to allow people legitimately to exercise a choice. Knowledge, clarity and awareness are wonderful, but if people cannot exercise their judgment on the basis of that information through the mechanism of the questions in the referendum, the whole exercise is bogus.
      I have not even come to one of the most crucial problems: our old friend the question of money. Unless we ask people, as we asked the people of Scotland, whether they are prepared to pay extra taxation to finance the authority, or to give the mayor or the assembly the power to raise taxes to spend, the whole exercise will be seriously undermined.
      The hon. Member for Brent, East would surely find that argument attractive. He and I may agree on the matter. People may like the idea of a mayor, and may want a mayor or an assembly to exercise widespread powers. If he is expected to undertake Londonwide projects and to do good things for London and its people, surely it is not unreasonable to ask the electorate whether they want the mayor or the assembly to have powers to raise extra taxes to make those aspirations a reality. That seems a reasonable proposition.
      The hon. Gentleman rightly nods and smiles. We are not to have any of that. Not only will the people of London not be offered proper choices, options and related questions on which to exercise their judgment, but some questions will be missing. Sadly, they are missing from the options that are offered by my hon. Friends but, on this occasion, I shall forgive them for that.
      Perhaps we must look for the least worst that is on offer. I strongly prefer the questions that my right hon. and hon. Friends have tabled, because at least they offer clarity and choice that will take people some way down the track. I would prefer to see a wider range of questions, but I pay tribute to my right hon. and hon. Friends for at least giving the crucial option that was missing from the original formulation offered by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. He has generously offered a return to the matter and has said that we could try to get together and reformulate it in some way.
      That is an attractive offer on which we can perhaps build, because there must be something useful to be had from this exercise. Surely we can use the debate in Committee to find an agreement that is much broader than the narrow, laser-like focus that the Government are trying to force us into.
      9 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: A Conservative Member has said that part of the Bill is a bit like a blind date. That was a good analogy. I am prepared to make a blind offer to the hon. Gentleman, and Ministers may know the answer to my question. I would be happy for the two questions to have the two preferred options from the consultation paper. That would at least offer people an alternative. There is no need to get stuck on specifics, because there are ways of getting the two preferred options in front of the electorate, and on Friday we shall know what they are.
      Mr. Forth: That is a helpful suggestion. It seems that everybody except the Government is trying to be positive and helpful. We have become rather used to that over the
      412
      past few months, but I hope that we shall not be expected to swallow it indefinitely and that, sooner or later, hon. Members other than the hon. Member for Brent, East will be prepared to speak up for their constituents.
      I hope that the hon. Gentleman's comments will be widely studied, because they have given a unique insight into the way that the Government works, not least in the light of what was said in the Chamber earlier today—much blow-hard nonsense about open government, modernisation and pre-legislative consultation. The debate illustrates the opposite—closed minds, single-minded determination to drive through a narrow set of proposals, and the brushing aside of all helpful and constructive suggestions that were made in the Chamber or by people outside in the process of consultation.
      There has been no sign whatever of flexibility or open-mindedness. Sadly, if that remains the basis of consultations on the exercise, there is a risk that the institutions that the Government are determined to foist on the people of London will be much weaker and much more narrowly based, and will have a lesser chance of success. That will be a tragedy, because, even in view of my clear reservations about the necessity for any of this, if we must have the proposed institutional arrangement for London, we all desperately want it to be well thought out and to work for the benefit of London's people. Those must be our joint and several aspirations.
      If the Minister continues down his present track, there is a risk that he will lack the support of me and my colleagues, that of the Liberal Democrats and the London boroughs and perhaps, as we have heard, of important elements in his party. The Minister and his colleague snigger as if to dismiss—
      The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): I was laughing.
      Mr. Forth: The junior Minister says that she was laughing. She laughed just at the point where I referred to the vivid account by the hon. Member for Brent, East of the Labour party's internal workings. If that does not confirm better than anything else his fears about the way in which his party is working, I do not know what does.
      I leave that for Labour Members to work out, except to say that it is now on the record that his concerns, which he expressed with great sincerity, have been brushed off with artificial giggling and laughing by the Government Front-Bench team. That sums up perhaps better than anything the attitude with which Ministers came into the debate, which contrasts vividly with the attitudes of Opposition Members, both Conservative and Liberal Democrat, throughout the debate. I regret that. This is a sad day for London and for the legislation.
      I hope that, even at this stage, the Minister will think that Opposition Members' comments are worth contemplating, will reflect carefully on what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has suggested as a possible way forward, and will at last realise that the proposals will be materially improved if he allows that crucial flexibility that is suggested by the amendments.
      Mr. Wilkinson: We have been privileged to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). Many of us suspected that there was a

      413
      gagging order on Labour Members in this debate. Now we know that it is more serious than that, and I will write to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges to find out whether the Labour party's standing orders accord with the procedures, as we know them, of the House. Labour Members are being intimidated into not expressing a particular view, and sanctions can be imposed on them that could prejudice their political careers and so preclude their taking part impartially and fair-mindedly in debates. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has spoken as he has.
      There is a facile tendency, which many hon. Members have exposed, to believe that, if the capital city has a directly elected mayor, somehow, he will be a Dick Whittington figure and the capital's streets will again be paved with gold. It could be—we hope that it will if the people of London decide that we should have a directly elected mayor—that he will be a positive force to encourage investment and industrial and commercial regeneration of our capital city, which is already vibrant and buoyant, thanks to a successfully managed economy. However, the crucial effectiveness of his role will depend on his relationship with the assembly, because the authority is a single entity in the Government's eyes and it is the authority for which the Government are seeking approval in the question that Londoners will have to answer on 7 May.
      It is noteworthy that the Government are asking a question that requests approval of their proposal for a Greater London authority, whereas the shadow Secretary of State and other Conservative Members are putting two essentially open questions of principle to the electorate. We ask:
      "Are you in favour of a directly elected mayor for Greater London?"
      We are asking whether they believe that the concept of a directly elected mayor is, of itself, beneficial for our capital city. Likewise, we ask:
      "Are you in favour of a directly elected assembly for Greater London?"
      All that the Government propose is that the electorate should accept hook, line and sinker the Government's proposals, which, as we have heard, remain almost entirely unclear.
      Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I should have preferred a third and crucial question—the question uppermost in most Londoners' minds—to be posed: "Do you wish the assembly to have revenue—raising powers?" However, my hon. Friends are wise to ask the question, "Do you wish for a directly elected assembly?" as the electorate will understand that such an authority implicitly must have revenue-raising powers.
      Although the Green Paper is almost entirely in interrogative mode and begs many more questions than it answers, at least one thing is plain—that the mayor will set a budget. I can well comprehend why the Government do not wish to ask two questions in the referendum. If Londoners know anything, it is that an assembly will accrete powers to itself and will have ambitions. Its members, especially if they have no territorial or constituency responsibilities, will feel no compunction about asking for more revenue, because they will be
      414
      directly responsible to no one—or only to the upper hierarchy of the Labour party, as we were told by the hon. Member for Brent, East. There will be no built-in mechanism for economy, cost control or effective scrutiny. The mechanism that is so essential to budgetary management is wholly absent from the Government's proposals.
      No one knows how the assembly will provide revenues for the mayor or what will happen if the mayor has over-arching ambitions—and he may have, as the post seems to be attracting some of the biggest egos in the country. It is a recipe for conflict, confusion and, ultimately, expensive chaos. It would have been so much better if the Government had had the honesty to recognise that what was provided for the electors in Scotland in their referendum should, at the very least, be provided for the electors in Greater London—two questions. The electors may want the mayor but not the assembly, or vice versa. They should have that choice.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friends have said that one of the jobs of the mayor will be to promote London as the capital city and to attract investment to it. I presume that, with the sort of person that we are likely to get as mayor of our capital city—a big ego and big expectations—that will involve travelling abroad, which will cost money. There are clearly revenue implications. Would my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who, as an outer-London Member, has great knowledge of London, be prepared to speculate on the cost of selling London abroad?
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Perhaps hon. Members could talk about the amendments rather than going wide of them.
      Mr. Wilkinson: It is tempting to speculate, but I will stick to the amendments.
      We are also considering the Liberal Democrat amendment which would include among the questions asked:
      "Q1. Are you in favour of regional government for London"?
      Londoners are proud because they are the residents of our capital city. The do not consider it to be a region—it is the heart of the nation. It is where the decisions are made that govern the United Kingdom. They will think that the amendment is condescending in the extreme.
      In the eyes of the Government and of prospective candidates, the post of mayor attracts such interest because of the capital city's special nature. As my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said, the post will attract globe trotters. It will also, appropriately, require much hospitality to be shown to visiting delegations.
      Although I appreciate the good will of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) in suggesting that there should be consultation, I do not think that his formulation is the right one. The consultations should be based on amendment Nos 18 and 19, which have been tabled by the shadow Secretary of State and other Conservative Members.
      To ask the London electorate in a pre-legislative referendum,

      415
      "Are you in favour of the government's proposals",
      when those proposals are not yet clear—they cannot be clear until the legislation has been passed by the House and the other place—is asking those electors to sign a blank cheque. They should be asked to approve clear and specific questions. Ideally perhaps, they should be asked three questions, but two questions, as proposed by Conservative Members, would be entirely satisfactory.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Leigh: A Committee stage is an opportunity to give short speeches. I take issue with the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and think that, in this place, if one can reduce an argument to one or two sentences, it is all to the good. After two and a quarter hours of debate, I shall endeavour to make such a speech.
      I was wrong, 12 years ago, when I was allowed, under the Conservative party's standing orders, to rebel over the future of the Greater London Council. I felt passionately about the issue, having worked as a young man in the GLC, having served on the GLC and having served as a borough councillor. I felt that what my party did then was wrong, because I felt that we were denying a voice to London. A landmark in my effortless rise in the Tory party was that, on many occasions, I rebelled on that issue.
      I know now that I was wrong about the issue. Among the public in Greater London, there simply was not sufficient interest in the GLC. When the GLC was under Conservative control—let alone Labour control—it was, like the Department of Trade and Industry, an organisation in search of a role. That was the problem faced by the hon. Member for Brent, East—who had to develop all sorts of alternative roles and life styles for the GLC, which thereby lost the confidence of Londoners. The GLC had run out of time, and I was wrong to stand up for its future. I was right, however, to say that London needed a voice.
      The Conservative party has now come up with the right solution, because there is a limit to Londoners' enthusiasm for another tier of government. Hon. Members may dismiss a mayoralty as a personality cult, but local government in London requires a mayoral election. It will generate real enthusiasm and regenerate interest in the problem. There is not enough business to do to sustain borough councils, a new assembly, a mayor and a Government—the whole lot.
      I may be entirely wrong in saying that there is insufficient enthusiasm. Perhaps there is a role for an assembly, and perhaps all the arguments that we have heard will ensure that an assembly clips a mayor's powers. Ultimately, however—after two and a half hours of debate—I do not think that the Government can deny the choice of the people of London. The people will decide—trust them. Trust them to decide whether to have a mayor and an assembly, a mayor alone, or perhaps only an assembly. Why deny the people their choice?
      As has been said, if the House fiddles around with and finesses this matter past the people of London, the desired referendum outcome will be won, because people want a voice for London.
      416
      However, it will not be a lasting outcome and in another 10 or 20 years' time we shall have to return to the issue. Let us do the job properly now, have a referendum with a real choice and let the people of London decide.
      Mr. Raynsford: Once again, we have had a long debate, in the course of which we have heard a great deal of posturing from the Opposition about the nature of democratic choice as exercised through a referendum. Let me remind the Opposition that had they been in power, there would be no referendum. There would be no debate tonight about whether there should be one vote, two votes, three votes or more; there would be no votes because the Conservatives made it clear in their election manifesto that they saw no need for a mayor or an assembly or any change in London government. They were complacent and backward-looking. They totally failed to read the mood of the public in London and realise how London had been damaged by the abolition of the GLC and the lack of a strategic authority; justifiably, they paid a serious price in the election.
      Now, of course, the Opposition have changed their minds. They realised that they were left behind and they have started to adapt their policies. They accept that there may be a case for a mayor, but they have not yet come around to agreeing the need for an assembly. That is why we are hearing so much posturing from the Opposition who are simply trying to justify their partial conversion on the road to London, not Damascus.
      Sir Norman Fowler: The Minister refers to posturing by the Conservative party. Can he refer me to any Back-Bench speech that has supported his position?
      Mr. Raynsford: Can the right hon. Gentleman refer to any speech by a Back-Bench Labour Member other than that by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)? That is a pretty thin argument. The right hon. Gentleman has to refer to only one person to try to imply something. That is absolutely in character. The right hon. Gentleman loves to use selective quotations and to massage the figures to support his case. He gave us a good example of that earlier when talking about newspapers. It was pretty rich. He gave the impression that all the press were in favour of his proposition.
      The right hon. Gentleman has an interest in a newspaper that is published in the Birmingham area. Could he imagine a debate about the future of Birmingham in which he did not refer to the views of the local newspaper? Today, however, he managed to give the impression that all the media and the press were on his side, yet he conveniently forgot to mention at any point the views of London's newspaper, the Evening Standard. He did not do so because he knows perfectly well that the Evening Standard has rubbished his party's position.
      The Evening Standard made it quite clear that the Conservative proposition for a mayor with an assembly made up of the borough leaders would not work and was impractical and that there should be a single vote based on the Government's proposal. The Evening Standard is right and, as so often, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong.
      I very much welcome the opportunity to discuss the amendments, as they go to the heart of our proposals for a Greater London authority. Londoners will be given the

      417
      opportunity to vote on a clear proposal—whether or not to establish a Greater London authority made up of an elected mayor and an elected assembly. We shall make sure that the package that we put to Londoners is one that works and enables the new authority to get on with the real business at hand—addressing Londoners' needs and aspirations.
      The mayor and the assembly are not separable. An authority without a directly elected mayor would be a very different organisation—one not qualified to give London the clear leadership that it needs. A mayor without an elected assembly to hold him or her to account would be too powerful and unaccountable. No one really believes that a part-time forum of borough leaders would ever have the time or the capacity to constitute an adequate check or balance. Frankly, the people of London should not be conned by the proposition from the Conservative party, which was opposed to any elected body to represent the interests of London.
      Sir Norman Fowler: Just say, for the sake of argument, that the hon. Gentleman is right. Why cannot he have the courage to put the proposition to the public of London?
      Mr. Raynsford: I remind the right hon. Gentleman of what I said a moment ago. We are putting a proposition to the people of London which his party would never have put to them. There would have been no questions if his party had won the election—not one vote, not two votes, not three votes, not four votes, but no votes. The Conservative party took away from Londoners the right to have their own strategic authority. It allowed Londoners no say. It is sheer hypocrisy to try to make such a fuss.
      Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
      Sir Norman Fowler rose
      Mr. Raynsford: I shall give way to the more civilised hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
      Mr. Hughes: I am quite prepared to accept that the Minister has been persuaded of the Government's view. The Government are entitled to put that view. The Minister has still not said why, if Londoners have a different view, the Government's view is better and the people's view is worse. Why not ask Londoners whether they agree with the Government?
      Mr. Raynsford: We have been consulting pretty intensively with Londoners and listening rather carefully to the views expressed. The most authoritative opinion poll—the one conducted by London Weekend Television, the Evening Standard and ICM Research in October—showed that 82 per cent. of those expressing an opinion were in favour of the Government's proposition of a directly elected mayor and a directly elected assembly. We are going to put precisely that to the test.
      Let us consider for a moment arguments for more than one question. What would more than one question achieve? What would a second, third or fourth question
      418
      say? Inevitably, the question arises which issues ought to be put. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said in a generous—and perhaps misguided—moment that he would be prepared to waive the Liberal Democrat amendment in favour of whichever two propositions appeared to command the most support as a result of the consultation. I must tell him that the consultation has revealed an enormously varied series of priorities.
      There are people who are most concerned about electoral systems; there are people who are most concerned about the financing of the authority; there are people who are most concerned about the relationship between the mayor and the assembly; there are people who are most concerned about the powers of the authority.
      The consideration of such responses could only result in the kind of process that has led the London borough of Wandsworth to a curious proposition on the form of the questions. Wandsworth has submitted proposals to us, which suggest not just one, not just two, not just three, but four questions. However, the questions are phrased in such a way that they actually imply about seven or eight questions. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) said on Second Reading that, if one analyses the questions closely enough, one sees 11 separate questions.
      Mr. Pickles: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Raynsford: No, I am not giving way. I am answering a question arising from a previous intervention.
      The suggestion that one should have 11 questions in a referendum is simply fatuous, and not one that we as a Government could seriously entertain.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I accept that all sorts of issues will be priorities for respondents to the consultation. The point that I am putting to the Minister is not that our view, the Conservatives' view or the view of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) is necessarily the best alternative. One could even allow the two most popular views in the consultation on the question of the structure of London government. The issue is not what are the alternatives but whether we give voters the choice.
      Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, he will inevitably recognise that even his party and the Conservatives cannot agree on the formulation of wording to achieve that effect. In practice, the Liberal Democrats' amendment would make it impossible for Conservative Members to vote for what I understand to be their preference: a mayor without an assembly. There is no way under the formulation proposed by the Liberal Democrats in which that preference could be expressed. So we have perfect evidence of why it is impossible to do justice to the myriad views that people are expressing through the form of a notional second question. There is not a notional second question. There is a series of possible second, third and fourth—and many more—questions.
      Sir Norman Fowler: No.
      Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman says no, but—
      9.30 pm
      Sir Norman Fowler: On his proposed ballot paper, the Minister will ask the public whether they approve of an elected mayor and a separately elected assembly. Those are two questions. If the Liberal Democrats agreed with us that those should be the two questions, would the Government accept that?
      Mr. Raynsford: We are putting forward the proposition that we spelled out in our manifesto for a package. [Interruption.] It is extraordinary that Conservative Members—and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) —have expressed doubts about honouring manifesto commitments. The Government believe that honouring manifesto commitments is very important. It is a matter of trust between the Government and the electorate. We have given those pledges and we are proposing a package involving mayor and assembly.
      Sir Norman Fowler: Is the Minister saying that he will not accept any proposal for two questions under any circumstances?
      Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman is clearly not listening. I am trying to point out to him that no single proposition for a simple second question can be put forward. I ask him to listen for once, rather than trying to convince everyone of his point of view. He might benefit from listening to others. There are many possible propositions that people may be interested in, covering the form of election, the relationship between mayor and assembly, the powers of the authority and its remit. Those are all legitimate issues. The right hon. Gentleman need only ask the leader of Wandsworth council, who thinks that there are many questions to be asked.
      There is no simple second question. Even the Conservative and Liberal Democrat proposals, would not do justice to people with a different point of view. A Conservative who does not favour an assembly but wants a mayor could not get that outcome from the wording put forward by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. Someone who wants a mayor and assembly would have a difficult dilemma if presented with the Conservative proposals.
      Sir Norman Fowler: No, they would not.
      Mr. Raynsford: Yes they would. Let me explain to Conservative Members, who seem a little slow in grasping that. Consider someone who voted yes to a mayor and to an assembly. The outcome could be a majority for an assembly, but not for a mayor. That person would have supported what may well be their least favoured option. A proper choice would be between a mayor or an assembly or both. All three would have to be offered. That is the only way in which someone could say that they wanted a mayor and assembly together but did not want one without the other. The Conservatives seem to have no understanding of the implications. They have created a bogus sense of grievance about democracy when they would never have allowed democracy to the people of London. They would not have given any votes.
      We have heard a lengthy debate with a great deal of hot air and very little cool analysis. We are putting forward a detailed proposition—a package that the people of
      420
      London can decide on. They will decide whether they want the Government's proposal. If they vote no, we shall not proceed. If they vote yes, they will have an assembly and a mayor together, able to give London the leadership and government that it requires. That is a fair, sensible and democratic proposition. I commend it to my hon. Friends, and urge them to reject the amendments.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: This has been an interesting debate in two respects. The hon. Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), as well as others of us who were aware of the issue before, picked up on the fact that there is a risk tonight of some Labour Members not being able to vote the way they want to because the rules of their party impede their right to exercise their democratic choices. That is a much bigger issue than the one under debate, and we shall certainly return to it on another occasion.
      I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) for his last intervention in the Minister's speech, when he asked him whether any set of two questions would prove to be acceptable to the Minister. The Minister had no answer to that. I will take up the challenge—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will, too—because I think it entirely possible to draft a two-question formula. If we do, it will appear on Report; and woe betide the Government if, faced with an agreed set of alternatives, they refuse to offer it to the people of London.
      The amendment would amend clause 1 with a deletion that would leave only the proposition that there be a referendum, without fixing in advance the nature of that referendum. My party happens to believe that a mayor and an assembly directly but separately elected would result in London speaking with two voices—but we believe the people should decide. We happen to prefer a prime ministerial system to a presidential system for London—but we believe that Londoners should decide. My party believes that, if there is an election for an assembly and a separate one for a mayor, the latter will become a personality contest—but we believe that Londoners should decide. We prefer our model to others—but we believe that Londoners should decide.
      The Government proposals, if unamended, mean in effect, "You can have a choice of London government, provided it is ours."
      Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: East European.
      Mr. Hughes: It certainly is. Londoners are being offered democracy but only on the Government's own terms. The Government in fact propose to tell the people of London which sort of government they should have. We propose asking them which sort of London government they would prefer.
      Question put, That the amendment be made: —
      The Committee divided: Ayes 157, Noes 311.

      Division No. 91]

      [9.37 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Allan, Richard

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Baker, Norman

      Arbuthnot, James

      Baldry, Tony

      421

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Blunt, Crispin

      Lansley, Andrew

      Body, Sir Richard

      Leigh, Edward

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Brady, Graham

      Lidington, David

      Brake, Tom

      Livsey, Richard

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Brazier, Julian

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Breed, Colin

      Loughton, Tim

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Burnett, John

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Burstow, Paul

      Madel, Sir David

      Butterfill, John

      Maples, John

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Mates, Michael

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      (Chipping Barnet)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Chidgey, David

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Chope, Christopher

      Moore, Michael

      Clappison, James

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Norman, Archie

      Cotter, Brian

      Öpik, Lembit

      Cran, James

      Ottaway, Richard

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Page, Richard

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Pickles, Eric

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Day, Stephen

      Randall, John

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Rendel, David

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Robathan, Andrew

      Evans, Nigel

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

      Fallon, Michael

      Ruffley, David

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Sanders, Adrian

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Fraser, Christopher

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Gale, Roger

      Shepherd, Richard

      Garnier, Edward

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

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

      Gibb, Nick

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Gill, Christopher

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Spring, Richard

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Swayne, Desmond

      Gorrie, Donald

      Syms, Robert

      Gray, James

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Green, Damian

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Greenway, John

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Temple—Morris, Peter

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Hancock, Mike

      Townend, John

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Tredinnick, David

      Harvey, Nick

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Hayes, John

      Viggers, Peter

      Heald, Oliver

      Wallace, James

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Walter, Robert

      Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

      Wardle, Charles

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Waterson, Nigel

      Horam, John

      Webb, Steve

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Wells, Bowen

      Hunter, Andrew

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Whittingdale, John

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Wilkinson, John

      Johnson Smith,

      Willis, Phil

      Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Keetch, Paul

      Yeo, Tim

      Key, Robert

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      422

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Paul Tyler and

      Mr. Andrew Stunell.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Corbett, Robin

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Ainger, Nick

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Alexander, Douglas

      Cousins, Jim

      Allen, Graham

      Cranston, Ross

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Cummings, John

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Ashton, Joe

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      (Copeland)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Austin, John

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Barnes, Harry

      Darvill, Keith

      Barron, Kevin

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Battle, John

      Davidson, Ian

      Bayley, Hugh

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Beard, Nigel

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Beggs, Roy

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Denham, John

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Dismore, Andrew

      Best, Harold

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Betts, Clive

      Doran, Frank

      Blackman, Liz

      Drew, David

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Blizzard, Bob

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Boateng, Paul

      Edwards, Huw

      Borrow, David

      Efford, Clive

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Etherington, Bill

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Fitzsimons, Loma

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Flint, Caroline

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Follett, Barbara

      Browne, Desmond

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Burden, Richard

      Foulkes, George

      Burgon, Colin

      Fyfe, Maria

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Galbraith, Sam

      Byers, Stephen

      Galloway, George

      Caborn, Richard

      Gapes, Mike

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Canavan, Dennis

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Cann, Jamie

      Godman, Norman A

      Caplin, Ivor

      Goggins, Paul

      Caton, Martin

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Cawsey, Ian

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Chaytor, David

      Grant, Bemie

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Church, Ms Judith

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clapham, Michael

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Grogan, John

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hain, Peter

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hanson, David

      Clelland, David

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Clwyd, Ann

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Heppell, John

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Coleman, Iain

      Hill, Keith

      Colman, Tony

      Hinchliffe, David

      Connarty, Michael

      Hoey, Kate

      Cooper, Yvette

      Home Robertson, John

      423

      Hood, Jimmy

      Morley, Elliot

      Hope, Phil

      Mountford, Kali

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Mudie, George

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Norris, Dan

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Hutton, John

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Olner, Bill

      Illsley, Eric

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Jenkins, Brian

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Pearson, Ian

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Pendry, Tom

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Pike, Peter L

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Pond, Chris

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Pope, Greg

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Pound, Stephen

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Prosser, Gwyn

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Purchase, Ken

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Rammell, Bill

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Rapson, Syd

      Lepper, David

      Raynsford, Nick

      Leslie, Christopher

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Levitt, Tom

      Rooker, Jeff

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Rooney, Terry

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Linton, Martin

      Rowlands, Ted

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Ruane, Chris

      Lock, David

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Love, Andrew

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      McAllion, John

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Salter, Martin

      McCabe, Steve

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Sawford, Phil

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Macdonald, Calum

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McFall, John

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Singh, Marsha

      MacShane, Denis

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      McWalter, Tony

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      McWilliam, John

      Smith, Miss Geraldine

      Maginnis, Ken

      (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Marek, Dr John

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Snape, Peter

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Soley, Clive

      Marshall—Andrews, Robert

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Martlew, Eric

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Maxton, John

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Meale, Alan

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Merron, Gillian

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Michael, Alun

      Stringer, Graham

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Milburn, Aln

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

      Miller, Andrew

      (Dewsbury)

      Mitchell, Austin

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Tipping, Paddy

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Todd, Mark

      424

      Touhig, Don

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Trickett, Jon

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Truswell, Paul

      Winnick, David

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

      Wise, Audrey

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Worthington, Tony

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Wray, James

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Watts, David

      Tellers for the Noes:

      White, Brian

      Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Mr. David Jamieson.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Ottaway: I beg to move amendment No. 15, page 1, line 9, leave out 'an elected assembly' and insert
      'an assembly of leaders of London boroughs'.
      The Chairman Ways and Means: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 16, page 1, line 10, leave out 'separately' and insert 'directly'.
      No. 17, in schedule, page 6, line 4, leave out 'an' and insert 'a directly'.
      No. 28, in schedule, page 6, line 4, leave out 'a separately elected assembly' and insert
      'an assembly of leaders of London boroughs'.
      Mr. Ottaway: Anybody who listened to the speeches on Second Reading and tonight would feel that some Labour Members wished to bring back the GLC. They expressed a nostalgic feeling that the good old days of the GLC should be allowed to return. I remind Labour Members of what the Green Paper says—I presume that the Minister endorses it—in paragraph 1.09:
      "This is not an exercise in bringing back the Greater London Council."
      Any Labour Member who thinks that the Bill will bring back the GLC is wrong, and any Labour Member who appeals for its return is out of line with his party.
      I have been struck by the number of Labour Members who seem to lament the passing of the GLC. Indeed, I thought at one point on Second Reading that the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) was about to grab a box of Kleenex. That is extraordinary when we remember that the GLC cost Londoners some £2 billion a year to run, and all the more extraordinary when we remember that it squandered thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money so readily on the most invidious cases—such as the £30,000 it gave to the Camden Policing the Police group and the £38,000 to the Campaign against the Police Bill.
      I do not for one moment lament the passing of the GLC. Labour Members say that we abolished it without any consultation with the people of London. They are wrong. We fought the 1983 general election in London on an abolitionist commitment. We won just over half of London seats in 1979. By 1983, we had won exactly two thirds of London seats. That was our mandate from the people of London. They had had enough, and Labour Members would do well to remember that.
      Even the Labour party manifesto in 1983 demonstrated concern at the state of local government at that time. The section on local democracy stated:
      "We are examining how best to reform local government… and we aim to end, if we can, the present confusing division of services between two tiers of authority."

      425
      Those are words that Labour Members would do well to remember.
      Let me remind Labour Members of the reaction to our abolition proposals at the time. The Confederation of British Industry, an organisation that they are not usually shy of endorsing, supported our view that reform of metropolitan government was necessary, and that the GLC should be abolished. It supported devolution of most functions to lower-tier authorities, possibly in the form of a district joint board. Moreover, in its business leaders manifesto in 1983, the Institute of Directors urged local government reform, including abolition of the GLC.
      It was not as if there was no comment at the time; it was not as if there was a void into which we stepped. A proposal for the abolition of the GLC was in our manifesto, business leaders wanted it, and the community wanted it.
      The GLC was a dinosaur running out of control, but we recognise that things have moved on since then. After all, 10 years is a long time in politics. The world has become a global village, and it is essential that London's representative is prepared and able to move around in that village.
      I will take no lectures from those on the Government Benches on changing policy. They are already old hands at going back on manifesto commitments. In only five months, they have changed their mind on tobacco advertising and tuition fees. That gives me hope that it is not too late for the Government to change their mind on the nature of the assembly that they are offering Londoners.
      The Government are offering the people of London the chance to vote in a referendum on their plans for a Greater London authority. The authority has two parts: a directly elected mayor and a directly elected assembly.
      The House will know of Conservative support for a mayor. Let us have a mayor. The Government, the Conservative party and much of London agree on the need for a directly elected mayor for London. I look forward to the election of a mayor—not least to the election campaign, and the election of a Conservative candidate as the mayor for London.
      We need a mayor who will be an ambassador for our great city, a strong voice for its people and a champion of Londoners, promoting London on the international stage. The mayor will be able to publicise the capital's case on issues ranging from inward investment and regeneration funding to the bidding for sporting events such as the world cup and the Olympic games.
      However, the last thing that London or the mayor needs is a directly elected assembly, a kind of GLC mark II. On this proposal, opinion is divided in the Labour party
      426
      —we have heard the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and London borough leaders expressing their doubts—in the boroughs and among the people of London.
      That is why, on this proposal, the Government have decided not to put a separate question to London's electorate. That gesture demonstrates the Government's doubts about their own proposal. It is proof that a directly elected assembly is the weak link in Labour's plans to reform London government.
      The House will know of Conservative concerns about the Government's plans for a one-question referendum. That is a point of great relevance to the amendment, because it illustrates the Government's own lack of confidence about the assembly. They want to lump it into a single question about a directly elected mayor. That is because the disadvantages of a directly elected assembly far outweigh the advantages.
      I have been canvassing opinion in my constituency and in London as a whole. I have found that there is wide support for a voice for London, but hardly anyone agrees with the detail of the Government's proposals. That is why, perhaps, something curious has happened to the single question. That must be because the Government are nowhere near as confident as their case suggests for a directly elected assembly for London.
      It appears that the Government have changed the wording of the proposed—
      It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair.
      To report progress and ask leave to sit again. — [Mr. Betts.]
      Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With the permission of the House, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    NORTHERN IRELAND
    That the draft Deregulation (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 28th October, be approved.
    NORTHERN IRELAND
    That the draft Shops (Sunday Trading &c.) (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 28th October, be approved. — [Mr. Betts.]

  Illegal Drugs
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. — [Mr. Jamieson.]
  10 pm
  Ms Gisela Stuart: I am glad to have the opportunity to talk about illegal drugs, and especially their long-term harmful effects. Those drugs are deemed to be illegal substances because they damage the individual to such an extent that what seems to be a private choice to begin with becomes a public choice. That happens when their use leads either to anti-social behaviour or long-term damage to the individual, so that society as a whole deems such use to be unacceptable.
  There is a continued increase in the incidence of drug taking. The evidence shows that between 1989 to 1995 nationwide drug usage increased by two and a half times, but in Birmingham it increased ninefold. We find also that young people take drugs in increased numbers and that such young people are getting younger and younger. Drug incidents in primary schools are by no means unknown.
  The debate was sparked by yet another piece of research on the permanent brain damage that is caused by Ecstasy, which is often referred to as a recreational drug. I find that terminology extremely misleading and dangerous, and that is not merely a matter of semantics.
  I refer my hon. Friend the Minister to several press reports. The most recent one appeared in the New Scientist. It tells us that the brain scans of drug users reveal the first direct evidence that Ecstasy or MDMA can trigger long-lasting changes in the human brain, which cause memory impairment and depression.
  The year before the article to which I have referred appeared, an article—again in the New Scientist—in June reported, following a study among students, that a weekend dose of Ecstasy can lead to forgetfulness, poor concentration and midweek blues that are severe enough to qualify the sufferer for clinical treatment.
  The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology made an important observation in March when it told us that, in contrast to such drugs as cannabis, on which there is research literature stretching back 25 years or more, the relatively recent emergence of Ecstasy means that there is much less research on its potential psychological and health effects.
  We have information on long-term drug damage that is fairly generic. Prolonged exposure to most drugs can lead to tolerance where the user develops a form of immunity and needs higher doses to produce a given effect. Most drugs cause some dependence if taken for prolonged periods. I am particularly concerned about their psychological effects, because those are much more difficult to measure. If drug use leads to long-term psychiatric effects, we as a society should be extremely concerned. Long-term use of Ecstasy causes a massive release of the neuro-transmitter serotonin by causing the stored neuro-transmitter to be released and inhibiting its re-uptake, so that its effect is increased and prolonged.
  I shall make a point that we often tend to forget. Young people, who are most at danger, make very rational decisions. They make much more sophisticated risk assessments. We have a problem because, as parents, we encourage our children as they grow up to take risks,
  428
  to try things. When a child will not eat spinach, we say, "How do you know that you don't like spinach if you've never tried it?" Five or six years later, we say, "Here's something that you mustn't try." We need very good evidence and facts to convince our children when we warn them about the long-term danger.
  I talked to DASH—the drugs and sexual health project in Birmingham—and asked for its experience of Ecstasy. In the first two years it recorded face-to-face contact with 3,400 drug users, particularly in clubs. Thirty-one per cent. of inquiries came from Ecstasy users wanting more information about the drug. The standard profile of an Ecstasy user is likely to be male, but we should not underestimate the number of young women who take Ecstasy; they simply seem to use it less.
  Users are likely to be in their early twenties and use Ecstasy in addition to a range of other drugs, notably alcohol, cannabis and amphetamines. They make choices about the substance on which to get high on a particular night. They will consume one or two Es one or two nights per week, almost every week, for much of the year. Usage may continue for between two and four years. It is a social group activity which they grow out of. However, if it results in long-term or permanent brain damage, we cannot take it as something that is part of the club scene and just tolerate it.
  Young people express concern about the long-term effects of drug usage, but when they assess the risk they have difficulty in finding the facts. I sent my researcher to a library yesterday to find some facts about the various long-term effects, and asked her to pretend to be a member of the public. She came back very surprised and said, "I found some very old medical text books with information on LSD, but I knew that it was not telling me the whole picture." We tend to overlook how difficult it is for youngsters and parents to find the facts, unless they are already in certain schemes.
  We also face the difficulty that we want to spell out the realities very starkly to youngsters while not frightening the parents too much, so that they can handle the situation. Parents face the double problem of a teenager who is difficult at the best of times and a teenager who is taking drugs.
  There are some very good organisations. One in particular that I have come across in Birmingham is Parents for Prevention. It is extremely useful. It is mainly for parents who are concerned about drugs or who face problems with their children: they either suspect that they are drug abusers or know that they are. Parents for Prevention educates parents about the drug culture and the effect of drugs, but in particular it enables them to cope with the situation so that it does not escalate. In the first 12 months of operation, its helpline had contact with some 2,600 parents and professionals. Most callers were mothers, and their main concerns related to cannabis, amphetamines, LSD, solvents and heroin.
  The organisation provides continuing support for parents, visiting and befriending them. The system involves parents helping other parents. It also organises courses that all of us with teenage children should welcome—the "living with teenagers" programme. It recognises that a joint approach is essential.
  What I welcome particularly about the Parents for Prevention campaign is that its funding is currently also a joint effort. The campaign is financed by the Home Office

  429
  and the drug prevention initiative, but also by the local authority action trust and Birmingham health authority, which recognises that dealing with drugs must be a cross-institutional initiative. The ultimate aim is to set up groups across the city that help parents to help other parents.
  Once people's children are taking drugs, we have embarked on the dangerous debate about harm reduction and minimisation. We must recognise that once we have implemented harm reduction measures such as licensing requirements for drugs, it is, in a sense, too late: the young people have already started taking drugs. Although such measures are essential, they should not be the sole aim; we should not accept that we have to live with the problem.
  My main purpose is to plead for much more research and much more evidence-based information. Youngsters respond to that. The more hard facts we have, the more they will follow those facts. The approach to the heart does not work, as we saw in the Leah Betts case: that did not, in a sense, reduce the attraction of Ecstasy.
  A report produced by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology in May 1996 gave a good summary of the position. It stated;
  "Given the inherently psychoactive nature of these drugs, the major potential problem area is the definition of psychology/psychiatry. Here there are many research targets. At the basic level, the natural function of the cannabis receptor is not yet known, even though it is one of the more common types in the brain. Secondly, there are differences of view over the extent to which current psychiatric problem derive from illegal drugs."
  The report asks for more information that influences behaviour.
  I am often concerned when I hear the argument that the only kids who suffer from long-term exposure to drugs such as Ecstasy were already prone to some other addiction. That is simply a recognition that some groups are more vulnerable; it should not be used as an excuse for not emphasising the dangers of Ecstasy.
  We need to recognise the existence of drug dependency, and accept that some groups of people have dependent or addictive natures. Again, that is no excuse for taking no action: it simply means that a different way of tackling the problem may be needed. I remember talking to a mother who said, "I have two kids. One is not a risk-taker, but the other is." The messages not to take drugs would be very different for those two children. Both messages must recognise their separate psychological dispositions, but both must be based on fact.
  The most dangerous thing is conflicting information: young people in particular pick up inconsistencies, and the illogical arguments of adults, much faster than anyone else. If the case that we advance is not credible, they will not listen to us.
  We need better information about patterns of use and about the mixture of various drugs. It is very unhelpful, for example, to say that only so many cases are related purely to Ecstasy. That does not help if we know that a mixture of drugs is causing the problem. Since 1972, the United States drug abuse warning network has provided the US Government with consistent sets of statistics on the harmful effects of drugs gathered from hospital accident and emergency departments and drug-related deaths.
  430
  Large-scale epidemiological surveys have examined the socio-economic aspect—which groups of children are more likely to use certain drugs. There is an argument that Ecstasy is taken mostly by young people who earn a lot and take it at weekends. That is no excuse for not taking the matter seriously.
  My plea to the Minister is that we need more evidence-based information. I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) to give the scientist's view of this problem.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. It is not for the hon. Member to determine who should speak. An hon. Member may catch my eye.
  10.15 pm
  Dr. Brian Iddon: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) for requesting this timely debate, and for allowing me to participate, albeit briefly. I listened with interest to her comments, and agree with them all.
  There are no safe drugs, legal or illegal. Society must weigh the advantages of the use of drugs against the disadvantages. Ecstasy, MDMA is an amphetamine with the chemical name 3,4-methylenedioxy-a-methylamphetamine, from where the abbreviation comes. It is almost certainly neurotoxic: the report to which my hon. Friend referred contains evidence to support that view, and I have been preaching that for many years.
  When I told my students that, if they took Ecstasy—probably some did—it could be neurotoxic, they expressed great surprise and asked me what "neurotoxic" meant. It means damage to the central nervous system that is considered irreversible. I hope that, as a result of students being told about the health risks, those who took Ecstasy were deterred from taking it ever again.
  If a given age group took Ecstasy over a prolonged period, it is conceivable that at some time in the future a generation of people would exhibit Alzheimer-type symptoms at a much earlier age than is usual now. However, I do not think that that is probable, because the taking of Ecstasy is a phase in young people's lives. The November edition of The Big Issue, which is sold in London, suggests that the drug culture on the rave scene is changing, and that people are moving off Ecstasy. Goodness knows what will be the next rave drug. Fashions change, and we must keep an eye on that.
  Ecstasy's dehydration effects are well known. I condemn those nightclubs and rave clubs that turn off the natural water taps. That is happening on quite a scale across Britain. It has happened in my own town, and Bolton council has taken action against clubs that have turned off the mains water at source to force young people to pay more than £2 for bottled water at the bar. I draw the Minister's attention to that practice, because it must be stopped.
  I want to refer briefly to the impurity of street drugs. It is often not the MDMA that causes the problem, including death in a very few cases; it is mainly the impurities that are present in street drugs. Such drugs are made under poor conditions, often in back-street garages, with no analytical control: certainly not the analytical control that is prevalent in the pharmaceutical industry. I do not think that young people who buy street drugs

  431
  realise what they are buying. In most cases, they are buying not a pure drug, but highly contaminated materials from irresponsible people.
  I implore the Minister to study the harm-reduction programmes that other countries have undertaken, including the Netherlands, which is the leader in this area. I refer to simple, analytical kits, which are cheap, so that users can prevent themselves from being damaged.
  I also want to refer to the serious business of polydrugs. In Bolton, young people are taking not only one drug, but a multitude of drugs, even on the same night. There is no research on the synergistic effects, which is the action of one drug on another. We must point out to young people that they put themselves at great risk when they take a combination of drugs, because they may have powerful, synergistic effects. We know nothing about the polydrug scene, which is very damaging. I draw that to the Minister's attention.
  10.19 pm
  The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) on securing an opportunity to raise these important issues. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) for his contribution.
  The Government are well aware of the effects of drug misuse not only on the drug takers and, often, their families but on society as a whole. One of our manifesto commitments was to appoint an anti-drugs supremo to co-ordinate our battle against drugs and as a symbol of our commitment to tackle the modern menace of drugs in many communities. We have fulfilled that commitment by appointing Keith Hellawell as the UK anti-drugs co-ordinator and Mike Trace as his deputy. That is not an end in itself, and across government, under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, we will work closely with Mr. Hellawell and Mr. Trace to develop our strategy to tackle the misuse of drugs.
  While awaiting the arrival of Mr. Hellawell and Mr. Trace, we have continued to undertake activity in relation to a range of problems. A wide range of drug initiatives is under way. Some 79 innovative local anti-drugs projects have been supported through the drugs challenge fund. Plans for a reduction in front-line customs staff have been reversed; proposals have been brought forward for a drug testing treatment order; and a cross-departmental review is under way to assess the resources that are available for action against drugs. That is evidence of the Government's recognition that effective action against the threat posed by drugs to our young people and to society as a whole needs to be waged on a number of fronts.
  Before I turn to the specific issues that my hon. Friend has raised, I should like to put in context much of the media speculation about the extent of drug misuse in this country. Drug misuse is not the normal majority pattern among young people. Authoritative figures published in September from the 1996 British crime survey showing that while about half of our young people have taken prohibited drugs in their lifetimes, only one in seven could be said to take drugs on anything remotely like a regular basis. That is a similar picture to the one of two years ago, but it is no grounds for complacency, because the figures are still worryingly high. However, it is important to put the issue in context.
  432
  Many young people who are offered drugs choose to decline. The Health Education Authority commissioned a survey of 5,000 young people in the autumn of 1995 and found that, while 70 per cent., reported that they had been offered drugs at some time in their lives, only 45 per cent. had actually taken them. That is a hopeful sign that young people are capable of making informed choices. It underlines the importance of our powerful health education and health promotion messages about the risks of drug taking.
  I shall now deal with the impact of drug taking and its link to crime. Another aspect of drug misuse that many choose to overlook is that, as well as its effect on the person who takes drugs, it has wide-ranging effects on the society in which we live. Many people are damaged. Estimates for the level of drug-related crime vary. They include one by West Yorkshire police that up to 70 per cent. of acquisitive crime is drug-related. I am sure that my hon. Friends would testify to that from their constituency experience. We all know that crimes have victims. They may be those whose homes are burgled, and businesses also experience loss due to crime. Every one of those victims would be only too willing to testify to the damage caused to society by the effects of drug misuse.
  Then there is the fear of crime—its unquantifiable effect on many people, rendering elderly people, in particular, prisoners in their own homes. Reducing drug-related crime is a key objective for police forces in the coming year. The Government will pilot a drug testing and treatment order to enable courts to impose treatment for seriously addicted offenders, and we shall make widely available what we learn from the work of local projects in implementing and evaluating drug interventions at different points in the criminal justice system and in different parts of the United Kingdom.
  In that context, I strongly endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston about the importance of proceeding on the basis of evidence, understanding what works and acting on the basis of what we know to be effective.
  Hon. Members may be aware that, at the end of October, I announced that health authorities would receive more than £41 million next year for drug treatment services. That is an extra £3 million, and represents a real-terms increase of 8 per cent. over the 1997–98 figure. It will allow the national health service to continue the development of effective treatment services for drug misusers. It will also enable health authorities to build on their existing services and to develop them on the lines of carefully tested guidance sent out by the Department earlier this year on purchasing effective treatment and care for drug misusers, again concentrating heavily on building on good practice.
  I take on board the concern that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East raised about young people in clubs who may have taken Ecstasy and have to buy water, rather than be able to drink it from the tap. That is a dangerous practice on which we want to take action. It is another example of a specific step that must be taken as part of a comprehensive approach to tackling drugs. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will give the whole drugs programme high priority during our presidency of the European Union next year.

  433
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston talked about the long-term effects of Ecstasy, referring to research, reported in the New Scientist, at the university of Baltimore. She suggested that Ecstasy use permanently damaged brain function. Although we have yet to study the detail of that research, its conclusions are broadly in line with existing knowledge about Ecstasy's dangers. It causes massive release of serotonin and inhibits the brain nerve cells' ability to absorb the serotonin, so that the drug's effect is both increased and prolonged. It gives a boost well outside the range of normal emotions, accounting for the intense empathy and mood change while under the influence of the drug.
  434
  Of course we know that those short-term mood changes can have long-term, damaging persistent effects. We need to make that clear in ways that they will accept to young people who choose to risk taking Ecstasy; they need to understand that we are on their side.
  The Government are funding a three-year campaign by the Health Education Authority to inform young people of the risks of drug misuse. I make it clear that we insist that all materials are tested for effectiveness with young people. If the messages are anodyne, suitable for grown-ups and lost on young people, the message will be ineffective and will fail the important test that my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston offered: measures should be proved to be effective.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  China
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will give details of the training and equipment assistance provided to the Chinese police; how much has been spent on it so far; and what future cost commitments there are. [16042]

  Clare Short
  DFID assistance is limited to a £1 million contribution, approved in September 1996, to a United Nations project (managed by the UN Drug Control Programme) in Yunnan Province. The purpose of the project is to strengthen the drugs law enforcement capability of customs and police officials. Activities include training, development of guidelines for prosecution of traffickers and provision of vehicles and communications equipment to assist drug control operations in the mountainous border region between Yunnan and Burma.

  World Bank Group
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will set out the recent changes in ministerial responsibilities for the World Bank Group and indicate how these will impact on the role of officials.[17259]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I am pleased to inform the House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development have agreed that, following the creation of the Department for International Development, the Secretary of State for International Development should become the United Kingdom Governor of the World Bank Group. The Chancellor has taken over the role of United Kingdom Alternate Governor of the World Bank Group. He and the Secretary of State for International Development attended the meeting of the Development Committee in Hong Kong in September, followed by the Annual meetings of the IMF and World Bank.

  The division of responsibilities at official level in our Delegation to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) in Washington remains as before. The United Kingdom has one Executive Director for the World Bank and IMF who is a Treasury official appointed after consultation with the Department for International Development. On World Bank work, the Executive Director is assisted by an Alternate appointed by the Department for International Development.

  Afghanistan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she has taken to protect the human rights of women in Afghanistan; and if she will make a statement.[16039]
  178
  Clare Short
  UK assistance in Afghanistan is guided by a common position agreed with other aid donors. This calls on all parties to recognise, protect and promote the equal rights and dignity of men and women, including access to education, employment outside the home, personal security and freedom from intimidation and harassment, and to support only aid programmes which actively attempt to promote the equitable participation of both men and women.

  In repeated representations to the Taliban and other factions, we have urged respect for women's human rights, for example in urging them to relax their restrictions on women's work and education. We are also supporting Oxfam to research gender issues and advocate for women's rights in Kabul.

  My Department has recently appointed a field manager for Afghanistan to monitor our programme and its relation to human rights more effectively. A team from my Department is currently in Afghanistan looking into these issues amongst others.

  We will continue to give a high priority to measures aimed at protecting human rights in Afghanistan in the UN, the Afghanistan Donor Support Group and other fora.

  East Timor
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action she has taken to implement her undertaking not to support any new programmes by the Government of Indonesia covering East Timor. [16040]

  Clare Short
  We are not supporting any projects through the Government of Indonesia which cover East Timor.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the compliance of the European Union's three-year programme of aid to East Timor with the European Union's objectives in respect of strengthening respect for human rights.[16041]

  Clare Short
  The European Commission are still developing their proposals. My officials are maintaining contacts with their counterparts in the Commission.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what human rights projects she intends to support in East Timor.[16044]

  Clare Short
  We are actively investigating the best means of addressing human rights issues in East Timor (including economic and social rights) in consultation with NGOs and other interested parties.

  Somalia
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance she has offered in respect of the recent floods in Somalia; and if she will make a statement. [16129]

  Clare Short: The UN estimate about 200,000 people have been affected by recent flooding in the Shabelle and Juba river valleys
  1,000 may have died. Access is difficult. My Department has provided £0.5 million bilaterally to
  179
  help SCF and World Vision reach 50,000 people with supplies. The EU has earmarked about £1.6 million (UK contribution—£228,000) for logistics and supplies. We are in close touch with UN agencies and NGOs and will consider new needs as they emerge.

  Vietnam
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance she has offered to Vietnam following the recent hurricane; and if she will make a statement.[16126]

  Clare Short
  We offered a grant of £50,000 on 8 November through the British Embassy, Hanoi for the provision of immediate relief items. Most of this is being distributed by Oxfam to beneficiaries in the severely affected provinces of Tra vinh and Ca Mau. We are continuing to review the relief effort.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will place the consultation documents obtained during the review of the Millennium Dome Exhibition in the Library. [12998]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I do not intend at this juncture to disclose the detailed review of the Exhibition which took place immediately after the General Election. As I explained in my letter to the hon. Gentleman of 9 September, my decision to invoke the exemption relating to internal discussion and advice under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information was taken so as not to prejudice sensitive discussions between the New Millennium Company and contractors and sponsors. With the hon. Gentleman's agreement, I have made available in the Library of the House a copy of my letter of 9 September and of my letter of 10 September to him in my capacity as Chairman of the Millennium Commission.

  Mr. Marshall-Andrews
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what was the date of the meeting of the Millennium Commission which approved funding for the Millennium Dome Exhibition of an additional £250 million.[12993]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  At its meeting of 9 July 1997, the Millennium Commission, of which I am Chairman, approved an offer of grant to the New Millennium Experience Company of up to a maximum of £449 million (gross) by December 1999 and £399 (net), inclusive of grant already paid under the interim agreement signed on 27 March 1997.

  Opera and Ballet (London)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if Sir Richard Eyre's appointment to chair the review group on the future of the London Coliseum and the Royal Opera House was conditional on his support for the basic principle of merger; and if he will make a statement. [15606]
  180
  Mr. Fisher
  The text of my letter to Sir Richard Eyre has already been placed in the Libraries of the House. It says:"I shall be happy to receive the Working Group's recommendations, and I encourage you to think freely and creatively about the options".
  I am not aware of any suggestion of a merger of any kind between the Royal Opera House companies and English National Opera.

  Television Licences (Blind People)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the estimated number of blind people who receive a discount for their television licence; when the amount was last reviewed; and if he will make it his policy to increase the discount for blind people.[16123]

  Mr. Fisher
  Approximately 34,400 registered blind people received a reduction in their television licence fee in the year to August 1997. The concessionary scheme, including this reduction, was reviewed within Government in 1985, but that review did not lead to the discount for the blind being increased.

  The Government have no plans at present to increase the level of the reduction for blind people. However, the current Agreement between the Secretary of State and the BBC provides for a review of the television licence fee as the mechanism for funding the BBC after 2002. We shall conduct such a review before that date, and it will include a detailed consideration of the concessionary arrangements, including those for blind people.

  Radio Rights
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what plans he has to prevent radio rights from being sold to non-radio broadcasters; and if he will make a statement;[16193]

  (2) what measures he is taking to safeguard local radio live sports coverage; and if he will make a statement.[16194]

  Mr. Fisher
  Radio coverage of major sports events is included in the voluntary code signed by sports rights holders under the umbrella of the Central Council for Physical Recreation. This code appears to be working well. The current review of listed sports events will, however, allow the question of live radio broadcast rights to be considered further.

  Sports Coverage
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will introduce a statutory code on news access to sports coverage; and if he will make a statement.[16192]

  Mr. Fisher
  News access to major sports events is protected under the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. A voluntary code of practice signed by a number of broadcasters also exists and this appears to be working well.
  181

  Pay Television
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the ITC review into bundling and competition in the pay television market will be completed.[16693]

  Mr. Fisher
  [holding answer 18 November 1997]The closing date for responses to the Independent Television Commission's consultation document "Competition Investigation into Bundling in the Pay TV Market: Second Phase", was 30 September. I understand that the Commission are currently considering the responses and have not put any timescale on an announcement.

SCOTLAND

  Health Service (Consultant Posts)
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many consultant posts in the Scottish Health Service are unfilled at present; where the unfilled posts are located; and what was the equivalent position 12 months ago.[16169]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Hospital medical and dental consultant vacancies as at 30 September

  1996

  1997

  Trust/Health Board

  Total vacancies

  Posts vacant more than six months

  Total vacancies

  Posts vacant more than six months

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  10

  5

  5

  4

  Angus NHS Trust

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Argyll and Bute NHS Trust

  1

  1

  2

  1

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Health Care NHS Trust

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Borders Community Health Services NHS Trust

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Borders General Hospital NHS Trust

  6

  1

  2

  2

  Caithness and Sutherland NHS Trust

  —

  I

  3

  —

  Central Scotland Healthcare NHS Trust

  5

  1

  2

  1

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity Hospitals NHS Trust

  5

  5

  6

  5

  Dumfries and Galloway Community Health NHS Trust

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  2

  —

  2

  1

  Dundee Healthcare NHS Trust

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East and Midlothian NHS Trust

  —

  —

  —

  —

  182

  Hospital medical and dental consultant vacancies as at 30 September

  1996

  1997

  Trust/Health Board

  Total vacancies

  Posts vacant more than six months

  Total vacancies

  Posts vacant more than six months

  Edinburgh Healthcare NHS Trust

  1

  1

  2

  —

  Edinburgh Sick Children's NHS Trust

  2

  2

  —

  —

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  6

  2

  1

  1

  Fife Healthcare NHS Trust

  2

  1

  2

  1

  Glasgow Dental Hospital and School NHS Trust

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary University NHS Trust

  7

  —

  —

  —

  Grampian Healthcare NHS Trust

  12

  4

  5

  1

  Greater Glasgow Community and Mental Health Services NHS Trust

  9

  3

  4

  2

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse Hospitals NHS Trust

  2

  2

  2

  1

  Highland Communities NHS Trust

  2

  2

  1

  —

  Inverclyde Royal NHS Trust

  8

  5

  3

  3

  Kirkcaldy Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  3

  1

  3

  —

  Lanarkshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  12

  12

  10

  7

  Law Hospital NHS Trust

  10

  9

  9

  7

  Lomond Healthcare NHS Trust

  4

  1

  —

  —

  Monklands and Bellshill Hospitals NHS Trust

  12

  4

  10

  7

  Moray Health Services NHS Trust

  3

  —

  6

  —

  North Ayrshire and Arran NHS Trust

  1

  —

  2

  1

  Orkney Health Board Unit

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Perth and Kinross Healthcare NHS Trust

  2

  1

  1

  1

  Queen Margaret Hospital NHS Trust

  3

  2

  3

  1

  Raigmore Hospital NHS Trust

  5

  4

  3

  2

  Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  6

  4

  6

  3

  183

  Hospital medical and dental consultant vacancies as at 30 September

  1996

  1997

  Trust/Health Board

  Total vacancies

  Posts vacant more than six months

  Total vacancies

  Posts vacant more than six months

  Royal Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  4

  2

  3

  2

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust

  9

  9

  2

  —

  Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service

  —

  —

  2

  1

  Shetland Hospitals and Community Services Unit

  1

  —

  4

  4

  South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  4

  1

  7

  —

  Southern General Hospital NHS Trust

  2

  1

  2

  1

  State Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Stirling Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  2

  2

  2

  —

  Stobhill NHS Trust

  1

  —

  3

  Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust

  2

  1

  3

  1

  West Glasgow Hospitals University NHS Trust

  —

  —

  1

  —

  West Lothian NHS Trust

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Western General Hospitals NHS Trust

  6

  1

  3

  1

  Western Isles Health Unit

  3

  2

  2

  —

  Yorkhill NHS Trust

  5

  2

  1

  1

  Total

  187

  101

  144

  69

  Water Quality
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on Scottish river and coastal water quality.[17260]

  Mr. Dewar
  The report on the Water Quality Survey of Scotland 1995 is being published today, and a copy has been placed in the House Library. I am pleased that the results confirm that the majority of Scottish rivers, lochs, estuaries and coastal waters are of a high quality.

  However, I intend that progress will continue to improve further the Scottish water environment. For very large discharges (that is those serving more than 150,000 population equivalent), Article 8(5) of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive allows for primary treatment only to be provided, where it can be demonstrated that there would be no environmental benefit from secondary treatment. I have decided that only in very exceptional circumstances will we allow waste water discharges from major conurbations into coastal waters to be provided with anything less than secondary treatment. Following advice from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency
  184
  (SEPA) it is clear that the discharge from the Aberdeen Waste Water Treatment Works, which discharges directly to the open North Sea via a 2.5km long outfall, is exceptional in that it far exceeds the criteria established to judge such cases. The North of Scotland Water Authority's plans to invest in primary treatment will significantly improve the discharge, but I have accepted SEPA's advice that providing secondary treatment would not lead to any additional environmental benefit. The Government therefore have proposed to the European Commission that Article 8(5) of the Directive should be applied to the Aberdeen case.

  Having also carefully considered SEPA's recommendations following comprehensive studies at Edinburgh and Levenmouth, I have decided that secondary treatment should be provided at those two sites. I do not envisage that the Government will wish to put forward to the Commission any further cases for relaxations under Article 8(5) for discharges from large sewage works into other Scottish waters.

  Kent Report
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the report commissioned from Mr. Roger Kent on safeguards for children living away from home.[17261]

  Mr. Dewar
  In July last year, Roger Kent was invited to look at the measures in place for the protection of children living away from home and to assess their effectiveness. I have now received Mr. Kent's report. It identifies the risks that exist for this group of vulnerable children, the safeguards which apply at present and makes a number of recommendations—61 in total—on how those safeguards could be improved. The recommendations are wide-ranging, addressing the needs of children living in residential and foster care, children in boarding schools and children otherwise living away from home.

  I welcome the report as a further step in ensuring that children living away from home can do so in safety and security. Because the report raises a number of important issues spanning a range of interests, I have asked for it to be published. A consultation exercise on the report's recommendations will be undertaken before final decisions are taken on the recommendations.

HEALTH

  Finished Consultant Episodes
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many elective finished consultant episodes took place in the NHS in 1996–97;[15672]

  (2) how many emergency patients the NHS received in 1996–97.[15670]

  Mr. Boateng
  The number of general and acute elective finished consultant episodes commissioned by health authorities in England in 1996–97 was 5.0 million. The number of non-elective finished consultant episodes was 4.3 million. These data are drawn from the quarterly monitoring of health authorities.
  185

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Rural Employment
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans the Government have to sustain rural employment and local communities which depend upon such employment; and if he will make a statement.[16496]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The proportion of people in employment in rural areas is generally much higher than in urban areas. However, the figures can mask pockets of deprivation in the most remote areas.

  The Government are taking forward a number of initiatives to sustain rural employment. The New Deal will help all young people, including those living in rural areas, to make the transition from welfare to work. In order to ensure diversity of opportunity in all parts of the country, we have invited local organisations and providers to participate in consortia to deliver the programme. I am delighted that Eastbourne has been selected as one of the New Deal "Pathfinder" areas in which the programme will start to operate from 5 January.

  The Government's Local Competitiveness Challenge Fund can be particularly helpful for rural firms. The hon. Member may be familiar with the "Wired County" project in Sussex, which is developing local multimedia and on-line service industries. In addition, Single Regeneration Budget money is being used by the Salsey Regeneration Group to develop integrated public access systems for local businesses and individuals seeking training and employment.

  Higher Education (Student Complaints)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to ensure that higher education establishments review their arrangements for handling complaints from students.[16554]

  Dr. Howells
  Universities and colleges of higher education are independent, autonomous bodies responsible for their own academic and administrative affairs, including arrangements for handling complaints from students. The Government have no powers to intervene directly. However, the Department is discussing with higher education representative bodies the recommendation from the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (the Dearing Committee) that institutions should, over the next two years, review and, if necessary, amend their arrangements. I understand also that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals have been reviewing appeal arrangements for students and they expect to publish their final report and recommendations shortly.

  Higher Education (Staff Contracts)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he intends to take to ensure that confidentiality clauses in the contracts of staff working in higher education institutions are restricted to cases of clear commercial confidentiality; and if he will make a statement.[16555]
  186
  Dr. Howells
  Higher education institutions are autonomous, private corporations and as such are responsible for the terms and conditions of contracts of employment of their staff. Ministers have no powers to intervene.

  Youth Council
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Youth Council on 28 October. [17246]

  Dr. Howells
  I attended a useful Council discussion about the prospects for Community action on youth beyond 1999. Debate focused on a Commission non-paper suggesting that there should be a single programme integrating the best elements of Youth for Europe III and the European Voluntary Service for Young People. The latter has yet to be adopted but is being "trialled" in what the Commission have described as a pilot programme in 1996 and 1997. Member States confirmed their attachment to an active youth policy at Community level.

  The Commission's proposal to establish a European Voluntary Service for Young People from 1998 was also discussed. The UK maintained a Parliamentary scrutiny reserve but there was broad concensus on the text of the proposal. The budget had been a particular area of difficulty for the UK. Although we firmly support the concept of a voluntary service for young people, we considered that expenditure at the level that had been proposed (60 million ecu over two years) would be excessive in the early stages of an activity that is relatively undeveloped in some Member States. After discussion agreement to a figure of 35 million ecu over two years was secured. Subject to the UK scrutiny reserve being lifted, the common position reached at Council will be formally adopted and conveyed to the European Parliament as part of the co-decision process.

  The Council also adopted a statement in the context of the European Year Against Racism, stressing the importance of informal education to promote the principles of tolerance and respect for other people; and welcoming initiatives by the member states and the Commission to enable young people and those working with them to counter racism.

  Finally, the Council adopted a statement expressing concern about the difficult situation of many young Europeans in the context of high unemployment; welcoming the emphasis on the fight against youth unemployment; and calling for the adoption of concrete and effective measures in favour of young Europeans at the European Council on 21 November.

  Positive Discrimination
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance he proposes to issue to the Civil Service relating to the European Court of Justice's ruling on positive discrimination in favour of women.[16419]
  187
  Dr. David Clark
  [holding answer 17 November 1997]I have been asked to reply.

  The issues raised by the European Court of Justice's judgment in the case of Marschall v Land NordRhein Westfalen are still being considered.

  I have no current plans to issue guidance.

WALES

  Welsh Assembly
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the policy areas which will be the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly; and if he will make a statement.[15746]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  A list is in paragraph 1.7 of the White Paper 'A Voice for Wales' (Cm 3718). The details of the functions to be exercised by the Assembly will be set out in the Bill that establishes the Assembly and the transfer order which will be made under it in due course.

  Welsh TEC reserve levels March 1997 to March 1998

  £000s

  TEC

  Reserve Level

  Fixed Assets

  Long Terms Loans

  Working Capital2

  Amount available for discretionary spend

  1996–97 End of year position

  CELTEC1

  5,032

  440

  824

  2,733

  1,035

  Gwent

  5,193

  359

  0

  2,836

  1,998

  Mid Glamorgan

  2,682

  229

  0

  1,807

  646

  Powys

  869

  47

  0

  511

  311

  South Glamorgan

  4,326

  125

  175

  1,625

  2,401

  West Wales

  6,352

  427

  0

  3,368

  2,557

  All TECs

  24,454

  1,627

  999

  12,880

  8,948

  Source:
  TEC Statutory Accounts

  Notes:
  1 CELTEC Came into being on 1 April 1997—the figures represent the combined reserve levels if its two predecessor TEC in North Wales.
  2 N.B. estimated at six weeks turnover.

  £000s

  TEC

  Reserve level

  Foxed assets

  Long term loans

  Working capital1

  Amount available for discretionary spend

  1997–98 Projected end of year position

  CELTEC

  4,046

  316

  824

  2,540

  366

  Gwent

  3,911

  293

  0

  2,585

  1,033

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,601

  249

  0

  946

  406

  Powys

  567

  50

  0

  442

  75

  South Glamorgan

  4,040

  1,048

  100

  1,469

  1,423

  West Wales

  4,052

  5,599

  0

  2,731

  762

  All TECs

  18,217

  2,515

  924

  10,713

  4,065

  Source:
  TEC Statutory Accounts

  Note:

  1Less than six weeks turnover.

  Quarries (Planning Permission)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  to Ask the secretary of state for wales if he will take action to prevent the reactivation of a dormant quarry planning permission near the village of Llanfyaydd, Flintshire. [16107]
  188

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money each training and enterprise council in Wales has accumulated as reserves.[16138]

  Mr. Hain
  The information requested is contained in the following table. The figures show that the reserves consist of funds which have already been used to acquire assets, or funds required to meet day-to-day needs, or funds which were committed to be spent over a reasonable period. The balance available for discretionary spending at 31 March 1997 (£8.9 million) represents funds which have been earmarked by the TECs for planned expenditure during 1997–98 and for longer term projects.

  Reserve levels in Wales are projected to fall to £18.217 million by March 1998. Officials in the Welsh Office continue to monitor closely the level of TEC reserves in order to ensure that they are clearly related to demonstrable working capital needs or reinvestment plans. Further discussions are to be held with the TECs shortly to asses the extent to which TECs might be able to re-direct their reserves towards other objectives within the Government's strategic agenda and to provide an indication of when this could be done.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The Environment Act 1995 prevents the reactivation of a dormant site with an old planning permission for mineral working unless full modern planning conditions have been imposed. Advice on the procedures is provided in Mineral Planning Guidance note 14 "Environment Act 1995: Review of
  189
  Mineral Planning Permissions". Cae Rheinallt Quarry near Llanfynydd has been duly registered with Flintshire County Council under the provisions of the Act as a dormant site, and the principle of the existence of permission to quarry is not in question. To date, no application to determine conditions to control any future working have been received by the local authority.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to legislate to prevent the reactivation of dormant quarry planning permissions; and if he will make a statement.[16108]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to legislate on this matter. The Planning and Compensation Act 1991 and the Environment Act 1995 introduced new requirements for initial and periodic reviews of old mineral permissions. The principle of their existence is not an issue, but provisions in the existing legislation will ensure that dormant quarry permissions cannot be reactivated without full modern planning conditions attached to protect the environment and amenity, and to ensure that suitable restoration and aftercare takes place.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy in respect of the faxing of press releases on the day of release to Opposition party spokesmen; what changes have been introduced since 1 May; and if he will make a statement.[16299]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  There is no formal arrangement for faxing departmental press releases to Opposition party spokesmen on the day of release, but they are supplied on request. No changes have been made since 1 May.

  Cycleways
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will collate the information on the planning and management of cycleways, currently held by the new unitary authorities in Wales.[16510]

  Mr. Hain
  I am keen to encourage the development of cycleways throughout Wales, but wish to await the outcome of the Government's consultation on integrated transport before re-assessing Welsh Office responsibilities in this area.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Monetary Union
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which Minister briefed the Financial Times in respect of its September story on British entry into monetary union.[140051

  Mrs. Beckett
  To my knowledge, none.

  Gas Appliances
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to ensure that gas appliances are safe and regularly maintained.[15160]
  190
  Mr. Nigel Giffiths
  A carbon monoxide safety awareness campaign is currently under way to warn as many households as possible in the country about the dangers of carbon monoxide, including the need to make sure that heating systems are serviced once a year by a qualified engineer.

  Gas appliances made or sold in the UK including imports must comply with the Gas Appliances (Safety) Regulations 1995, which implement into UK law the Gas Appliances Directive, and this Department is in the process of considering the results of a formal consultation on proposed regulations to control the safety of second-hand gas appliances.

  Gas safety legislation requires landlords to maintain in a safe condition, gas appliances that they own in let property. Failure to do so can result in unlimited fines and up to two years imprisonment.

  Fireworks
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which Ministers responsible for firework safety have visited(a) Liverpool, (b) Manchester, (c) Newcastle, (d) Glasgow, (e) Birmingham and (f) Leeds since 1979 to promote firework safety.[15615]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  I understand that since 1993 no Minister responsible for firework safety has visited these cities to promote firework safety. I undertook to visit all these cities prior to this bonfire night to promote safety awareness.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on her policy on the length of the firework season(a) in terms of retail availability of fireworks and (b) in terms of a possible permissible period for letting them off.[16340]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The policy remains the same as that of my predecessor. However, a range of measures has been implemented to assist in tackling more dangerous fireworks and those used by hooligans. Details of these are in the House of Commons Library.

  Action 2000
  Mrs. May
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will publish the job specification for the Chairman of Action 2000.[16136]

  Mrs. Roche
  The statement of his particular responsibilities is reproduced below:"(a) To appoint the other members of the Advisory Board. The choice of members will be your decision, but you will consider including representatives of:

  CBI

  FEI

  CSSA

  BBA

  NCC

  IEE

  and Business Links

  and you will consult the organisations concerned. In addition you may appoint up to seven additional members, drawn mainly from the private sector. Before you make any appointments you should consult the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
  191
  (b). To advise the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on the state of preparedness of the private sector—particularly in key sectors identified by them—and to make such contribution to their work on contingency planning as they may require.

  (c). To advise the Secretary of State whether the DTI should offer funding to organisations other than the Company.

  (d). To draw up, agree with the Secretary of State, and implement through the Company a costed programme of collective activities—Action 2000—to support businesses in the private sector in their efforts to tackle the century date problem.

  (e). To appoint a Director, other board members and staff of the Company. The Director will be appointed after consulting the Secretary of State and after considering a number of candidates on a competitive basis.

  (f). Expenditure on activities under the agreed costed programme will be disbursed by the CTI, on advice from you or the Director, acting on behalf of the Advisory Board."

  Funeral Industry
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions mergers and acquisitions of(a) funeral directors, (b) crematoria and (c) funeral directors and crematoria have been referred to and investigated by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission; in how many cases the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has recommended divestment; and if she will list the firms concerned.[16703]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  Two mergers involving funeral directors have been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission (MMC).

  The acquisition by The Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd. (CWS) of the Scottish funerals business of House of Fraser PLC was referred to the MMC on 4 June 1987. The MMC recommended divestment of four funeral undertaking businesses (in Aberdeen, Falkirk, Crieff and Perth) or divestment of all the businesses acquired from House of Fraser.

  The acquisition by Service Corporation International (SCI) of Planstbrook Group plc. was referred to the MMC on 20 December 1994. The MMC's report was published on 25 May 1995. The MMC recommended divestment of individual funeral directors' businesses in ten specified areas.

  No acquisitions of crematoria, or of funeral directors and crematoria, have been referred to the MMC.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what contacts she has had with the Monopolies and Mergers Commission regarding the marketing and selling of pre-purchase funeral plans.[16706]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  My right hon. Friend has had no contact with the Monopolies and Mergers Commission regarding pre-paid funeral plans, nor a request from the MMC to discuss this.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations she has had with the Director General of Fair Trading regarding the marketing and selling of pre-purchase funeral plans.[16707]
  192
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  I have had a number of meetings with the Director General of Fair Trading regarding pre-paid funerals and have sought his views on a number of possible options for consumer protection. I share the Director General's concern to protect consumers who purchase their funerals in advance. I am discussing with my colleagues in the Treasury what speedy action might be taken to further protect consumers.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received regarding the maintenance of fair trade practices in the marketing and selling of pre-purchase funeral plans.[16708]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  I have had a number of representations on fair trade practices in the marketing and selling of pre-paid funeral plans. I am considering these, and working on proposals with my Treasury colleagues to protect those consumers who purchase their funerals in advance.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received on the potential for trading links(a) between insurance companies and providers of funeral services and (b) between providers of funeral services and trading companies that are subsidiaries of registered charities to operate against the public interest and to the detriment of consumers.[16705]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  A number of representations have been received about the links between providers of funeral services and trading companies that are subsidiaries of registered charities. These have been passed to the Charity Commission. No representations have been received on links between insurance companies and providers of funeral services.

  Health Service (Bereavement and Mortuary Services)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received from NHS hospitals on the contracting cost of bereavement and mortuary services to the private sector.[16712]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  No NHS hospital has made representations on this subject.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what guidance she has provided on fair trade practices to NHS hospitals which(a) have contracted out and (b) have expressed an interest in seeking to contract out bereavement and mortuary services.[16709]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  This department has no responsibility for NHS hospitals, and no guidance has been sought.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many jobs have been created via inward investment in each of the last five years; and if she will give a breakdown of the number of jobs created in each county or equivalent area.[16166]
  193
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  This information is available only on a regional basis. According to figures notified to my Department's Invest in Britain Bureau, the number of new jobs associated with inward investment in each of the last five years by each region as follows:

  Inward investment into the United Kingdom

  Year/Region

  Total number of new jobs

  1992–93

  East

  363

  East Midlands

  183

  North-east

  2,312

  Northern Ireland

  2,742

  North-west

  1,012

  Scotland

  4,497

  South-east

  1,212

  South-west

  285

  Wales

  2,382

  West Midlands

  1,568

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,286

  Total for the year

  17,842

  1993–94

  East

  482

  East Midlands

  3,218

  North-east

  2,256

  Northern Ireland

  3,030

  North-west

  2,427

  Scotland

  7,635

  South-east

  916

  South-west

  1,065

  Wales

  3,913

  West Midlands

  3,370

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,329

  Total for the year

  30,641

  1994–95

  East

  842

  East Midlands

  3,028

  London

  27

  North-east

  5,780

  Northern Ireland

  3,251

  North-west

  1,986

  Scotland

  7,678

  South-east

  3,273

  South-west

  1,386

  Wales

  3,151

  West Midlands

  4,797

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  3,152

  Total for the year

  38,351

  1995–96

  Region not identified

  0

  East

  372

  East Midlands

  1,437

  London1

  2,588

  North-East

  6,075

  Northern Ireland

  3,741

  North-West

  3,592

  Scotland

  9,092

  South-East

  5,385

  South-West

  1,468

  United Kingdom

  0

  West of England2

  250

  Wales

  4,429

  West Midlands

  7,034

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,004

  Total for the year

  47,467

  194

  Inward investment into the United Kingdom

  Year/Region

  Total number of new jobs

  1996–97

  East

  925

  East Midlands

  1,306

  London1

  2,631

  North East

  3,089

  Northern Ireland

  4,135

  NorthWest

  1,402

  Scotland

  9,928

  South East

  3,905

  South West

  682

  West of England2

  1,622

  Wales

  10,397

  West Midlands

  4,387

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,830

  Total for the year

  46,239

  Total for the last 5 years

  180,540

  1 Prior to 1994–95 the figures for London were included in those for the South-East.

  2 Prior to 1995–96 the figures for the West of England were included in those for the South-West.

  The IBB only records inward investment decisions by regions of the UK and these figures are based on information provided by the companies at the time of the announcement of the decision to invest in the UK. They are based on the companies best estimate of jobs created by the investment in its first three years. The figures take no account of subsequent developments.
  There is no requirement to notify the Department and so the figures include only those projects where the Department's Invest In Britain Bureau and its regional partners were involved or which have come to their notice.

  Trade Union Membership
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the policy of her Department in respect of the membership of trade unions for those in employment; and if he will make a statement.[14342]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 13 November 1997]The Government considers that employees should be free to belong, or not to belong, to trade unions and, where a majority of a relevant workforce vote for it in a ballot, unions should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes. My Department will be publishing a White Paper on fairness at work, and principally on union recognition, in the first part of next year.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Weald and Downland Roads Project
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 27 October 1997,Official Report, columns 722–23, on the Weald and Downland DBFO, if the outcome of the roads review will provide clear guidance on the future of the individual schemes which make up the Weald and Downland DBFO.[14969]
  195
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We intend that the output of the Roads Review should include a forward programme of high priority projects and work to develop strategies for transport problems from which investment programmes will emerge. This applies equally to the schemes that were included in the Weald and Downland DBFO as to other schemes.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has made to the Canadian Government concerning their policies towards global climate change. [15627]

  Angela Eagle
  We have discussed climate change with Canada in a number of fora, including most recently at the Ministerial meeting of key developed countries in Tokyo on 8 November, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, where Canada indicated that they would shortly be proposing a greenhouse gas emissions target.

  Pedestrian Fatalities
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's attempts to reduce the incidence of(a) child and (b) total pedestrian fatalities.[15645]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Measures to reduce the incidence of pedestrian and child pedestrian accidents focus on both engineering and enforcement, supported by education (including publicity).

  Traffic calming and 20 mph zones have proved successful in slowing traffic, with a consequential reduction in the number and severity of accidents to all pedestrians. Effective enforcement is also necessary generally to reduce speed, and we are considering ways of making better use of speed cameras to help achieve this. These measures are reinforced by publicity campaigns, and my noble Friend the Minister for Roads launched the current "Kill Your Speed" campaign on 16 September.

  While seeking to reduce the risks to all pedestrians, we also educate children, in particular, to develop the skills they need to cope with the risks they face. We support road safety practitioners by providing resources such as `Kerbcrafe (launched in September), which promotes practical child pedestrian training. A new child safety campaign is planned for January.

  Measures further to improve safety for child and adult pedestrians will be a priority aim of the road safety strategy announced by my noble Friend the Minister for Roads on 15 October.

  Telecommunications Developments
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what guidance his Department offers in respect of publicity for telecommunication developments with reference to(a) site notices, (b) notifications to town or parish councils and (c) notification to local residents; and if he will make a statement;[15664]
  196
  (2) what guidance his Department has issued in respect of publicity for telecommunication developments in respect of (i) site notices, (ii) notifications to town or parish councils and (iii) notification to local residents; and if he will make a statement.[16189]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Where telecommunications development is subject to a planning application, the local planning authority is required by law to publicise the application. This will be either by a site notice or by neighbour notification, and may also include a newspaper advertisement. Departmental guidance on this is given in Circular 15/92: "Publicity for Planning Applications". There is a statutory requirement for local planning authorities to consult the relevant parish council, at the council's request, of planning applications. Where development is subject to a prior approval determination under Part 24 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, Appendix E to Circular 9/95 encourages publicity so that people likely to be affected by the proposed development can make their views known to the local planning authority.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the 28 day prior notification limit for telecommunications developments on (i) consultation with parish or town councils and councillors, (ii) opportunities for comment from local residents and (iii) the opportunities to negotiate and amend proposed schemes; and if he will make a statement.[16188]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 17 November 1997,Official Report, column 3

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will enable local planning authorities to extend the 28 day limit in their determination of applications for telecommunications developments; and if he will make a statement.[16187]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This is an issue on which I expect the Working Group reviewing the Code of Best Practice on telecommunications prior approval procedures as applied to mast/tower development will make representations to me. I will reflect on their conclusion in due course.

  Car Airbag Systems
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the safety of car airbag systems.[16132]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We continue to collect detailed information on a sample of road accident injuries as part of the Department's research programme, and this allows us to monitor effects such as airbags in cars. To date, we are not aware of any cases of airbags having caused serious injuries in the UK.

  In 1993 the Department commissioned TRL to investigate airbag effectiveness. This was largely a review of published research on both airbag testing and airbag performance in the field. By necessity, this review was mainly based on the experience in the USA where airbags, which are required by law, are far more prevalent than in Europe.
  197
  US airbags tend to be more aggressive than those in Europe, as the US seat belt wearing rate is low and airbags are designed to be the primary source of protection. TRL therefore also looked at the sample of accidents in the UK to establish the role which airbags had played. However, the number of accidents examined was small, and there was insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion on the efficacy of airbags in European cars. The results of this study were part of a wider European paper presented at the Enhanced Safety Vehicles conference in 1996. TRL also carried out some very limited laboratory testing to supplement the information already available for grossly out of position occupants where there is a considerable injury risk.

  Overall, international research indicates that airbags reduce the risk of serious head and chest injuries for vehicle occupants and any adverse effects are minimised if the vehicle occupants use their seat belt correctly and sit as far from the airbag as is comfortably possible. In particular rear facing child restraints should never be used in a front facing passenger position where an airbag is fitted.

  Severn Bridge Tolls
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the amounts raised from tolls, and the cost involved in collecting the tolls, for(a) the original Severn Bridge and (b) the second Severn Bridge in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.[15963]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The accounts for Severn River Crossing plc show that in the year ending 31 December 1996 they had a turnover from toll revenue of £47.2 million. Separate figures for the toll revenue from each crossing are not available but 75–80 per cent. of the traffic uses the new bridge. Toll operating costs and maintenance are not dis-aggregated but, with administrative expenses, total running costs amounted to £7.6 million.

  Planning Applications
  Mr Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many planning applications he has called in since 1 May; [16465]

  (2) how many planning applications he has determined since 1 May.[16466]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Since 1 May this year, 95 planning applications have been called in and 60 called-in applications have been determined.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those London boroughs which have introduced ethnic monitoring of planning applications.[16482]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Department does not collect information on local planning authorities' monitoring of the ethnic background of applicants for planning permission. The Local Government Association has commissioned research on "Race and the built environment". The resulting good practice guide will be 198
  published in the New Year and will contain information on the extent of ethnic monitoring of planning applications by local planning authorities.

  Water
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to enhance the role of water companies in the water planning process.[16402]

  Angela Eagle
  Under section 37 of the Water Industry Act 1991, water companies already have the duty to develop and maintain an efficient and economical system of water supply in their areas. In revising current planning policy guidance for local authorities we will consider how increased emphasis may be given to the impact of proposed development on water supply provision.

  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will create forums to include water companies and all of the planning authorities in an area to discuss resource issues. [16403]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department's current policy guidance requires local authorities to consult with all infrastructure providers, including water supply companies, when preparing their development plans. The creation of discussion fora is a matter for local government.

  Fly Tipping
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will increase the resources devoted to controlling fly tipping.[16394]

  Angela Eagle
  The responsibility for monitoring illegal fly tipping, clearance of the wastes involved and pursuing offenders lies with a number of organisations including local authorities, the Police and the Environment Agency. My Department has no conclusive evidence that fly tipping in England is increasing. However the Environment Agency is continuing to monitor the situation closely and is working with the other bodies to implement a three-part strategy: First, to enhance co-operation with local authorities to monitor and control fly tipping and prosecute offenders—an emergency hotline number has been established and widely published for information on vehicles and individuals involved on fly tipping to be given; secondly, to gather the more reliable information needed, the Agency is working with the Tidy Britain Group to produce a comprehensive study of the incidence of fly tipping before and after the introduction of the Landfill Tax. It is intended that this report will be published in Spring 1998. It should assist the Agency and others, particularly local authorities, to respond to fly tipping in a co-ordinated, proportionate and effective manner; thirdly, the Agency continues to work with a broad range of partners including trade associations, landowners and local government to encourage good waste management practice.
  199

  EU Environment Council
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the conclusions of the Environment Council meeting of 16 October. [16322]

  Mr. Meacher
  With Lord Sewel, I represented the United Kingdom at the Environment Council which took place in Luxembourg on 16 October.

  The Council reached political agreement on the proposal for a new Drinking Water Directive. This sets new standards in line with current scientific thinking for the quality of drinking water; these will provide additional protection for human health. The text also provides for much greater subsidiarity and flexibility for Member States. It will now go forward for the opinion of the European Parliament. The Council further developed the Community's negotiating position for the Third Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Kyoto, Japan, in December this year.

  In the debate on the landfill directive, I indicated our strong support for the tight regulation of all landfills but that greater flexibility was needed on the requirements for biodegradable waste going to landfill. In the discussion of the Strategy prepared by the Commission to reduce the problems of acid rain in the Community I made it clear that the UK strongly supported action on this, though more technical work was needed to clarify the benefits and costs—a view shared by the majority who spoke.

  The Council also noted the progress of discussions on the directive tightening emissions from light commercial vehicles and on the Water Framework Directive. The Commission made a presentation on its Communication on Environmental Taxes and Charges which was not discussed.

  Energy Saving Trust
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the resources made available to the Energy Saving Trust in each of the last five years; and what is next year's budget. [16173]

  Angela Eagle
  My Department has provided funding for the Energy Saving Trust since 1995–96 as follows:1995–96: £500,000
  1996–97: £25,000,000.

  Funding of up to £19,000,000 has been made available for 1997–98. The budget for 1998–99 has not yet been finalised.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the work of the Energy saving Trust's energy efficiency programme. [16174]

  Angela Eagle
  The Energy Saving Trust's "Energy Efficiency" programme has our full support. It aims to promote energy efficiency to domestic consumers so that they can save money and help the environment. The Trust's October campaign of promotional activities under the programme has just been completed. culminating in "Energy Efficiency Week" between 20 and 27 October.
  200
  My Department has contributed funding of up to £2.5 million towards "Energy Efficiency" in 1997–98. I have recently approved a further£4 million in Government funding for the programme in 1998£99.

  Household Growth Green Paper
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to make a statement on the outcome of the consultation on last year's Green Paper on Household Growth. [16400]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government are considering the question of household growth not just in isolation but within the wider context of policies to promote sustainable development, including integrated transport policy and regional planning. We will make a statement in due course.

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made by his officials in relation to discussions with wheelchair manufacturers on establishing a marking protocol to indicate the suitability of manual and powered wheelchairs for use on public transport. [16443]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Officials from my Department have established a working group with representatives of the wheelchair manufacturing industry and the Medical Devices Agency. The purpose of the working group is twofold: to develop a testing protocol for new wheelchairs to assess their suitability for use in vehicles and secondly, to work towards a marking system that indicates the transport "compatibility" of manual and powered wheelchairs.

  The work is progressing well. As a first step towards the marking protocol, the Group is drawing up an information leaflet for wheelchair users and those advising on wheelchair choice, which will help them to choose an appropriate wheelchair for their lifestyle. We hope that the leaflet will be finalised by the beginning of next year.

  On the testing protocol, the Group has agreed to use as a base the proposed requirement in a draft International Standards Organisation standard for new products. The Group will be producing a leaflet to inform wheelchair users and transport operators about the testing protocol and the role of wheelchair tie downs and occupant restraints in vehicles. Again, we hope that that leaflet will be available early in the new year.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy in respect of the faxing of press releases on the day of release to Opposition party spokesmen; what changes have been introduced since 1 May; and if he will make a statement. [16311]

  Angela Eagle
  My Department will provide press releases to Opposition party spokesman by fax on the day of release if requested to do so. This standardises the policy of the former Departments of the Environment and of Transport, which operated different systems prior to the Election and before their
  201
  subsequent merger. The Department also issues press releases on the day of release via the Internet at address http://www.detr./gov.uk/. and copies are placed in the Library of the House of Commons.

  Air Quality
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the air quality in the United Kingdom's main urban centres on(a) 31 October and (b) 4 November; and what warnings were given to the public concerning air quality on those days. [16413]

  Angela Eagle
  On 31 October 1997 air quality in a number of UK urban centres was poor. High concentrations of nitrogen dioxide were measured in Birmingham, Bristol, London, Lincoln and Reading. Nitrogen dioxide levels were highest on 31 October, peaking at 257 parts per billion at Camden Roadside. A table summarising the highest hourly nitrogen dioxide concentrations that occurred on that day is shown below. On 4 November 1997 there were no occurrences of poor or very poor air quality at any national UK monitoring site.

  Monitoring site location

  Maximum hourly NO2 levels (parts per billion)

  Bromley Roadside

  110

  Camden Roadside

  257

  Southwark Roadside

  185

  Sutton Roadside

  172

  Tower Hamlets Roadside

  110

  West London

  213

  London A3 Roadside

  117

  London Bridge Place

  194

  London Eltham

  124

  London Hackney

  100

  London Lewisham

  131

  London Marylebone Road

  153

  London North Kensington

  142

  London Southwark

  237

  London Teddington

  114

  London Wandsworth

  216

  Birmingham Centre

  151

  Birmingham East

  115

  Bristol Old Market

  102

  Lincoln Roadside

  170

  Reading

  105

  On both 31 October and 4 November hourly air pollution information and air quality forecasts were available on CEEFAX (pages 410–417), TELETEXT (page 106), the Department's free phone information line (0800 556677) and through the Department's Internet site. In addition, air quality forecasts and information on pollutant levels were sent to national and regional newspapers, television, radio stations, Government agencies, local authorities and environmental groups.

  Local Government Finance
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions pursuant to his answer of 31 July 1997,Official Report, column 548, if he will list the percentages of management and maintenance allowances for council-owned homes for 1990–91 to 1997–98 inclusive. [16476]
  202
  Mr. Raynsford
  I have placed in the House of Commons Library a list showing for each local authority the percentage increase in their HRS Subsidy Management and Maintenance Allowance year by year from 1990–91 to 1997–98.

  Landfill Sites
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those landfill sites which are unlined and permitted to receive low-level radioactive waste. [16453]

  Angela Eagle
  The Environment Agency advise that disposal of low-level radioactive waste is authorized under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 at the following sites in England and Wales:

  Landfill site

  Operator and location

  Engineered containment status

  Arpley Quarry

  3C Waste Ltd., Arpley, Warrington

  Engineered containment

  Lamby Way

  Cardiff County Council

  Clay based engineered containment

  Milton Landfill

  Milton Cambridgeshire

  Clay based engineered containment

  Cowpen Bewley

  ICI Ltd., Billingham, Cleveland

  No engineered containment

  Clifton Marsh

  Lancashire Waste Services, Preston Lancashire

  Current phase unlined, next phase will include an engineered containment

  Stanford Quarry

  Oxfordshire County Council, Stanford in the Vale

  No engineered containment

  Beighton Tip

  Sheffield Waste Disposal Authority

  No engineered containment, closure early 1998

  Asham Quarry

  East Sussex County Council, Beddingham, East Sussex

  Opened 1979, old phases unlined. From 1995, fully engineered lining for new phase

  Hilts Quarry

  Rolls Royce Ltd., Crich, Derbyshire

  No engineered containment

  Magnesium Elektron Swinton

  Magnesium Elektron, Swinton, Greater Manchester

  No engineered containment

  Millennium Inorganic Chemicals Ltd.

  Millennium Inorganic Chemicals, Grimsby, Humberside

  No engineered containment

  Cilgwyn Quarry

  Cwmni Gwastraf Mon Arfon cyf, Caernorfon, Gwynedd

  No engineered containment

  The Scottish Environment Protection Agency advise that disposal of low radioactive waste is authorized under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 at the following sites in Scotland:

  Landfill Site

  Operator and location

  Engineered containment status

  Black Devon

  Operated by local authority, Clackmannanshire

  Unlined

  Balbarton

  Operated by local authority, Fife

  Unlined

  Braehead Quarry

  Operated by local authority, Edinburgh

  Unlined

  Riveside

  Operated by local authority, Dundee

  Unlined

  203

  Landfill Site

  Operator and location

  Engineered containment status

  Kilgarth

  Operated by local authority, North Lanarkshire

  Unlined

  Dalmacouter

  Operated by local authority, North Lanarkshire

  Unlined

  Ness Farm

  Operated by local authority, Aberdeen

  Unlined

  Longman

  Operated by local authority, Inverness

  Unlined

  Lower Polmaise

  Operated by local authority, Stirling

  Unengineered natural clay lining

  Lower Polmaise

  Operated by local authority, Stirling

  Unengineered natural clay lining

  Melville Wood

  Operated by local authority, Fife

  Current disposals to lined area—engineered natural clay lining with bentonite (cement slurry) wall. Historic disposals to unlined area

  Summerston

  Operated by local authority, Glasgow

  Natural clay and geotextile lining

  The Environment and Heritage Service advise that disposal of low radioactive waste is authorized under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 at the following sites in Northern Ireland.

  Landfill site

  Operator and location

  Engineered containment status

  Dargan Road

  Belfast City Council

  Lined

  Culmore Point

  Derry City Council

  Unlined

  Letterloan

  Coleraine Borough Council

  Unlined

  Mayboy Road

  Coleraine Borough Council

  Unlined

  The radiological impact of disposals to these landfill sites are assessed by the Environment Agencies and the Environment and Heritage Service when determining applications for authorisation.

  Mesothelioma and Asbestosis
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people died as a result of(a) mesothelioma and (b) asbestos induced lung cancer in (i) 1995 and (ii) 1996 broken down by (1) parliamentary constituency and (2) local authority unit.[16479]

  Angela Eagle
  The numbers of mesothelioma deaths in 1995 by local authority are shown in Table 1. Information on mesothelioma deaths is not yet available for 1996. Information for parliamentary constituencies is not collected.

  The total number of lung cancers caused by asbestos is estimated to be at least equal to the number of mesothelioma cases, and may be greater, but it is not possible to give a more precise figure as they are not distinguishable from the much larger number due to other causes such as smoking.
  204

  Table 1: Mesothelloma deaths in Great Britain 1995 by local authority

  County/Local authority

  Mesothelloma deaths 1995

  Greater London

  138

  City of London

  0

  Barking and Dagenham

  12

  Barnet

  2

  Bexley

  7

  Brent

  2

  Bromley

  2

  Camden

  2

  Croydon

  3

  Ealing

  7

  Enfield

  1

  Greenwich

  6

  Hackney

  1

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2

  Haringey

  3

  Harrow

  2

  Havering

  7

  Hillingdon

  7

  Hounslow

  2

  Islington

  4

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0

  Kingston upon Thames

  3

  Lambeth

  3

  Lewisham

  5

  Merton

  2

  Newham

  8

  Redbridge

  6

  Richmond upon Thames

  6

  Southwark

  2

  Sutton

  3

  Tower Hamlets

  9

  Waltham Forest

  4

  Wandsworth

  11

  City of Westminster

  4

  Greater Manchester

  37

  Bolton

  4

  Bury

  2

  Manchester

  3

  Oldham

  4

  Rochdale

  3

  Salford

  1

  Stockport

  3

  Tameside

  8

  Trafford

  2

  Wigan

  7

  Merseyside

  35

  Knowsley

  3

  Liverpool

  9

  St. Helens

  4

  Sefton

  11

  Wirral

  8

  South Yorkshire

  27

  Barnsley

  3

  Doncaster

  11

  Rotherham

  3

  Sheffield

  10

  Tyne and Wear

  64

  Gateshead

  9

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  10

  North Tyneside

  13

  South Tyneside

  13

  Sunderland

  19

  West Midlands

  41

  Birmingham

  26

  Coventry

  2

  Dudley

  2

  205

  Table 1: Mesothelloma deaths in Great Britain 1995 by local authority

  County/Local authority

  Mesothelloma deaths 1995

  Sandwell

  1

  Solihull

  4

  Walsall

  4

  Wolverhampton

  2

  West Yorkshire

  57

  Bradford

  12

  Calderdale

  6

  Kirklees

  12

  Leeds

  21

  Wakefield

  6

  Avon

  17

  Bath

  1

  Bristol

  9

  Northavon

  4

  Kingswood

  0

  Wansdyke

  0

  Woodspring

  3

  Bedfordshire

  8

  Bedford

  1

  Luton

  2

  Mid Bedfordshire

  2

  South Bedfordshire

  3

  Berkshire

  21

  Bracknell Forest

  2

  Newbury

  4

  Reading

  3

  Slough

  7

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  4

  Wokingham

  1

  Buckinghamshire

  20

  Aylesbury Vale

  2

  South Bucks

  4

  Chiltern

  3

  Milton Keynes

  7

  Wycombe

  4

  Cambridgeshire

  16

  Cambridge

  2

  East Cambridgeshire

  5

  Fenland

  3

  Huntingdonshire

  1

  Peterborough

  5

  South Cambridgeshire

  0

  Cheshire

  22

  Chester

  2

  Congleton

  0

  Crewe and Nantwich

  2

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  2

  Halton

  6

  Macclesfield

  4

  Vale Royal

  3

  Warrington

  3

  Cleveland

  17

  Hartlepool

  7

  Langbaurgh-on-Tees

  4

  Middlesborough

  2

  Stockton-on-Tees

  4

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  8

  Caradon

  0

  Carrick

  2

  Kerrier

  1

  North Cornwall

  1

  Penwith

  2

  206

  Table 1: Mesothelloma deaths in Great Britain 1995 by local authority

  County/Local authority

  Mesothelloma deaths 1995

  Restormel

  1

  Isles of Scilly

  1

  Cumbria

  16

  Allerdale

  0

  Barrow-in-Furness

  11

  Carlisle

  2

  Copeland

  1

  Eden

  0

  South Lakeland

  2

  Derbyshire

  15

  Amber Valley

  2

  Bolsover

  2

  Chesterfield

  2

  Derby

  6

  Erewash

  0

  High Peak

  2

  North East Derbyshire

  0

  South Derbyshire

  1

  Derbyshire Dales

  0

  Devon

  31

  East Devon

  2

  Exeter

  2

  North Devon

  3

  Plymouth

  19

  South Hams

  1

  Teignbridge

  1

  Mid Devon

  1

  Torbay

  1

  Torridge

  0

  West Devon

  1

  Dorset

  14

  Bournemouth

  2

  Christchurch

  2

  North Dorset

  3

  Poole

  4

  Purbeck

  1

  West Dorset

  1

  Weymouth and Portland

  0

  East Dorset

  1

  Durham

  15

  Chester le Street

  1

  Darlington

  5

  Derwentside

  1

  Durham

  0

  Easington

  5

  Sedgefield

  2

  Teesdale

  0

  Wear Valley

  1

  East Sussex

  12

  Brighton

  2

  Eastbourne

  1

  Hastings

  2

  Hove

  0

  Lewes

  2

  Rother

  3

  Wealden

  2

  Essex

  39

  Basildon

  9

  Brain tree

  2

  Brentwood

  4

  Castle Point

  2

  Chelmsford

  2

  Colchester

  2

  Epping Forest

  3

  207

  Table 1: Mesothelloma deaths in Great Britain 1995 by local authority

  County/Local authority

  Mesothelloma deaths 1995

  Harlow

  1

  Maldon

  3

  Rochford

  1

  Southend on Sea

  2

  Tendering

  3

  Thurrock

  5

  Uttlesford

  0

  Gloucestershire

  11

  Cheltenham

  1

  Cotswold

  3

  Forest of Dean

  1

  Gloucester

  2

  Stroud

  3

  Tewkesbury

  1

  Hampshire

  70

  Basingstoke and Deane

  4

  East Hampshire

  2

  Eastleigh

  6

  Fareham

  2

  Gosport

  1

  Hart

  3

  Havant

  8

  New Forest

  5

  Portsmouth

  13

  Rushmoor

  3

  Southampton

  16

  Test Valley

  6

  Winchester

  1

  Hereford and Worcester

  14

  Bromsgrove

  3

  Hereford

  1

  Leonminster

  0

  Malvern Hills

  0

  Redditch

  2

  South Herefordshire

  1

  Worcester

  0

  Wychavon

  4

  Wyre Forest

  3

  Hertfordshire

  21

  Broxbourne

  0

  Dacorum

  4

  East Hertfordshire

  0

  Hertsmere

  4

  North Hertfordshire

  3

  St. Albans

  2

  Stevenage

  1

  Three Rivers

  2

  Watford

  1

  Welwyn Hatfield

  4

  Humberside

  22

  Beverley

  7

  Boothferry

  2

  Cleethorpes

  3

  Glanford

  3

  Great Grimsby

  1

  Holderness

  1

  Kingston upon Hull

  4

  East Yorkshire

  0

  Scunthrope

  1

  Isle of Wight

  5

  Medina

  4

  South Wight

  1

  Kent

  54

  Ashford

  5

  208

  Table 1: Mesothelloma deaths in Great Britain 1995 by local authority

  County/Local authority

  Mesothelloma deaths 1995

  Canterbury

  5

  Dartford

  5

  Dover

  4

  Gillingham

  2

  Gravesham

  3

  Maidstone

  4

  Rochester upon Medway

  13

  Sevenoaks

  2

  Shepway

  1

  Swale

  3

  Thanet

  4

  Tonbridge and Mailing

  3

  Tunbridge Wells

  0

  Lancashire

  32

  Blackburn

  7

  Blackpool

  4

  Burnley

  0

  Chorley

  1

  Fylde

  4

  Hyndburn

  1

  Lancaster

  1

  Pendle

  0

  Preston

  4

  Ribble Valley

  1

  Rossendale

  1

  South Ribble

  3

  West Lancashire

  3

  Wyre

  2

  Leicestershire

  9

  Blaby

  0

  Charnwood

  0

  Harborough

  1

  Hinckley and Bosworth

  2

  Leicester

  3

  Melton

  1

  North West Leicester

  0

  Oadby and Wigston

  1

  Rutland

  1

  Lincolnshire

  8

  Boston

  1

  East Lindsey

  0

  Lincoln

  1

  North Kesteven

  2

  South Holland

  1

  South Kesteven

  1

  West Lindsey

  2

  Norfolk

  23

  Breckland

  4

  Broadland

  6

  Great Yarmouth

  3

  North Norfolk

  3

  Norwich

  2

  South Norfolk

  3

  Kings Lynn and West Norfolk

  2

  Northamptonshire

  15

  Corby

  3

  Daventry

  0

  East Northants

  2

  Kettering

  0

  Northampton

  4

  South Northants

  2

  Wellingborough

  4

  Northumberland

  7

  Ainwick

  2

  Berwick upon Tweed

  1

  209

  Table 1: Mesothelloma deaths in Great Britain 1995 by local authority

  County/Local authority

  Mesothelloma deaths 1995

  Blyth Valley

  1

  Castle Morpeth

  1

  Tynedale

  1

  Wansbeck

  1

  North Yorkshire

  14

  Craven

  0

  Hambleton

  0

  Harrogate

  3

  Richmond

  0

  Ryedale

  3

  Scarborough

  3

  Selby

  0

  York

  5

  Nottinghamshire

  31

  Ashfield

  1

  Bassetlaw

  2

  Broxtowe

  2

  Gedling

  5

  Mansfield

  3

  Newark and Sherwood

  6

  Nottingham

  5

  Rushcliffe

  7

  Oxfordshire

  12

  Cherwell

  2

  Oxford

  1

  South Oxfordshire

  1

  Vale of White Horses

  4

  West Oxfordshire

  4

  Shropshire

  2

  Bridgnorth

  0

  North Shropshire

  1

  Oswestry

  0

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  1

  South Shropshire

  0

  The Wrekin

  0

  Somerset

  5

  Mendip

  0

  Sedgemoor

  2

  Taunton Deane

  0

  West Somerset

  0

  South Somerset

  3

  Staffordshire

  18

  Cannock Chase

  4

  East Staffordshire

  3

  Lichfield

  2

  Newcastle-Under-Lyme

  1

  South Staffordshire

  0

  Stafford

  3

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  0

  Stoke on Trent

  4

  Tamworth

  1

  Suffolk

  11

  Babergh

  5

  Forest Heath

  0

  Ipswich

  3

  Mid Suffolk

  1

  St. Edmundsbury

  2

  Suffolk Coastal

  0

  Waveney

  0

  Surrey

  18

  Elmbridge

  1

  Epsom and Ewell

  1

  Guildford

  0

  210

  Table 1: Mesothelloma deaths in Great Britain 1995 by local authority

  County/Local authority

  Mesothelloma deaths 1995

  Ipswich

  2

  Mole Valley

  2

  Reigate and Banstead

  3

  Runnymeade

  2

  Spelthorne

  3

  Surrey Heath

  0

  Tandridge

  3

  Waverley

  1

  Woking

  0

  Warwickshire

  8

  North Warwickshire

  1

  Nuneaton and Bedworth

  2

  Rugby

  1

  Stratford on Avon

  1

  Warwick

  3

  West Sussex

  18

  Adur

  1

  Arun

  3

  Chichester

  3

  Crawley

  3

  Horsham

  4

  Mid Sussex

  2

  Worthing

  2

  Wiltshire

  10

  Kennet

  0

  North Wiltshire

  1

  Salisbury

  2

  Thamesdown

  5

  West Wiltshire

  2

  Clwyd

  7

  Alyn and Deeside

  0

  Colwyn

  0

  Delyn

  2

  Glyndwr

  2

  Rhuddlan

  1

  Wrexham Maelor

  2

  Dyfed

  9

  Carmarthen

  1

  Ceredigion

  1

  Grampian

  9

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Strangford-Portaferry Ferry Service
  Mr. McGrady
  To Ask the secretary of state for northern Ireland what progress has been made on the replacement of the MV Portaferry vessel used on the Strangford-Portaferry service. [15667]

  Mr.Paul Murphy
  responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Roads Service under its Chief Executive Mr.W. McCoubrey. I Have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from V. Crawford to Mr. Eddie McGrady dated 17 November 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked the chief Executive to respond to your recently tabled Parliamentary question about progress on the replacement of the MV Portaferry vessel used on the Strangford Lough ferry service. In Mr McCoubrey's absence, I am replying.
  211
  Invitation to Negotiate documents were issued on 4 July 1997 to 4 companies who prequalified under the Private Finance Initiative process. Three of the companies subsequently withdrew from the bidding process although we are confident the remaining company will submit its bid by the due return date in December 1997. Assuming this bid represents value for money against the public sector comparator, we expect that the contract for the operation of the ferry service will be awarded in the Spring of 1998 with the replacement ferry becoming available about a year later. The timing of the replacement vessel will depend on whether a refurbished or new ferry is to be provided.
  I hope you find this information helpful.

  Roads Schemes
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on changes in policy in relation to the funding of major road schemes in Northern Ireland since 1 May.[15676]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Roads Service under its chief executive, Mr. W. McCoubrey. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from V. Crawford to Mr. Eddie McGrady, dated 17 November 1997 The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked the Chief Executive to respond to your recently tabled Parliamentary Question about changes in policy in relation to the funding of major road schemes since I May. In Mr McCoubrey's absence I am replying.

  Funding allocated to road maintenance in each Division of Road Service has, for the period in question been as follows:

  Road maintenance

  Expenditure in £000's

  Financial Year

  Ballymena

  Belfast

  Coleraine

  Craigavon

  Downpatrick

  Omagh

  1987–88

  6,195

  9,217

  5,404

  7,813

  9,166

  8,605

  1988–89

  6,275

  9,583

  6,261

  8,477

  9,298

  9,541

  1989–90

  7,272

  11,044

  7,019

  9,015

  10,438

  10,739

  1990–91

  7,792

  11,142

  7,734

  10,259

  10,903

  12,101

  1991–92

  7,350

  11,195

  7,727

  9,842

  10,465

  11,398

  1992–93

  7,815

  10,993

  8,065

  10,162

  10,345

  12,513

  1993–94

  7,134

  10,762

  7,699

  9,893

  10,202

  12,640

  1994–95

  7,903

  12,619

  8,495

  11,236

  11,540

  14,484

  1995–96

  10,524

  15,255

  10,998

  13,990

  13,356

  19,472

  1996–97

  10,957

  14,796

  10,792

  14,667

  12,368

  19,335

  All figures relate to maintenance of roads. Operation and maintenance costs of street lighting and car parks not included.

  Figures from 1995–96 are inclusive of supervisory and other indirect administrative costs not previously apportioned on a Divisional basis.

  Funding allocated to major road (i.e. Works costing over £200,000) in each Division of Roads Service, for the Period in question, has been as follows:

  Major road works

  Expenditure in £000s

  Financial year

  HQ1

  Ballymena

  Belfast

  Coleraine

  Craigavon

  Downpatrick

  Omagh

  1987–88

  690

  1,071

  3,169

  1,821

  1,784

  890

  793

  1988–89

  1,755

  3,063

  1,999

  986

  1,844

  1,827

  694

  1989–90

  100

  1,895

  6,510

  1,298

  1,233

  2,217

  3,144

  1990–91

  35

  1,518

  4,991

  1,091

  1,313

  2,782

  3,379

  1991–92

  —

  2,308

  8,430

  1,813

  2,807

  2,982

  1,600

  212
  There have been no changes to the policy of funding major roads schemes in Northern Ireland since 1 May 1997. With the level of funding available for major road works being severely restricted, the policy remains that the only schemes being promoted are those which are being carried out under the Private Finance Initiative.
  You will be aware that the Government is carrying out a fundamental review of transport policy and intends to issue a White Paper on an Integrated Transport Policy next year. This will be complemented by a policy statement on transport in Northern Ireland. The Government is also undertaking a Comprehensive Spending Review also to be completed next year. Both reviews have the potential to change the policy of funding major roads schemes.
  I hope you find this information helpful.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what has been the funding allocation to the maintenance programme in each roads division in each year from 1 April 1987 to 31 March 1997; [15668]

  (2) what has been the funding allocation to major and minor roads schemes in each roads division in each year from 1 April 1987 to 31 March 1997.[15669]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Roads Service under its Chief Executive Mr. W. McCoubrey. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from V. Crawford to Mr. Eddie McGrady, dated 17 November 1997

  The Secretary of State has asked the Chief Executive to respond to your recently tabled Parliamentary Questions about the funding allocation to the major road works, minor road works and road maintenance programmes in each Roads Division in each of the last 10 years from 1 April 1987 to 31 March 1997. In Mr. McCoubrey's absence I am replying.
  The information is set out in the attached tables. I hope you find this information helpful.
  213

  Major road works

  Expenditure in £000s

  Financial year

  HQ1

  Ballymena

  Belfast

  Coleraine

  Craigavon

  Downpatrick

  Omagh

  1992–93

  —

  706

  7,759

  1,634

  377

  1,744

  1,646

  1993–94

  —

  1,846

  12,679

  1,586

  1,368

  888

  300

  1994–95

  —

  1,526

  11,231

  1,291

  4,571

  521

  814

  1995–962

  —

  605

  7,421

  748

  7,385

  880

  2,724

  1996–97

  126

  2,631

  7,455

  288

  2,628

  1,744

  1,882

  1 Relates to schemes handled centrally.

  2 Figures from 1995–96 are inclusive of supervisory and other indirect administrative costs not previously apportioned on a Divisional basis.

  Funding allocated to minor road works(ie works costing less than £200,000) in each Division of Roads Service has, for the period in question, been as follows:

  Minor Road Works

  Expenditure in £000s

  Financial year

  Ballymena

  Belfast

  Coleraine

  Craigavon

  Downpatrick

  Omagh

  1987–88

  1,341

  1,480

  1,271

  1,174

  1,401

  1,382

  1988–89

  1,078

  1,399

  1,147

  1,057

  1,307

  1,306

  1989–90

  1,372

  1,656

  1,450

  1,422

  1,338

  1,555

  1990–91

  1,441

  1,878

  1,449

  1,791

  1,552

  1,653

  1991–92

  1,292

  1,510

  1,285

  1,430

  1,282

  1,284

  1992–93

  1,273

  2,022

  1,629

  1,636

  1,630

  1,638

  1993–94

  2,272

  2,568

  2,612

  2,629

  2,398

  2,471

  1994–95

  2,383

  2,821

  2,477

  2,686

  2,315

  2,448

  1995–961

  2,765

  2,737

  2,708

  2,795

  2,919

  3,301

  1996–97

  2,248

  2,716

  2,245

  3,275

  2,274

  2,346

  1 Figures from 1995–96 are inclusive of supervisory and other indirect administrative costs not previously apportioned on a Divisional basis.

  Gas Market
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what preparations have been made to expand the gas market throughout Northern Ireland. [15666]

  Mr. Ingram
  Further extension of the gas market depends on private sector investment. To assist possible future development Government are facilitating a feasibility study into extension of the gas industry to the North West of Northern Ireland and have participated in a feasibility study into Northern Ireland-Republic of Ireland gas interconnection.

  Driving Disqualifications
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the application of driving disqualifications imposed in Great Britain on Northern Ireland driving licence holders. [13018]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Separate legislation governs the issue of driving licences in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland. There is mutual recognition throughout the United Kingdom of driving licences issued under both jurisdictions, however, there is no provision in the legislation for a driving disqualification incurred in one jurisdiction to be recognised in the other. Accordingly, a Northern Ireland driving licence holder disqualified in Great Britain cannot drive there, but can continue to drive in Northern Ireland. The reverse is also the case. This situation has obvious road safety implications for Great Britain and Northern Ireland and its resolution will require primary legislation to apply to both jurisdictions. It is intended to take this forward at the earliest opportunity.
  214

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Deportations
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many non-United Kingdom citizen parents of United Kingdom citizens were deported from the United Kingdom in each of the last five years.[15819]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Reliable information about the citizenship of the children of persons subject to deportation action can be obtained only through examination of individual case records. I regret that the information requested is, therefore, available only at disproportionate cost.

  Animal Boarding Establishments
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which local authorities have implemented the model licensing conditions for animal boarding establishments, issued in October 1995. [15822]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Information on which of the 414 local and unitary authorities in England and Wales have adopted the voluntary model licence conditions is not available.

  Attacks at Work
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate for the last three years of the number of employees who have been subject to attacks at work; and if he will make a statement.[16104]
  215
  Mr. Michael
  The 1996 British Crime Survey (BCS) estimates that there were 770,000 incidents of violence against people who were at work in 1995. The BCS is conducted on a biennial basis, so there are no figures available for 1994 or 1996.

  The Health and Safety Executive commissioned a series of questions in the Office for National Statistics August and October 1995 Omnibus surveys. This included questions on violence at work. Six per cent. of male workers and eight per cent. of female workers reported that they had been attacked by a member of the public in their current job. Half of these respondents had been attacked between one and four times in the last 12 months, a further 10 per cent. had been attacked at least five times in the same period. Just over a third of nurses and a quarter of security and protective services staff reported being attacked by a member of the public while in their job. Care workers and "other educational and welfare workers" (not teachers) also reported significantly higher rates than average. The full results of this survey were published on 13 November 1997 in "Self-reported working conditions in 1995".

  Laser Pens
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) cases and (b) arrests his Department has recorded in respect of police officers being assaulted with laser pens.[15922]

  Mr. Michael
  It is not possible to ascertain from the information collected centrally how many recorded offences or arrests involved the use of laser pens. Any injury or attempted injury to a police officer, irrespective of how it is inflicted, is a very serious matter and the police have my full support in acting against the perpetrator. I have invited the Superintendents' Association, which has expressed particular concerns, to provide information about the experience of their members and will keep the problem under review in the light of any evidence from police sources and elsewhere.

  Police Complaints
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cost of the Metropolitan Police Complaints and Discipline department in the current year.[16128]

  Mr. Michael
  The Commissioner tells me that the Metropolitan Police's Complaints Investigation Bureau's (CIB) budget for the year 1997–98 is £6,040,000. However, during the year CIB has taken on additional police officers as part of its move to a more proactive role and it is now forecast to cost £7,128,000.

  The Commissioner tells me that the provisional budgetary estimates of the five Area Complaints Units are:

  1 Area: £996,000

  2 Area: £1,622,000

  3 Area: £1,280,000

  4 Area: £1,459,000

  5 Area: £1,413,000

  Total: £6,770,000.

  These figures are in addition to the figure for the CIB.
  216

  Police Investigations (Perjury)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average cost of a police investigation into an alleged perjury.[15974]

  Mr. Michael
  The cost of any police investigation, including perjury, varies according to the nature of the investigation and the details involved, for example the length of the investigation, the number and rank of officers involved, how many defendants there are and whether they plead guilty.

  Information on the average cost of perjury investigations is not collected centrally.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy in respect of the faxing of press releases on the day of release to Opposition party spokesmen; what changes have been introduced since 1 May; and if he will make a statement.[16289]

  Mr. Straw
  My Department faxes all press releases to main Opposition spokesmen as a matter of course. The only changes introduced since 1 May relate to the names of the Opposition spokesmen designated to receive press releases.

  Young Offenders' Institutions
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the young offenders' institutions.[16183]

  Ms Quin
  We are currently reviewing the juvenile secure estate, including Young Offender Institutions (YOIs), as part of the Government's comprehensive spending review. The Prison Service is also reviewing regime provision for juveniles held in its care.

  Young Offenders
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders between the ages of 16 and 21 years are currently in prison.[16180]

  Ms Quin
  On 30 September 1997, there were 10,487 offenders aged from 16 and under 21 years of age, held in custody in Prison Service establishments.

  HMYOI Castington
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to address (i) the lack of female officers, (ii) the delays in the Lifer Management Unit at Prison Service Headquarters, (iii) the lack of a staff mess and (iv) the inadequacy of health care provision identified by the Chief Inspector of Prisons at HMYOI Castington.[16500]

  Ms Quin
  The Governor of Castington has submitted a draft action plan addressing all the recommendations made by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons. This is being considered by the Prison Service Operational Director responsible for Castington and must be finalised within 30 working days after publication of the report.
  217
  One female officer has already transferred to Castington and postings for two more female staff have been arranged to take place shortly.

  A reorganisation of the Lifer Management Unit is taking place and they are working with the Crown Prosecution Service to reduce delays.

  Staff at Castington can use the officers' mess facility at Acklington which is on the opposite side of the road.

  The area healthcare advisor responsible for Castington has reviewed the healthcare service and his report will be completed by the end of November.

  Prisons (Drug Workers)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many full-time mandatory drug testing officers are operating in prisons; and if he will make a statement. [16536]

  Ms Quin
  Mandatory drug testing (MDT) of prisoners takes place in all prisons. However, it is not possible to identify the exact number of officers involved because, although in some larger establishments full-time MDT teams exist, in small establishments MDT work is often combined with other duties.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug workers operate in prisons; and if he will make a statement. [16542]

  Ms Quin
  There are 110 community drug workers operating within 63 centrally funded drug treatment projects. These are in addition to a variety of Prison Service staff who are engaged in drug treatment work.

  The Prison Service is currently reviewing its strategy to tackle drug misuse in prison. In part, the review will be examining how best drug treatment programmes can be made available in the future, including the development of a national directory of drug treatment services that establishments can utilise.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to outlaw the testing on animals of ingredients intended for inclusion in cosmetic products. [16452]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We announced on 6 November that the Government wish to see an end to the testing of ingredients used in the types of cosmetics which could be classified as "vanity" products.

  The definition of "cosmetics" in the European Directive goes beyond such "vanity" products and includes, for example, sun creams, anti-caries toothpaste and wart remover. Indeed, some products classed as cosmetics in Europe would be considered to be pharmaceuticals in other parts of the world. We do not intend to compromise consumer safety by banning the testing of such products until suitable alternative tests have been validated.

  We are consulting with the Animal Procedures Committee, industry and other interest groups about the definition of "vanity" products and how to differentiate their ingredients from others used more widely. A decision on whether a ban on ingredient testing can be introduced and, if so, in what form, will then be taken.
  218

  Telephone Tapping
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if British Telecom is required to be shown a valid warrant by MI5 before a telephone tap is introduced at their request. [15719]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 17 November 1997]: Warrants are delivered directly to Public Telecommunications Operators by the Home Office, following signature by the Secretary of State. No interception may be commenced until the warrant has been signed.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure information gained by means of telephone tapping which is not connected with the specific matter under investigation is immediately destroyed. [15712]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 17 November 1997]: Section 6(3) of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 requires that each copy made of intercepted material obtained under a warrant for one of the reasons set out under section 2(2) of the Act should be destroyed as soon as its retention is no longer necessary for the purpose for which the warrant was issued. One of the tasks of the Interception Commissioner, currently Lord Nolan, is to review the adequacy of arrangements made to give effect to the obligations imposed by section 6.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many positively vetted telephone engineers are currently in the employ of British Telecom; and how many of these are under the direction of the Government and paid for by British Telecom. [15725]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 17 November 1997]: The vetting of British Telecom staff is a matter for British Telecom. All British Telecom engineers work under the direction of British Telecom.

  MI5
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what instructions he has issued to MI5 in respect of the retention or otherwise of files originally collated in pursuit of counter-subversion activities; [15723]

  (2) if he will undertake a review to establish what further information concerning, or held by, MI5 could be released for public scrutiny without damaging national security or prejudicing current criminal investigations. [15688]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 17 November 1997]: The Security Service keeps under review the records which it holds with a view to identifying information which might be released for public scrutiny, and destroying records which it no longer needs to retain in order to fulfil its statutory responsibilities. For some time, the Service has been taking steps to place more information in the public domain and to select for destruction records which are no longer required. I have emphasised to the Director General the importance I place on both aspects.

  On 17 November, records relating to the activities of the Service up to 1918 were released to the Public Records Office, and there are plans for further releases to follow. The Service has also released current information about itself in the form of two editions of a booklet published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
  219

  Intelligence Services Act (Warrants)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 3 November 1997,Official Report, column 25, on how many occasions in 1996 a civil servant issued a warrant under section 4(1)(b) and section 6(1)(b) of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 and section 6(1)(b) of the Security Service Act 1989. [15722]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 17 November 1997]: In 1996, 74 warrants were issued under section 4(1)(b) of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 by senior officials of my Department acting upon the express authority of the Secretary of State because of the urgency of the application. It would not be in the public interest to provide figures in relation to warrants issued under the Intelligence Services Act 1994.

  Prison Staff (Pensions)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of terms and conditions of the pensions of(a) the privatised staff at workshops at HMP Coldingly and (b) those remaining within the Prison Service. [16550]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 18 November 1997]: The Government Actuary has examined the pension terms offered by Wackenhut United Kingdom Limited to the staff now employed by the company in the workshops at Coldingley prison. He has issued a statement to the effect that the Wackenhut pension scheme offered to these staff is broadly comparable with the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme in respect of service after the date of transfer.

  The trade unions have made representations about that decision and these representations are currently being considered by the Government Actuary.

  Prison Service Advisory Board
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the employment of non-executive members of the Prison Service Enterprise Board as consultants for Wakenhut UK. [16551]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 18 November 1997]: There is no Prison Service Enterprise Board. Regime Services, the section of the Prison Service's Central Services concerned with work, education and offending behaviour programmes in prisons, has an advisory board with two non-executive members. Neither of them has any connection with, or has had any dealings with, Wackenhut United Kingdom.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he had made of the arguments advanced in respect of the treatment of Iraqis on the "Call Robin Lustig" radio programme on 11 November, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement. [16028]
  220
  Mr. Fatchett
  We have seen a transcript of the radio programme and noted with interest the wide variety of opinions that were expressed about Iraq.

  We continue to pursue a diplomatic solution to the stand-off with Iraq but Saddam Hussein must back down from his attempt to undermine Security Council resolutions. He must unconditionally resume co-operation with Unscom and comply with all relevant SCRs.

  Departmental Information
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the internal departmental guidance on the dissemination of information; and if he will make a statement. [16316]

  Mr. Fatchett
  There is no written departmental guidance on the dissemination of information. As much public information as possible is made available via this Department's website (http://www.fco.gov.uk/), which is updated several times daily with the latest news and information material.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy in respect of the faxing of press releases on the day of release to Opposition party spokesmen; what changes have been introduced since 1 May; and if he will make a statement. [16315]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office Bulletin is faxed daily to Opposition party spokesmen if they request it. There has been no change in policy since 1 May. The text is also available on this Department's website and the Parliamentary On-Line Information Service (POLIS).

  Structural and Cohesion Funds
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy in future discussions with the Commission and other member states to press for the continuation of structural and cohesion funds for all present eligible United Kingdom areas after 1999. [16538]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We believe that reform of the Structural and Cohesion Funds is necessary to make them more effective, provide better value for money and meet the challenge of enlargement. All existing member states will eventually have to expect reductions in receipts if costs are to be contained. We are working hard to ensure that UK regions do not suffer disproportionate cuts. Any regions which no longer meet the existing criteria should benefit from transitional support for a limited period to help them adapt to their new situation.

  Amsterdam Treaty (Non-discrimination Legislation)
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on the introduction of European Union non-discrimination legislation under Article 6(a) of the Treaty of Amsterdam covering areas not currently covered by United Kingdom legislation. [16492]
  221
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We will consider each proposal for legislation under Article 6a of the Treaty of Amsterdam on its merits when it is brought forward.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make it his policy to refuse to agree to any European Union non-discrimination legislation under Article 6(a) of the Treaty of Amsterdam which provides a lower standard of protection against discrimination than is already provided by United Kingdom legislation; [16497]

  (2) if Her Majesty's Government will, during its European Union Presidency, ask the Commission to commence drafting European Union non-discrimination legislation under Article 6(a) of the Treaty of Amsterdam. [16498]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Commission will not be able to bring forward any proposals for legislation under Article 6a of the Treaty of Amsterdam until ratification is complete. The UK will consider each measure on its individual merit. All proposals must be agreed by unanimity.

  Algeria
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about the situation in Algeria; and if he will make a statement. [16559]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have received numerous representations from NGOs and from members of the public in the United Kingdom expressing concern about the situation in Algeria.

  We share the widespread revulsion at events in Algeria and continue to be seriously concerned about the security situation there. We condemn the violence unreservedly and call on those responsible to end the appalling atrocities. The scope for international action is limited; we believe that more will be achieved through quiet diplomacy. We urge the Algerian Government and all interested parties to find an early solution to this major internal problem and encourage the government to continue along the democratic path.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it a condition of Spain's entry into full membership of NATO that both civil and military aircraft using Gibraltar airport are allowed to overfly Spanish airspace. [16666]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Civilian aircraft using Gibraltar airport routinely overfly Spanish airspace in accordance with the Chicago Convention. Military overflights are one element in our discussions with Spain in the NATO context.

  Turkey (EU Membership)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to oppose the application by Turkey to join the European Union and if he will make a statement. [16677]
  222
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  No. We believe that Turkey's application to join the European Union should be judged by the same criteria as other applicants' applications.

PRIME MINISTER

  Public Transport
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to improve public transport in rural areas. [15135]

  The Prime Minister
  The need to enhance rural public transport services is being addressed in the fundamental review of transport policy. Our proposals for enhancing public transport services, including those in rural areas, will be set out in the forthcoming White Paper on transport policy.

  Engagements
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 19 November. [15133]

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 19 November. [15137]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I shall have further meetings later today.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Housing Benefit
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households have had housing benefit restrictions imposed on them in each of the last three years(a) in total and (b) in each London borough. [14815]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is in the tables.

  Number of households with housing benefit restrictions

  Financial year

  Number of households (GB)

  1994–95

  269,000

  1995–96

  321,000

  1996–97

  439,000

  Number of households with housing benefit restrictions in each London borough

  Local authority

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Barking and Dagenham

  1,000

  1,000

  2,000

  Barnet

  1,000

  2,000

  3,000

  Bexley

  1—

  1,000

  1,000

  Brent

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  Bromley

  1,000

  1,000

  1,000

  City

  0

  1—

  1—

  Camden

  2,000

  2,000

  2,000

  Croydon

  2,000

  2,000

  3,000

  Ealing

  3,000

  4,000

  4,000

  Enfield

  2,000

  2,000

  3,000

  Greenwich

  1,000

  1,000

  1,000

  223

  Number of households with housing benefit restrictions in each London borough

  Local authority

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Hackney

  4,000

  4,000

  4,000

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,000

  2,000

  1,000

  Haringey

  6,000

  7,000

  8,000

  Harrow

  1,000

  1,000

  2,000

  Havering

  1,000

  1,000

  1,000

  Hillingdon

  1—

  1,000

  1,000

  Hounslow

  1,000

  2,000

  3,000

  Islington

  2,000

  2,000

  2,000

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,000

  1,000

  2,000

  Kingston upon Thames

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Lambeth

  3,000

  3,000

  2—

  Lewisham

  3,000

  4,000

  4,000

  Merton

  1,000

  2,000

  2,000

  Newham

  6,000

  7,000

  9,000

  Redbridge

  3,000

  3,000

  5,000

  Richmond on Thames

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Southwark

  1—

  1,000

  2,000

  Sutton

  1—

  1—

  1,000

  Tower Hamlets

  1,000

  1,000

  2,000

  Waltham Forest

  3,000

  3,000

  5,000

  Wandsworth

  2,000

  3,000

  3,000

  Westminster

  5,000

  5,000

  4,000

  Great Britain

  269,000

  321,000

  439,000

  1 There were less than 500 restrictions in the borough during the given year.

  2 Figures for Lambeth are not yet available for 1996–97.

  1. Figures have been estimated using Rent Officer Statistics, the Housing Benefit Management Information System quarterly 100 per cent. caseload enquiry and Rent Allowance expenditure information, collected on annual subsidy claim forms from Local Authorities.

  2. Caseloads have been rounded to the nearest 1,000 households.

  3. Housing benefit restrictions are taken to mean rent restrictions. Single room rent restrictions have not been included due to insufficient reliable data.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total estimated saving arising from restrictions on housing benefit(a) in total and (b) for each London borough in each of the last three financial years. [14814]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is in the tables.

  Total estimated savings arising from housing benefit restrictions

  Financial year

  Total estimated saving (GB) (£ million per annum)

  1994–95

  245

  1995–96

  275

  1996–97

  360

  Total estimated savings from housing benefit restrictions by London borough

  £ million

  Local authority

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Barking and Dagenham

  1.5

  1.5

  1.5

  Barnet

  2.0

  1.0

  3.0

  Bexley

  0.5

  0.5

  1.0

  Brent

  6.0

  5.0

  5.0

  Bromley

  0.5

  1.0

  1.0

  City

  0

  1—

  1—

  Camden

  2.0

  2.0

  3.0

  Croydon

  2.5

  2.0

  3.5

  Ealing

  3.5

  4.0

  4.5

  Enfield

  2.5

  3.0

  4.0

  Greenwich

  0.5

  1.0

  1.5

  224

  Total estimated savings from housing benefit restrictions by London borough

  £ million

  Local authority

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Hackney

  7.0

  7.5

  6.5

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2.0

  2.5

  1.5

  Haringey

  9.0

  9.5

  11.5

  Harrow

  1.0

  1.5

  2.0

  Havering

  0.5

  0.5

  1.0

  Hillingdon

  0.5

  1.0

  1.5

  Hounslow

  1.0

  2.5

  4.0

  Islington

  2.0

  2.5

  2.5

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2.0

  2.5

  3.5

  Kingston upon Thames

  1—

  0.5

  0.5

  Lambeth

  3.0

  4.0

  2—

  Lewisham

  3.0

  5.0

  4.5

  Merton

  1.5

  1.5

  1.5

  Newham

  8.0

  8.5

  11.5

  Redbridge

  3.0

  3.5

  5.0

  Richmond on Thames

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  Southwark

  0.5

  1.5

  1.5

  Sutton

  1—

  1—

  0.5

  Tower Hamlets

  1.5

  1.5

  2.0

  Waltham Forest

  5.0

  4.0

  5.0

  Wandsworth

  2.5

  3.0

  3.0

  Westminster

  14.5

  13.0

  9.0

  Great Britain

  243.5

  277.0

  358.5

  1 There were less than 500 restrictions in the borough during the given year or less than £250,000 worth of savings.

  2 Figures for Lambeth are not yet available for 1996–97.

  1. Figures have been estimated using Rent Officer Statistics, the Housing Benefit Management Information System quarterly 100 per cent. caseload enquiry and Rent Allowance expenditure information, collected on annual subsidy claim forms from local authorities.

  2. Estimated savings have been rounded to the nearest £5 million for Great Britain and to the nearest £500,000 for London boroughs.

  3. Housing benefit restrictions have been taken to mean rent restrictions. Single room rent restrictions (from October 1996) have not been included as sufficient reliable data is not yet available.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households with(a) children aged under 18 years and (b) other vulnerable members were subject to housing benefit restrictions in each of the last three years. [14816]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information requested was not collected prior to 1996–97. The estimated number of households with dependent children under age 18, who were subject to housing benefit restrictions in 1996–97, was 60,000. The number of households with other vulnerable members, who were subject to housing benefit restrictions for this period is estimated to be negligible.

  Note:
  The figure does not take account of Local Authority discretionary payments.

  Source:
  Rent Officer Statistics, the Housing Benefit Management Information System annual 1 per cent. sample enquiries and Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Summary Statistics 1997.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households in receipt of income support were subject to housing benefit restrictions in each of the last three years; and what was the average value of the restriction. [14818]
  225
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is in the table.

  Financial year

  Number of households (GB)

  Average housing benefit restriction (£p.w.)

  1994–95

  207,000

  17.00

  1995–96

  248,000

  17.00

  1996–97

  328,000

  16.00

  1. Figures have been estimated using Rent Officer Statistics, the housing benefit Management Information System quarterly 100 per cent. caseload enquiry and Rent Allowance expenditure information, collected on annual subsidy claim forms from local authorities.

  2. Caseloads have been rounded to the nearest 1,000 households.

  3. Housing benefit restrictions have been taken to mean rent restrictions. Single room rent restrictions (from October 1996) have not been included as sufficient reliable data is not yet available.

  Student Loans
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the total value of the loans granted for support of students which have been treated as income for the purposes of calculating income support entitlement in each of the financial years since April 1991; and how many students have been affected. [15325]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is not available.

  Income Support is not normally paid to students. In those limited circumstances where it is payable, information on student loans is not identified separately from other forms of income.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Gibbs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to review the jobseeker's allowance. [15756]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Government believe that work is the best form of welfare for people of working age. Our Welfare to Work objectives are to provide work incentives, to reduce poverty and welfare dependency and to strike a new balance between rights and responsibilities. A programme of monitoring and evaluation is under way to enable us to ensure that jobseeker's allowance contributes to achieving our objectives.

  Income Support (Disabled Claimants)
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims for income support were originally refused because of non-receipt of disability living allowance or attendance allowance but which when re-submitted subsequently after receipt of disability living allowance or attendance allowance were successful within (i) three, (ii) four, (iii) five and (iv) six months; and what was the total number of disabled claimants receiving income support in the years(a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96 and (c) 1996–97. [15454]
  226
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table.

  Total number of disabled income support claimants

  Number of claims

  1994–95

  722,000

  1995–96

  769,000

  1996–97

  809,000

  Notes:

  1. The number of income support claims which were originally refused but were successful on review following receipt of disability living allowance or attendance allowance is not available.

  2. Numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  3. Sample size 5 per cent. Figures may be subject to a degree of sampling error.

  4. Disabled are defined as those claimants receiving the disability premium.

  5. Jobseeker's allowance replaced income support for the unemployed in October 1996.

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiries February 1995 to February 1997.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Justices of the Peace
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many justices of the peace there were in 1980; how many there are now; and if he will make a statement. [15749]

  Mr. Hoon
  At 1 January 1980, there were 24,684 active justices of the peace in England and Wales; as at 1 January 1997, the figure was 30,374.

  Conditional Fees
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many representations he has received in favour of the extension of conditional fees; and if he will make a statement. [15748]

  Mr. Hoon
  My Department has had in the region of 30 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.

  Traditional Dress
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans the Lord Chancellor has to dispense with his traditional dress on what timescale; and if he will make a statement. [15758]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor is keen to modernise his traditional dress on ordinary workings days. This is, however, a matter for committees of the House of Lords to decide.
  227

DEFENCE

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will correct in the Official Report all ministerial answers to hon. Members in respect of Gulf war syndrome which his Department has now discovered to be inaccurate. [14707]

  Dr. Reid
  I am not aware of any answers given by Defence Ministers in this Administration to questions concerning Gulf veterans' illnesses which have been discovered to be incorrect.

  Fair Trade (Coffee and Tea)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the oral Statement by the Secretary of State for International Development,Official Report, 5 November, column 332, if he will instruct officials in his Department to serve coffee and tea furnished by suppliers who adhere to fair trade standards. [15488]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer the Prime Minister gave on 13 November 1997,Official Report, column 617. All procurement decisions in the Department are based on the Government's policy of value for money.

  Service Personnel (Exposure to Radiation)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 22 July 1997,Official Report, columns 529–30, on exposure to radiation, when each of the six individuals received the doses of radiation; what work each of them was engaged in at the time; in what circumstances each of them received the doses; and if his Department has monitored the health of these individuals after they received these doses. [15553]

  Mr. Spellar
  I shall write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Exhibitions (China)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what support the United Kingdom Government is giving to United Kingdom companies planning to attend the International Defence Electronics Exhibition and the China Military Logistics Exhibition to be held in Beijing in May 1998. [16043]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Defence Export Service Organisation is aware of both exhibitions and is encouraging British companies to participate where exhibiting their products is consistent with the UK interpretation of the EU embargo on defence sales to China and our usual criteria governing all defence exports.

  Communications Cables
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Defence if he will make a statement on the laying of communications cables by the Government or government agencies in the early 1970s in the Barents Sea in the vicinity of the North Cape Bank. [16691]
  228
  Dr. Reid
  The Ministry of Defence did not lay cables in the Barents Sea either in the 1970s, or at any other time. Nor am I aware of any cables laid by any other UK Government organisation.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of experiments carried out on animals at(a) Porton Down and (b) other DERA establishments in 1995 would now be prohibited by the Government's announced ban on weapons testing. [16454]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Norman Baker, dated 19 November 1997:
  I have been asked to respond to your question about experiments carried out by DERA for the purpose of weapons testing.
  DERA does not use animals to develop or evaluate weapons. All experiments undertaken by DERA for the Ministry of Defence involving the use of animals are concerned with the safety and protection of the UK Armed Forces.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by category the experiments carried out on animals at(a) Porton Down and (b) other DERA establishments in 1995. [16455]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Norman Baker, dated 19 November 1997:
  I have been asked to respond to your question about the category of experiments involving animals within DERA.
  Within DERA, two areas hold Home Office Project Licences to carry out tests on animals, the Chemical and Biological Defence Sector (CBD) at Porton Down and the Environmental Sciences Department at Alverstoke. In 1995 CBD held thirty five Home Office Project Licences for animal experimentation, of which six were classified as substantial, twenty as moderate, five as mild and four as unclassified. The Environmental Sciences Department held one project licence classified as moderate.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) viruses, (b) bacteria and (c) other pathogens tested on animals in (i) Porton Down and (ii) other DERA establishments in 1995. [16456]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Norman Baker, dated 19 November 1997:
  I have been asked to respond to your question about viruses, bacteria and other pathogens tested on animals in DERA establishments.
  DERA does not test viruses, bacteria or other pathogens on animals for any offensive purposes. All experiments undertaken by DERA for the Ministry of Defence involving the use of animals are concerned with the safety and protection of the UK Armed Forces.

  229
  The research programme carried out by the Chemical and Biological Defence Sector (CBD) at Porton Down does include work on new or improved vaccines and medical countermeasures. It would not be in the interest of national security to release details of the specific microganisms involved in this research programme.
  I am sorry I cannot be more helpful on this occasion.

  E-mail
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary for Defence pursuant to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's answer on 10 November 1997,Official Report, column 441, if he will list the e-mail addresses of (a) Ministers, (b) senior officials and (c) chief executives of agencies for which he is responsible. [15872]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 13 November 1997]: The official MOD website at www.mod.uk provides the postal address for the Ministers' Correspondence Unit (Room 6140, MOD Main Building, Whitehall, London SWIA 2HB), which is a central distribution point for all correspondence addressed to the Department, its Minsters, senior officials and the chief executives of its agencies. We are considering improvements to the Department's internet presence, including the provision of a central e-mail address.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Beef Industry
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he will take to promote awareness of the beef assurance scheme throughout the industry. [16654]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  I have no plans for any specific new measures to promote awareness of the Beef Assurance Scheme. When the scheme was set up the Agriculture Departments sent details of the scheme to every beef farmer in the country as well as to a wide range of organisations representing the farming and food industry. The scheme has, however, had a low uptake. There are currently only 73 members herds, spread across country.

  Agri-environment Schemes
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in increasing the percentage of agricultural land that is farmed under an agri-environment scheme. [16328]

  Mr. Morley
  We encourage applications under all our agri-environment schemes. In particular, we expect to approve this year some 1,300 applications under the Countryside Stewardship Scheme and almost 1,100 under the ESA scheme, with smaller numbers under the other existing schemes. Details of the area of land concerned are not yet available. In addition, a pilot Arable Stewardship scheme is being introduced in England at the beginning of 1998 to encourage arable farmers to manage their land in ways which will encourage wildlife.

  All schemes are subject to regular review and consideration is given to any practical suggestions for improving their uptake. The Government consult on their implementation with a wide range of interests.
  230
  For the future, the Government see a continuing, and ultimately increased, role for environmental incentive schemes as part of a reformed CAP.

  Departmental Information
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library a copy of the internal departmental guidance on the dissemination of information; and if he will make a statement. [16296]

  Mr. Morley
  I have made arrangements for copies of this guidance to be placed in the Library of the House. In keeping with the Department's commitment to the principles of open Government, this guidance has, for some time, been made available on request.

  Farming
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to encourage new entrants into farming; and if he will make a statement. [16329]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government appreciate the need to encourage new entrants to farming. The Department funds a number of measures to ensure that young people are aware of career opportunities in agriculture. These are provided through the MAFF contract with ATB-Landbase, the Industry Training Organisation for agriculture and commercial horticulture, through Sector Challenge and through a grant to the National Federation of Young Farmers' Clubs. We will also participate fully in the discussion due on the European Commission's report "Young Farmers and the Problem of Succession in European Agriculture".

TREASURY

  Charities
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress he has made in his review of the taxation of charities, with particular reference to charity shops and if he will make a statement. [15935]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Charities (including charity shops), businesses and other interested parties are contributing their suggestions on improvements to the existing taxation system for charities by the Review's deadline of 1 December 1997. The suggestions received will inform a public consultation document which is due to be published in Spring 1998.

  Tobacco Smuggling
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he will take to combat tobacco smuggling. [15943]

  Dawn Primarolo
  My right hon. Friend announced in his last Budget a review to look at the effect on the Exchequer and the industry of alcohol and tobacco fraud, smuggling and cross-border shopping. The review, which is being conducted in partnership with all the trade sectors
  231
  concerned and with key Government Departments, will report to me by the end of the year with options for dealing with these issues.

  European Space Vehicles
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the approximate total value of the 293 consignments of goods imported for the development and construction of European space vehicles during 1996–97, on which relief from customs duties was given, and the approximate value of duties forgone; in which countries these consignments originated; and for what reasons relief was given. [16077]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The European Space Agency was established as an International Organisation in 1978 and under the International Organisations Act 1968 receives exemption from customs duties, excise duties and VAT on the importation of goods imported by or on behalf of the Agency for its official activities.

  I regret that figures pertaining to the number, value, origin of consignments and extent of duties relieved for the development and construction of European space vehicles are not available in the form requested.

  Asbestosis
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were diagnosed to be suffering from asbestosis in(a) 1995 and (b) 1996 broken down by (i) parliamentary constituency and (ii) local authority unit. [16480]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Michael Clapham, dated 19 November 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply, as Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) to your recent question on the number of people diagnosed as suffering from asbestosis in 1995 and 1996, by parliamentary constituency and local authority unit.
  There are no registers kept on cases of asbestosis diagnosed whilst people are still alive. Data from Hospital Episode Statistics (Department of Health) are not suitable because they relate to the number of treatments rather than the number of individuals. The only information centrally available covers deaths from asbestosis in 1995 and 1996. This is in the tables below:

  Deaths from Asbestosis in England and Wales by local authority of residence, 1995

  County/Local authority

  Number

  Greater London

  9

  Barking and Dagenham LB

  1

  Harrow LB

  1

  Havering LB

  1

  Newham LB

  3

  Redbridge LB

  1

  Tower Hamlets LB

  1

  Westminster City of LB

  1

  232

  Deaths from Asbestosis in England and Wales by local authority of residence, 1995

  County/Local authority

  Number

  Merseyside

  5

  Liverpool MD

  1

  Wirral MD

  4

  South Yorkshire

  2

  Rotherham MD

  1

  Sheffield MD

  1

  Tyne and Wear

  5

  Gateshead MD

  1

  Newcastle upon Tyne MD

  1

  South Tyneside MD

  1

  Sunderland MD

  2

  West Midlands

  1

  Sandwell

  1

  West Yorkshire

  5

  Kirklees MD

  3

  Leeds MD

  2

  Cheshire

  2

  Crewe and Nantwich CD

  1

  Macclesfield CD

  1

  Cleveland

  5

  Hartlepool CD

  1

  Langbaurgh on Tees CD

  1

  Stockton on Tees CD

  3

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  1

  Caradon CD

  1

  Cumbria

  1

  Allerdale CD

  1

  Derbyshire

  3

  Bolsover CD

  1

  Chesterfield CD

  1

  Derbyshire Dales CD

  1

  Devon

  1

  Plymouth CD

  1

  Hampshire

  2

  Portsmouth CD

  1

  Southampton CD

  1

  Staffordshire

  1

  Stafford CD

  1

  Warwickshire

  1

  Warwickshire CD

  1

  Total

  44

  Deaths from Asbestosis in England and Wales by local authority of residence, 1996

  County/Local authority

  Number

  Greater London

  15

  Barking and Dagenham LB

  5

  Havering LB

  1

  Hillingdon LB

  1

  Lambeth LB

  1

  Newham LB

  4

  Redbridge LB

  1

  Southwark LB

  1

  Tower Hamlets LB

  1

  233

  Deaths from Asbestosis in England and Wales by local authority of residence, 1996

  County/Local authority

  Number

  Greater Manchester

  2

  Rochdale MD

  1

  Salford MD

  1

  Merseyside

  7

  Knowsley MD

  1

  Wirral MD

  6

  Tyne and Wear

  8

  Newcastle upon Tyne MD

  1

  North Tyneside MD

  3

  Sunderland MD

  4

  West Midlands

  1

  Walsall MD

  1

  West Yorkshire

  1

  Wakefield MD

  1

  Bedfordshire

  1

  South Bedfordshire CD

  1

  Cheshire

  2

  Crewe and Nantwich CD

  1

  Macclesfield CD

  1

  Cumbria

  1

  Barrow in Furness CD

  1

  Derbyshire

  1

  Erewash CD

  1

  Devon

  4

  Plymount CD

  3

  Torbay CD

  1

  East Sussex

  1

  Hove CD

  1

  Hampshire

  5

  Gosport CD

  1

  Havant CD

  1

  New Forest CD

  1

  Southampton CD

  2

  Kent

  2

  Canterbury CD

  1

  Gillingham CD

  1

  Lancashire

  1

  Blackburn CD

  1

  Staffordshire

  2

  Stafford CD

  2

  Surrey

  1

  Woking CD

  1

  Wiltshire

  1

  Kennet CD

  1

  Unitary Authorities

  Bath and North East Somerset UA

  1

  Bristol UA

  1

  Cardiff UA

  1

  Denbighshire UA

  1

  Hartlepool UA

  1

  Isle of Wight UA

  3

  234

  Deaths from Asbestosis in England and Wales by local authority of residence, 1996

  County/Local authority

  Number

  Kingston upon Hull UA

  1

  Newport UA

  1

  Stockton on Tees UA

  2

  Total

  68

  The tables show only those local authorities in which a death occurred. Similar data could only be presented at parliamentary constituency level at disproportionate cost.

  Deaths from asbestosis were identified as those certified with an underlying cause coded to ICD9 [International Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision] code of 501.

  VAT Agreement
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the current VAT agreement expires; and what representations he has received from the European Commission concerning its renewal. [16695]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Sixth VAT Directive (77/388) is the principal European Community (EC) level agreement on VAT, and remains in force automatically in the absence of unanimous agreement to change it. The European Commission has published a suggested programme for progress towards a "common system" of VAT to apply throughout the European Community, but has yet to produce any legislative proposals on the substantive VAT issues of its programme.

  VAT (Cereal Bars)
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why Fruesli bars manufactured by W. Jordans (Cereal) Ltd. and Multigrain bars manufactured by Kelloggs Ltd. are treated differently as regards their liability for value added tax; and if he will make a statement. [16493]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Cereal bars and similar products, other than cakes, are liable to VAT at the standard rate. Wherever a line is drawn between such items as cakes and confectionery, there are bound to be problems as to which side of the borderline a particular item falls.

  Harmful Tax Competition
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the Government's policy towards the document on harmful tax competition recently produced by the European Commission. [14088]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 3 November 1997]: The Government deposited an Explanatory Memorandum on 17 November 1997 on the Commission Communication of 5 November 1997, "A Package to Tackle Harmful Tax Competition in The European Union." (COM (97) 564).

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's policy in relation to the European Commission tax harmonisation proposals contained in the document, "Towards Tax Co-ordination in the European Union: A Package to Tackle Harmful Tax Competition." (COM (97) 495 Final). [14463]
  235
  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 5 November 1997]: The Commission Communication "Towards Tax Co-ordination in the European Union: A Package to Tackle Harmful Tax Competition" (COM (97) 945 Final) was superseded by the 5 November 1997 Commission Communication "A Package to Tackle Harmful Tax Competition in The European Union" (COM (97) 564). The Government deposited an Explanatory Memorandum on 17 November 1997 on the latter text.

  Insurance Premium Tax
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the review of insurance premium tax, with particular reference to the travel industry, will be completed. [16201]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 17 November 1997]: There is no general review of insurance premium tax. However, as is usual with significant new tax measures, I have asked officials in Customs and Excise to monitor the effect of the introduction of the higher rate of insurance premium tax. It is too early yet to draw any firm conclusions from this monitoring process and I expect that is will continue into the New Year.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the oral answer of 13 November 1997,Official Report, columns 1034–35, how many young people currently have been unemployed for six months or longer. [16650]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 18 November 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. David Willetts, dated 19 November 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply, as the Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), to your recent question asking how many young people have been unemployed for six months or more.
  The ONS measure of unemployment, derived from the quarterly Labour Force Survey, is defined on a consistent and internationally recognised basis set out by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and counts as unemployed people who are: (a) without a paid job; (b) available to start work within the next two weeks and (c) have either looked for work in the last four weeks or are waiting to start a job already obtained. According to the spring 1997 Labour Force Survey there were an estimated 206,000 people aged 18–24 in the United Kingdom who had been ILO unemployed for six months or more.
  ONS also publishes the monthly claimant count, which is based on the administrative system which records all people claiming unemployment-related benefits (i.e. Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) or National Insurance (NI) credits) at Employment Service offices on the day of the monthly count, who on that day had signed on as unemployed and available to do any suitable work. Essentially, all people who attend an Employment Service office to sign on the designated day are counted. According to the October 1997 claimant count figures there were 122,000 people aged 18–24 in the United Kingdom who had been claiming Jobseeker's Allowance or National Insurance credits for more than six months. This is the figure Mr. Blunkett quoted in his original reply because your question was about young people and unemployment-related benefits.
  236

  Dorneywood
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the members of the management board of the Dorneywood Trust; and if he will make a statement. [16156]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 18 November 1997]: The Dorneywood Trust is a private charity and is not accountable to my Department.

CABINET OFFICE

  Millennium Experience
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio how many hours per week he devotes to work on the Millennium Experience. [16923]

  Mr. Mandelson
  This varies from week to week but I devote whatever time I judge necessary to fulfilment of my responsibilities in this area.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Civil Service (Disability)
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans his Department has to improve the opportunities of people with disabilities for promotion and staff development within the civil service. [15102]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  My Department has established a number of initiatives to improve opportunities for disabled staff in the Civil Service.

  The Programme for Action for Disabled People in the Civil Service provides a framework to help departments and agencies recruit, develop and promote people on merit, regardless of whether they have a disability. Progress is monitored by my Department and reported to Parliament in the biennial Progress Report on Equal Opportunities in the Civil Service.

  Overall numbers of disabled staff in the Service have risen. However, these tend to be concentrated in the lower levels. Action to address this situation is being taken primarily through the implementation of the recommendations made by an independent Advisory Panel on Equal Opportunities in the Senior Civil Service.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to encourage better employer-employee relations in the Civil Service. [15103]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster recently had a very constructive meeting with the General Secretaries of the Civil Service trade unions at which he discussed a range of issues connected with improving employer-employee relations within the Civil Service.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to protect and promote the independence of the civil service. [15115]
  237
  Dr. David Clark
  The role of the Civil Service, as set down in the Civil Service Code, is to assist the duly constituted Government of the day with integrity, honesty, impartiality and objectivity. Ministers are under a duty—set out in the Ministerial Code—to uphold the political impartiality of the Civil Service and not to ask civil servants to act in any way which would conflict with the Civil Service Code. This Government are the first to commit Members to bringing forward legislation to give legal force to the Civil Service Code to ensure that the essential characteristics of a politically impartial Civil Service are enshrined in statute.

  Charter Mark Standards
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what measures are in place to monitor the maintenance of charter mark standards in NHS hospital trusts. [15105]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  All Charter Mark applicants have to undergo a rigorous assessment process.

  Those that meet the standard have to reapply for their awards every three years. During this period, departments, inspectorates and other regulatory bodies keep us informed of any problems and we always act on any reports of poor performance. This ensures that Charter Mark winners maintain a high standard of service.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he has taken to ensure that possible breaches of contract of employment by special advisers are properly investigated. [15106]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  All special advisers' terms and conditions, including procedures for dealing with breaches or grievances, are set out in their contract, a model copy of which is in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many special advisers are currently employed in Government Departments; and what the total is planned to be on 19 November 1998. [15117]

  Mr. David Clark
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 13 November 1997,Official Report, columns 615–17. It is not known how many Special Advisers will be in post on 19 November 1998.

  Government Information Officers
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many Government information officers have(a) resigned and (b) have dismissed since 1 May. [15107]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to Heads of Information.

  Since 1 May, seven vacancies have arisen as a result of Heads of Information leaving their posts.

  As the hon. Member will appreciate the reasons for individual moves are personal and contractual matters between the individual and department.
  238

  Better Government Programme
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he has to involve local government in his better government programme. [15108]

  Dr. David Clark
  Local government are key partners in the Better Government Programme.

  As part of the Deputy Prime Minister's initiative to develop the partnership between Central and Local Government, I am setting up a group to develop a framework for innovative pilots on how services can be improved at the local level through different organisations working together. The local authority sector was also well represented in my recent Better Government discussion seminars.

  Citizens Charter
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to ensure that Departments meet citizens charter targets. [15109]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  All Departments and agencies are responsible for meeting targets set down in relevant charters. In addition, central Government Departments must meet six service standards laid down for central Government. We will be considering as part of the relaunch of the Charter programme how better to ensure that targets are actually delivered.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has for the improvement of the citizens charter. [15113]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  We will relaunch the citizen's charter and focus it on the needs and wishes of the people who both use and deliver public services every day. Details of the new Charter programme will be published as part of the Better Government initiative.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to reduce the number of non-departmental public bodies. [15110]

  Dr. David Clark
  The Government are determined to control the number of quangos. I have asked Ministers in charge of departments to take a personal look at the continuing need for all the non-departmental public bodies they sponsor, with a view to abolishing, merging or winding up a future date any bodies which are no longer essential. As part of the Comprehensive Spending Review, Ministers have also been asked to include a zero-based analysis of the functions of the NDPBs they sponsor.

  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress he is making in improving public access to information in respect of non-departmental public bodies. [15118]

  Dr. David Clark
  In our consultation paper, "Opening up Quangos", published on 11 November, the Government have made a number of relevant proposals including: information on appointments to non-departmental public
  239
  bodies (NDPBs) and other bodies, such as public corporations and nationalised industries, should be available from a single Internet source; new appointments should be made public through a press release; there should be greater openness about meetings of bodies; and all bodies should produce Annual Reports and make them publicly available.

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his proposals for a food standards agency. [15111]

  Dr. David Clark
  We will shortly publish a White Paper setting out the Government's proposals for establishing a Food Standards Agency. This will be the subject of a full round of public consultation.

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he plans to publish a White Paper on freedom of information. [15112]

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his freedom of information proposals. [15116]

  Dr. David Clark
  I refer the hon. Member and my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan).

  Access Business Initiative
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the Access business initiative. [15114]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  As I announced on 23 July 1997,Official Report, column 583, Access Business has been set up to modernise and simplify the delivery of regulatory advice, forms and guidance to business. The first fruit of our work is Direct Access Government, a service which I launched on 6 November, and which enables business to access a wide range of forms and advice on the Internet.

  Technology
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what projects are being undertaken to develop the technology used in delivering Government services. [15119]

  Dr. David Clark
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently set a target that by 2002, one quarter of dealings with Government will be able to be done by a member of the public electronically—through a computer, or an interactive television set, or over the telephone.

  My department is using pilot projects to give the general public the opportunity to try electronic service delivery for themselves. For example, on 8 December, I will be launching an Intelligent Form, which will convert what were once six paper forms on notification of self-employment into one electronic form. This will distribute information to Customs and Excise, Inland
  240
  Revenue and the Contributions Agency. An electronic signature will secure the contents of the form. The Intelligent Form will provide a seamless service for the end user.

  Previously announced projects include:
  Broadclyst rural Post Office kiosk which makes benefits information accessible alongside local information;
  a kiosk project involving HM Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue and the Contributions Agency as part of their Closer Working. It uses touch screen technology to provide information on tax, National Insurance and VAT;
  Direct Access Government provides a One Stop Regulation Shop on the Internet. It brings together regulatory guidance and forms from all main government departments to give easy access to business and individuals;
  SCOTLIS (Scottish Land Information System) provides information on land and property in Scotland to individuals and businesses. At present it is only available for a small area around Bridge of Alan, near Stirling;
  a pilot project which provides information on Citizen's Charter data on a network of 200 "BT Touchpoint" kiosks within the M25.

  Public Services
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his plans to involve ordinary people more in decisions about the delivery of public services. [15104]

  Dr. David Clark
  As part of the relaunch of the Citizen's Charter, we are undertaking a wide-ranging consultation exercise to find out what people want in the new programme.

  I also plan to set up a People's Panel early in the new year, which will provide us with more information on the experiences of users of public services.

  Civil Service Budget
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will provide a breakdown of the civil service budget by amount spent in each of the regions of the United Kingdom(a) in cash terms and (b) as a percentage of the total, ranked according to percentage per region. [15936]

  Dr. David Clark
  The information is not held centrally.

  Analyses of total public expenditure by function, region and country are contained in Chapter 7 of the Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (1997–98: Cm 3061) a copy of which has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Civil Service and Quango Jobs
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many civil service and quango jobs are in towns and cities in Scotland with populations above 40,000. [15933]
  241
  Dr. David Clark
  The full-time equivalent numbers of permanent and casual civil servants in each town or city at 1 July 1997, and of employees of executive non-departmental public bodies at 1 April 1997, are shown in the following table:

  Town/city

  Population 1991 Census)

  Civil servants (July 1997)

  Staff of executive NDPBs (April 1997)

  Glasgow

  663,000

  9,970

  2,020

  Edinburgh

  402,000

  9,680

  3,650

  Aberdeen

  190,000

  1,400

  540

  Dundee

  160,000

  810

  340

  Paisley1

  76,000

  560

  0

  East Kilbride

  70,000

  2,430

  0

  Dunfermline

  55,000

  1,440

  0

  Greenock1

  50,000

  650

  0

  Hamilton

  50,000

  150

  0

  Cumbernauld

  49,000

  1,420

  0

  Ayr1

  48,000

  630

  140

  Kirkcaldy

  47,000

  190

  0

  Kilmarnock

  44,000

  80

  0

  Coatbridge1

  44,000

  150

  0

  Livingston1

  42,000

  660

  0

  Perth

  41,000

  940

  0

  Inverness

  41,000

  720

  440

  1 The number of civil servants shown are those in the respective local authority areas: Renfrew (Paisley), Inverclyde (Greenock), Kyle and Carrick (Ayr), Monklands (Coatbridge), and West Lothian (Livingston).

  COI Web Site
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many people have visited the Central Office of Information web site, "Today's Press Releases," since it was set up. [16676]

  Dr. David Clark
  There have been 168,382 visits to the "Today's Press Releases" page on the Central Office of Information's web site since it was set up.

  Civil Service Employees (Scotland)
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what the total level of employment is in Scotland in the Civil Service and its agencies; and what the respective employment levels are in(a) Glasgow, (b) Edinburgh, (c) Aberdeen, (d) Dundee, (e) Stirling and (f) Inverness. [16519]

  Dr. David Clark
  On 1 July 1997, there were 44,760 full-time equivalent permanent and casual Civil Servants employed in Scotland, of whom 9,970 were in Glasgow, 9,680 in Edinburgh, 1,400 in Aberdeen, 810 in Dundee, 860 in Stirling and 720 in Inverness.
  242

  Public Service Delivery (Consultation)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his proposals to consult and involve ordinary people more in discussions about the delivery of public services. [15098]

  Dr. David Clark
  As part of the relaunch of the Citizen's Charter, we are undertaking a wide-ranging consultation exercise to find out what people want in the new programme. We are also planning to set up a People's Panel early in the new year, in order that the public's views inform our plans to improve the delivery of public services.

  Overseas Travel
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list each of the overseas trips made by himself and other members of his ministerial team since 2 May, specifying in each case(a) the participating Minister or Ministers, (b) the destination of the trip, (c) the purpose of the trip and (d) the cost of the trip; and if he will make a statement. [15244]

  Dr. David Clark
  [pursuant to his reply, Official Report, 17 November 1997, c. 78]: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and I have undertaken the following overseas visits:

  Minister/Destination

  Purpose of the trip

  Cost (£)

  Chancellor of the Duchy

  Washington

  To meet with key figures in the US as part of the preparation for the Better Government White Paper

  24,227

  Austria

  Trilateral discussions with Austrian and German Ministers on co-ordinating a better EU regulation strategy across the three countries' consecutive EU Presidencies

  £3,905

  Canada and Boston

  To investigate how the Canadian Freedom of Information system works and to follow up discussions with leading academics at Harvard on Better Government

  16,994

  New Zealand and Australia

  Fact finding visit on Freedom of Information and Better Government

  29,235

  Parliamentary Secretary

  Malaysia and Singapore

  Investigate the use of IT in the delivery of public services in these countries and the public service reforms which both have introduced

  10,528

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

Lord Smith of Clifton
Sir Trevor Arthur Smith, Knight, having been created Baron Smith of Clifton, of Mountsandel in the County of Londonderry, for life—was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Razzall and the Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
Michael Goodall Watson, Esquire, having been created Baron Watson of Invergowrie, of Invergowrie in Perth and Kinross, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill and the Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale.
Lord Thomas of Macclesfield
Terence James Thomas, Esquire, CBE, having been created Baron Thomas of Macclesfield, of Prestbury in the County of Cheshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Graham of Edmonton and the Lord Carter.

Higher Education Tuition Fees
2.49 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosbyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What consideration they have given to introducing a national system of scholarships based on merit to help meet the new fees for higher education.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we have no plans to introduce a national scholarship scheme. Under our plans for funding higher education, students from lower income groups will continue to receive free tuition. This will help to ensure that access to higher education will be on the basis of academic merit rather than ability to pay. It will of course be open to individual institutions and others to consider whether to offer scholarships of various types.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that one in eight students are now dropping out of degree courses for reasons of poverty and that parental means testing for young people just above the poverty line is a major disincentive? Will he reconsider his Answer in view of the fact that in a country which also has fees and no proper maintenance arrangements, namely, the United States, 60 per cent. of young people have some form of scholarship, and many of those scholarships have been
564
gained through national merit awards? Will he consider how we prevent children of real merit being forced out of higher education through their inability to pay for it?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am aware that the noble Baroness has written to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State about the position in America. She will receive a full assessment of that situation. However, at first sight it would appear that America is in a different position from ourselves. There is no national loan scheme in the sense that we have one; nor is there the grant scheme that we had previously. The average size of scholarship within the United States comprises a lower sum than the loan system would provide here. I repeat what other spokespeople for the party have said; namely, that students from low income groups will not have to pay fees. That accounts for about 30 per cent. of students. Therefore those from the lowest income groups should not face the problem of poverty that has been described.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, will my noble friend say when we shall see the small print of this appalling scheme for which the Government have no mandate either electoral or party?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I hesitate to cross swords with my noble friend. However, we were committed to looking at the mess left by the previous administration's loan scheme. It was a clear manifesto commitment resulting from the experience of thousands of students. We also had cross-party support for the establishment of the Dearing Committee, most of whose recommendations appear in our proposals. In due course a Bill will be presented in this House.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, on 14th April, in the run-up to the election, the Prime Minister stated, and penned his name to an article saying, that he had no plans to introduce tuition fees for students' education. It would be helpful to know at what point that changed. Is the Minister comfortable, as we learn more details of the proposals for tuition fees, with the widening gap between Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom and the disparate treatment of students north and south of the Border?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we have had several Questions and a debate on the Scottish system arising from the fact that most degree courses in Scotland are for four rather than three years. Anomalies are necessarily created by that situation.
On tuition fees, having examined the proposals from the Dearing Committee we brought forward a package which is fairer to lower income groups than the system of loans which we inherited from the previous government; it is fairer too than the system that would have applied had we taken the straight Dearing recommendations.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the purpose of the Government's proposals is to ensure that, contrary to what happened in the past, all students have adequate resources to sustain

565
themselves in higher education, and that they will be asked to repay a limited loan over a lifetime?
Lord Whitty: Indeed, my Lords, that is precisely our objective. We are concerned that the welcome increase in higher education take-up over recent years has seen growth among the higher income groups at twice the rate of those in lower income groups. It is our intention to level up that position. The lowest income families will pay no tuition fees. A further one in three families will pay less than £1,000. It is important to say that no parent, no spouse, nor any student will have to pay a higher up-front contribution than has been the case under previous arrangements.
The loan will not start to be repaid until a level of income, triggered at £10,000, is reached, and will go up, recognising that graduates who achieve a qualification on average receive income 20 per cent. higher than those who do not.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, can the Government confirm a report in today's Scotsman newspaper that the income threshold for Scottish students below which they will not have to pay tuition fees will be lower than the threshold for English students? That may reflect the fact that the threshold for maintenance grants is lower in Scotland. However, in Scotland the costs of maintenance are probably lower on average. I suggest that that is not the case as regards tuition fees. If this chaos is to continue, is not the Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, highly relevant?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as we have debated on several occasions, the situation in Scotland is slightly different. For English schools the repayment threshold will be £10,000. The different balance between maintenance and fees in Scotland has to be taken into account in that system. As I said, we shall look at details of the American system. I do not believe that a national scholarship system, as proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, would resolve any of those anomalies.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a number of higher education institutions have sketched out top-up schemes with a substantial redistributive element? If the Government are not prepared to use public redistributive taxation help for a student, will they at least relax the ceiling on fees and enable higher education institutions to undertake such a system themselves?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, no, because we believe that the net effect would be to increase the maldistribution of admissions in favour of higher income groups.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, has the Minister considered the position of a student with a loan of £12,000 who begins work as a teacher in London earning £16,000? How can he sustain a rent or a mortgage? How do the Government envisage working
566
class families, as mine was, preparing their children to carry that sort of burden?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the repayment of such a teacher will be fairer, lower and over a longer timescale than under the scheme we inherited from the previous administration.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, if the principle of students paying a contribution towards their tuition fees and having to take out a loan to cover their maintenance during higher education is accepted, do the Government accept the proposal made by the National Commission on Education that once the threshold of income is reached the repayment should be through the tax or national insurance systems rather than by writing out a cheque?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, no. We have accepted the principle that the sum is a loan which should be dealt with separately and not integrated into the tax system.
Lord Carter: Next Question.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, will the Minister, whom I respect—
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Williams of Crosby: The first issue is that of contributions.
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Williams of Crosby: The second of those issues—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Baroness is completely outwith the conventions of this House. It is now the ninth minute of Question Time. I suggest we move to the next Question.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: In this situation—
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Chief Whip is on his feet at the Dispatch Box. I suggest that we move to the next Question.

Rail Services: Government Objectives
3 P.M.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to renationalise any parts of the railway system privatised by the previous government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the Government believe that rail privatisation damaged

567
the interests of both passengers and taxpayers. However, wholesale renationalisation of the industry would be extremely costly. We have made clear that our main task is to improve the railway as we find it, not as we would wish it to be. We are committed to creating a new strategic rail authority and to introducing more effective and accountable regulation of the railway in the public interest.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. Is it inherent within it, although she says that she is opposed to wholesale renationalisation, that some renationalisation may take place?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I believe I made it quite clear that, at a cost of £4.5 billion, renationalisation simply cannot be a priority, considering the other pressures on public expenditure. There are major problems in the current system of regulation. Those are the problems we are addressing, both in the short term by the measures announced on 6th November by my right honourable friend the Minister for Transport, and in the longer term through an integrated transport policy.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of the dramatic improvement in the train service on the Edinburgh line since privatisation? Is she further aware that the 15-year franchise awarded to the privatised companies is not long enough to enable them to re-equip with rolling-stock? Will the Minister consider whether the franchise should be increased in order to encourage investment in new and better rolling-stock?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, on the second point, we are certainly interested in encouraging proper investment in the rail network and improvements in service quality. 1 am sure that local authorities, for example, will welcome the new emphasis on the need for the franchising director to build a constructive partnership with them. When franchises come up for renewal, we shall be examining those questions very carefully.
I am interested in the noble Lord's anecdotal experiences of improvements in rail services since privatisation. I suspect that they are not echoed everywhere in the Chamber, nor everywhere in the country.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, if my noble friend agrees that the present system of privatised rail services is not so efficient and not delivering a proper service, and that British Rail delivered a much better service, would not £4.5 billion be a small price to pay to have efficient railways?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, even after six months in government, I cannot say that I think £4.5 billion is a small price to pay for anything. It is important to set the priorities that we said we would set when in government. Those priorities are expenditure on education—we have just heard how strongly the House
568
feels in relation to many areas of education—and the health service. Our priority is not spending a vast sum of money on rail renationalisation; it is on using the mechanisms and levers that we have to improve the quality of service available to the public.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I join with the Minister in her implied comment that not everywhere in this kingdom is everyone 100 per cent. satisfied with their current rail services. Do I need to mention South West Trains, Connex South Central or trains serving East Anglia? Does the Minister agree that one of the problems with the new system is that it is very difficult to place the public interest in a sufficiently, dominant or powerful position in the complex of interests that currently rule the network? Can she give any further indication of how the Government propose, through the new regulatory system, to achieve that aim?
Baroness Hayman: Yes, my Lords. The Government's aim is to introduce a strategic rail authority which would allow some co-ordination of exactly the sorts of issues of investment and improving the quality of service to which the noble Baroness refers. As I said, on 6th November the Minister for Transport announced new objectives, instructions and guidance for the franchising director. He announced the publication of OPRAF planning criteria, and a concordat with the rail regulator containing a statement of the Government's objectives for the rail industry, the regulator's aims and objectives and a framework of communication between Ministers, the franchising director and the regulator. That is an attempt to introduce some integration into what is at present a very disintegrated system of regulation.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if the Welsh lines were renationalised, the service in Wales would be infinitely better than it is now?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I know of my noble friend's long-standing concerns about rail services in Wales. I understand that Virgin is committed to exploring with Railtrack the case for electrifying the line between Crewe and Chester. It remains to be seen whether that electrification project will represent good value for money. It is an area that I know they will explore.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords is the noble Baroness aware that on the East Anglian line we have a greatly improved service; and on Chelmsford station there is a helpdesk—
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: That is not the case in Norfolk.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: I am sorry that it is not true of Norfolk, but it is certainly the case in Essex. Those who run the service are extremely helpful. That was not the case previously.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am always glad to hear of improvements. However, it should be said that

569
there really ought to be improvements, considering that subsidies to train operators have risen from £1 billion to £1.8 billion since privatisation.

Charity Cases and the Attorney-General: Costs
3.6 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they will take to ensure that, when a charity is obliged to seek the guidance of the court and the Attorney-General intervenes, the costs are kept to a minimum and the case is disposed of with the least possible delay.
The Solicitor-General (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, the Attorney-General is generally a necessary party in charity cases and represents the Crown as protector of charity. The Attorney-General aims always to keep down costs and eliminate delay by helping the court and the parties to address the relevant issues in a case, and he shares the noble Lord's objectives in that regard. The duties of charity trustees are important and often onerous and I would pay tribute to those, like the noble Lord, who give their time to such causes.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that Answer. Is he aware that the Question stems not so much from personal interest as from experience as a trustee in one case where the costs involved and time spent seemed to be far more than was reasonable. Is the noble and learned Lord prepared to examine matters and so to arrange them that much of the ground can be covered effectively before the case ever comes to court, without the involvement of counsel, so that the high costs and long duration of time are avoided?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am aware of the case to which the noble Lord refers. I have looked into the case and have discussed it with him. As I said, I share his concerns. In the Attorney-General's office we are particularly acute to avoid both time and costs being wasted because we are aware that all costs spent in relation to these matters are costs effectively taken away from the charity. However, the use of counsel by the Attorney-General's chambers will often reduce the time spent in court, because counsel will be able to reduce the issues, thereby reducing the time. That is our aim.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does the Minister agree that charities depend on voluntary contributions, which saves the Exchequer a certain amount of money? Would it not be a good idea to consider extending legal aid to charities, rather than
570
wasting taxpayers' money on bogus asylum seekers and foreigners who come over here and exploit the legal aid system?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I should not dream of suggesting that we extend the legal aid system to anything at the moment, particularly in the presence of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. As regards inappropriate applications and grants for legal aid, I am confident that the Lord Chancellor has that in mind.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that when the Attorney-General appears in charity cases he is what lawyers would call amicus curiae—a friend of the court—and that therefore he frequently does not charge for his services? Should he not always decide not to charge for his services, bearing in mind the capacity in which he appears?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, when the Attorney-General appears in charity cases he normally appears on behalf of the beneficial interests of the charity. It would be quite wrong for the Attorney-General in relation to what he does not to receive some payment out of the charitable funds, I am afraid. However, as I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, the Attorney-General is concerned as much as possible to ensure that he is not in court spending money when it is inappropriate as regards the charity.

BSE: Statistics
3.9 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliamasked Her Majesty's Government:
Why BSE records of United Kingdom herds are available to the European Commission but not to United Kingdom farmers buying livestock.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, each week the numbers of cases of BSE confirmed by county are made available to the European Community in accordance with Council Directive 82/894. This does not include information about individual herds. Cumulative statistics of cases of BSE confirmed by county in Great Britain are placed in the Library of the House once per month.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, will he accept that, when a farmer buys a beast from a herd, he requires to know that the herd is certified as being free of BSE? If that were not the case it would be impossible for organic farmers in particular to maintain the standard of their herds. In addition, is it not true that the government-sponsored body, UKROFS—the regulatory organisation for organic farms—is unable to regulate herds unless it knows that the beasts have been bought from BSE-free farms? Will the Minister make

571
arrangements to re-instate the procedures that were available, according to the letter from Mr. Rooker to Mr. Woodward of 18th August? I believe that the Minister is aware of the letter, which states that:
"Arrangements to re-instate the procedures for computer checks for BSE history against the pre-ban export criteria… to make this information available to, or by permission of, occupiers of holdings or registered owners of herd marks are now being put in hand in Animal Health Offices".
Can the Minister say whether that procedure has been put in hand yet and, if it has not, why not?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we are aware of the problems faced by organic farmers. However, the information on disease control available to Europe and previously often accessed by organic farmers was obtained under a different heading or under a different Act. I am legally advised that information obtained under one heading cannot be provided under another. There are also constraints of commercial confidentiality. If it helps the noble Earl, I can tell him that we have instructed our officers to make available the relevant information with the permission of the owner or the seller. That will take place quite shortly.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in connection with the provision to the European Commission of particulars relating to BSE, will the Minister give the House an undertaking that the recent report of the Court of Auditors on the scandalous expenditure—much of it fraudulent—under that head will be given specific attention by the Government? Will he also ensure that a copy of that report, which I understand is now available in this country, will be made available to Members at the earliest possible opportunity?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we normally try to meet my noble friend's gentle requests. I can assure him that it is the Government's policy to root out fraud, wherever it exists.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, can the Minister guarantee the accuracy of the BSE records of UK herds which are held at the Commission? What progress has he made in persuading his colleagues in Europe that the records of BSE in continental herds which are held at the Commission should be accurate and not under-reported, as is the case at present?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, yes. I have to say that our records are not perfect. We provide to the European Union and the Commission the records at the time of notification in a location, which is a county. As time passes, animals move and the records are not totally reliable.
572
As regards European Union records, I am sure that they are as perfect as ours. The noble Baroness will he aware that in some European countries where there have been cases of BSE whole herds have been destroyed. That is the state of play on the records.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me exactly how much has so far been expended in relation to matters of BSE and how many cases of CJD related to BSE there have been so far?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the costs so far are running at about £3.4 billion, and they will rise towards £4 billion. There have been 22 cases of CJD in the United Kingdom: 21 certain and one probable. There is one case on the continent, in France.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in his original Answer the Minister said that the relevant statistics were available in the Library of the House. Can he tell me what good that is to the average farmer?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, those statistics are also available, if the average farmer—as he has often done in the past—contacts the Ministry of Agriculture. He can also obtain the statistics through the National Farmers Union.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Utting Report.

Constitutional Change: Cross-party Co-operation
3.15 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillheadrose to call attention to the value of cross-party co-operation on major national issues such as constitutional change and Britain's relations with Europe; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we all look forward to the almost unprecedented number of maiden speeches which will occur in this debate—four out of a total of 13 speeches. But that large number in no way diminishes the enthusiasm with which we look forward to them. I am glad that I have at least chosen a subject for debate which invites debuts.
I believe that I have introduced 12 Wednesday debates in the course of an almost too long leadership of the Liberal Democrat Party in this House. It may, however, be of some comfort to the House to know that this is the last time, following the election yesterday of my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, that I shall lead in a "call attention" debate from this Bench. I shall, however, continue to discharge the general duties of party leader until the Christmas Recess. So let there be no premature obsequies.

573
The exact import of some of the subjects raised in the 12 Wednesday debates I have initiated escapes me with the passage of time. It is a little cryptic to find that in January 1989 I called attention to Her Majesty's Government's method of conducting relations with foreign countries. I suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, must have been engaging in a particularly notable piece of handbag-swinging diplomacy at that time.
However, there have been two main themes running through the debates raised by myself and some of my noble friends: first, the need for us to play a more constructive and effective role in Europe; and, secondly, the need for constitutional reform, pointing consistently in a more decentralised direction. Thus, right at the beginning came a Motion to call attention to the excessive concentration of power in the executive branch of government. I have never seen any contradiction between those two themes. It is just as sensible that what cannot be effectively handled at national level—which, in the global economy, includes interest rates, monetary policy and currency matters—should be dealt with on a co-operative basis higher up; as it is for what can be handled lower down, closer to the people, to be devolved to Edinburgh or Cardiff or to local authorities.
I always felt that there was something absurd about the previous government presiding over the most centralised state in western Europe and making it more centralised by their actions towards local government but at the same time drawing up their skirts in horror at any suggestion of further development in the European institutions; for instance, the single market. That is sometimes claimed to be one of the most proud creations of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, and one to which the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, who is to speak later in the debate, made a mighty contribution. He went out as her legate for that purpose, but proved to be a somewhat rebellious legate when he got there. He made a considerable contribution. I see a contradiction between that and the view that the single market would work better if it were not hobbled by frequent and often violent currency fluctuations.
In March 1992 we had a compendious Motion to call attention to the case for constitutional reform, including a fair voting system, fixed term parliaments, a bill of rights and control over their own affairs satisfactory to the peoples of Scotland and Wales. There has been a lot of progress in those directions in the past six months. I am not sure that fixed term parliaments is currently a lively issue, though there is a lot to be said for it. But for the rest, the issues are very much on the boil, including voting reform.
In the case of human rights and Scotland and Wales, much has already been accomplished. In the case of the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights, I must draw attention to the Motion of my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham in December 1990 calling for precisely that, and also to the dedicated and persistent efforts of my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill on the issue.
574
The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and members of his party have been recently inclined to complain that the Liberal Democrats are showing a certain preference for the present over the previous government, as though it were some sort of toadying, quisling-like behaviour on our part. Much though I like him, I do not feel like a toady towards the noble Lord, Lord Richard.
Is it surprising, given our great and persistent attachment to constitutional issues, that we prefer a government which at least show signs of open-mindedness on these issues to the complete immobilism, like a sort of rigor mortis, which overtook the government of the last Prime Minister. Any suggestion of more say for Scotland or change in your Lordships' House, let alone electoral reform, was treated not merely as unwise but as a betrayal of the whole spirit and history of England. I was shocked by that. I felt that it was alien to the best traditions of Conservatism—from Peel, to Baldwin, to Macmillan. For instance, recent history is littered with Conservative schemes for the reform of this House, several emanating from the forebears of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, himself, and a Home/Heath attitude to Scottish devolution which was much more constructive than anything we have seen recently.
This Motion seeks to bring parties together rather than tear them further apart. I hope to see the present Conservative Party return to those earlier and more constructive traditions. Before I turn to that point, I must mention three other Motions during the 10-year period. In March 1990 we moved to call attention to the inspector's report on House of Fraser Holdings plc. In June 1995 we called for an independent inquiry into the arrangements for the funding of political parties and in February of this year we returned to the latter subject with greater urgency, actually moving to resolve, and therefore voting upon the issue, that this House calls upon HMG to refer the issue of the funding of political parties to the Committee on Standards in Public Life. If those three Motions had been acted upon at the time they were moved, a great deal of trouble might well have been avoided.
I turn to the cross-party aspects of today's Motion, and Europe in particular. British policy towards the European Community or Union has been bedevilled by not being handled on a more cross-party basis. Europe has been a dangerous issue for British parties and British politicians for around a quarter of a century. It gravely damaged the Labour Party in the 1970s and nearly destroyed the Conservative Party in the 1990s. The individual leaders have suffered even more. The failure in 1963 of the first British application, with de Gaulle's veto, effectively destroyed the end of Harold MacMillan's premiership, and Harold Wilson's shift of position in the early 1970s took a great deal of the zest off the latter part of his leadership.
Mrs. Thatcher fell on this issue and much of Mr. Major's premiership was rendered a nullity by it. None of those governments managed to pursue a consistent policy which commanded either success or respect in Europe. That was partly due to a lack of confidence of successive Prime Ministers that they could carry their parliamentary parties with them along

575
a more constructive line. Yet from the 1960s, through the 1970s and the 1980s, there was always a substantial pro-European majority in the House of Commons. Only in the last Parliament did it somewhat fade away. But it was always a cross-party majority. Party managers and party whips hate cross-party majorities. They upset the simple rules of adversarial politics. But when cross-party majorities can be achieved, they settle issues a good deal more satisfactorily because they are more broadly based and are less liable to be reversed later by crude party votes.
No doubt in the near future—perhaps a little earlier than is commonly assumed—we will face another referendum on Europe. That will inevitably be fought on a cross-party basis. There are many powerful Conservatives who are just waiting to break ranks and no doubt there are some—some present today—members of the Labour Party and maybe even one or two Liberal Democrats who will do so too.
I welcome the cross-party basis. As 1975 showed, there is something exhilarating about people previously kept apart by the rigidities of party politics working together when the issue is one on which they spontaneously agree. Those who are enthusiastic about national referendums should not doubt the loosening effects which they have upon the structures of party politics. When Mr. Benn propounded the "wheeze", as it then was, of the referendum in 1971-72, he saw it as a great device for doing down the Conservatives. But, in fact, in the context of that decade, it had the reverse effect. Not only did it produce a great majority for, rather than against, Europe, but it was, I think, a necessary condition for the creation of the SDP—I doubt whether it would have happened without the referendum campaign—and therefore for the Liberal Democrats in their present form.
Just as with Europe, constitutional questions are much better settled, if they can be, with at least some cross-party element in them. God knows, we move slowly enough on constitutional change, so no one could say we should only proceed by unanimity, which would be a recipe for total immobilism. But the firm acceptance of irreversibility in constitutional change is also desirable.
Franchise extensions over nearly two centuries provide a very good example of party intermingling. The Whigs did the Great Reform Act of 1832, but the Tories did the 1867 one. The Liberals, as the Whigs had become, did the 1885 one. The Conservative-dominated but Liberal-led coalition did the big 1918 extension of the female franchise and the Conservative ended the process with the "flapper" vote in 1928.
On our relations with Ireland, historically the most traumatic British constitutional issue, the Conservatives bitterly opposed three Liberal Home Rule Bills but then participated fully in the 1921 settlement. It settled relations with southern Ireland. Had they, as they half veered towards in 1885-86, done a Home Rule Bill themselves then, they might have settled the Northern Ireland question at that stage as well.
Even on the question of the powers of your Lordships' House, quite a lot of Conservatives voted in the last resort for the Parliament Bill of 1911. No one
576
has remotely talked of reversing that. If a semi-consensual solution to present issues could be found in relation to your Lordships' House, I would rather welcome it. But much Labour tolerance and much abandonment of Conservative rigidities would he needed for that.
After nearly 50 years in one House of Parliament or the other, 50 years which will be up at the end of April next year, and having led with great pleasure one party in this House and one of its tributaries in another place before that, and having 15 years before that been fairly near at times—I shall not put it higher than that in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff—to leading a different and a bigger party, my conclusion is that parties are necessary instruments of state: sometimes good servants but almost never good masters in politics or in the service of the state. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.34 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, I should like to begin my remarks by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, on his speech and on his choice of subject for today's debate. It is timely, it is challenging, and, if I may say so, the noble Lord moved it, as we would expect him to, with a historical sweep and a penetrating political analysis. I shall have some more to say in just a few minutes on the substance of what he said.
However, before I move on, I hope the House will think it appropriate that I should mark a recent sad event. Lady Llewelyn-Davies, the former Government and Opposition Chief Whip, died recently after a long illness. There are, inevitably and rightly, strict rules in this House as to when formal tributes should be paid. I thought, however, that I might be permitted to pay a personal word of regret and of sympathy to my noble friend's family and to her many personal friends. She was the first, and so far the only, woman to have occupied either of those posts or indeed to have run a Whips' Office in either House. She did so with great distinction. Her grace and her charm will be warmly remembered by all of us who knew her. It is a sad loss and we shall all miss her greatly.
Perhaps I may say, too, in advance of dealing with the Motion, how much I am looking forward to the maiden speeches of my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, a title with a somewhat Braveheart ring about it, and of the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart, Lord Razzall and Lord Blackwell. I hope that I will be in a position to hear them all, but perhaps I may, in advance, apologise to them and to the House as I shall have to be away from the Chamber briefly to attend the meeting of the Procedure Committee which takes place this afternoon.
As many Peers know, and indeed as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has just retold us, the noble Lord has just announced his intention to stand down as leader of the Liberal Democrat Peers with effect from the end of this year. We learnt yesterday that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, is to be the new leader of his party. I take this opportunity to welcome him warmly to his new

577
post. This is, as the noble Lord again said, very probably the last major debate in which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, will lead his Benches in this House. We naturally look forward to hearing a great deal from him in the future but it would be right for me to spend just a few minutes saying one or two words about his truly remarkable career.
For the past nine years he has led his Peers with authority, with wisdom and always, if I may say so, with elegance. The whole House has benefited from his long and distinguished experience. He has achieved the highest distinction in letters as well as in politics. As a historian and biographer—not least in matters connected with this House and with this Palace—he is essential reading. By my count he so far holds no fewer than 26 honorary degrees and doctorates from institutions of learning in Britain, Europe and America. He is, of course, Chancellor of the University of Oxford.
As a politician, his parliamentary career so far has spanned very nearly half a century since he first became a Member of another place in 1948. In what might be called his "early period", he was twice one of the most distinguished Home Secretaries of modern times, a formidable Chancellor of the Exchequer and a distinguished Deputy Leader of my party. In his "middle period", as President of the European Commission from 1977 to 1981, he made an enormous contribution both inside that body—not always an easy task, as I can myself attest—and he made an enormous contribution to the growing warmth in this country towards the European Union. Since then, in his "later period", he has been on a political odyssey, sadly no longer as a member of my party. He has since been a leading member of no fewer than three political parties: the Social Democrats, the Social and Liberal Democrats and the Liberal Democrats. In fact, if I may say so to him, I am told that the nameplate on his door in this House tells us that he still leads the second of those parties rather than the third. Now, in his latest phase, we find him charting a friendly course of good counsel and constructive engagement with his former party. On behalf of the House, may I say to the noble Lord how much we have appreciated his contribution. We look forward to very much more of it.
Turning to the noble Lord's Motion, the case that he has put has lessons for members of all parties and of none. His fundamental contention is that, where those in public life have similar objectives, they should concert wherever possible to achieve those objectives. I agree. The first draft of his Motion spoke of the benefits of "non-confrontational politics". I agree with that, too. Politics can be a rough trade, but it has an objective—to do better, as we see it, for the people we represent and for the country as a whole. Without that aim, politics would simply be a scramble for power for its own sake. But quite often the differences between the parties are relatively small and the dispute is often about means rather than ends. Wherever that is the case I believe that it behoves those of us who practise this trade to seek common ground when we can in the interests of good and durable government. If I may say so, this House and the way that it operates without rigid
578
rules is perhaps a good example of how that approach can work in practice. Since the new Government were elected in May we have sought to work within that approach and to preserve the spirit of co-operation in this House and we shall, of course, continue to do so.
The noble Lord's Motion points us towards two key areas of government policy, and if I may I shall deal with Europe first. There is no more important single long-term issue facing this country than that of the nature and the extent of our relationship with Europe. The aims which drove the original Common Market to prevent any repetition of the two world wars which began on our continent are still inspiring ones—certainly, they still are for me.
Europe poses for us enormous and significant choices—on employment, the environment, transport and agriculture. Following the Chancellor's announcement on European monetary union, the electorate may be invited to make perhaps the most important decision for a generation in a referendum. For all these reasons I am delighted that we have been able to discuss with the Liberal Democrats our priorities for Britain's forthcoming presidency of the European Union. We were able to find broad support for our plans. We were able to establish a shared determination to shape a national consensus around our joint view that the United Kingdom should seek to play a leading role in Europe. It is already clear that a great deal of important business will be done during our presidency.
This country has a strong and immediate interest in a successful start to the process of economic and monetary union. We want to see a process which starts on time and with as wide a participation as is consistent with a strong and sustainable currency. On economic reform the Government wish to promote agreement in the European Union on the basic principles necessary to make Europe more competitive for the future. We shall take forward in our presidency work on the next round of enlargement of the European Union together with reform of the common agricultural policy and of the structural and cohesion funds. We shall take practical steps in the war against crime and drugs. We shall pursue a heavy agenda on environmental matters and work for effective and substantive co-ordination of European Union foreign policy on the major current issues.
In seeking a consensus in the country on Britain's role, it is extremely important to us that the Liberal Democrats have given their substantive support. Would that the Conservative Party had been as constructive, though I do begin to detect dangerous signs of what I believe some in the Conservative Party seem to regard as the virus of consensus in Mr. Clarke, Mr. Heseltine, Mr. Temple-Morris, and like-minded Back-Benchers. I hope that the virus spreads and that others become similarly affected.
I turn now to constitutional matters. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, reminded us, a Cabinet Committee chaired by the Prime Minister was established on 22nd July to consider issues of joint interest to the Government and to the Liberal Democrats. Such inter-party co-operation is not unique. It has happened

579
before. But it is important to see it as it is: Ministers remain the only decision makers, and thus are properly and solely accountable for those decisions. This is not a pact, nor is it a coalition. It is a committee which enables the Government to explore with a party with which it shares many common aims, how those aims might be achieved in what we perceive, jointly, to be the national interest. The aim was expressly to move away from old-style confrontational politics. The early focus of that committee has inevitably been on the government's programme of constitutional reform, as set out in our manifesto put before the country at the last election, and based on agreements reached in opposition with the Liberal Democrat party.
Our agenda is a substantial one and it was partly referred to by the noble Lord in his speech: first, incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights so that British people no longer have to go to Strasbourg to enforce their rights; secondly, a referendum Bill and White Paper on a strategic authority for London consisting of an elected mayor and an assembly; thirdly, regional development agencies on which legislation and a White Paper will be announced this Session; fourthly, freedom of information on which a consultative White Paper will set out proposals for legislation, putting an end, we hope, to secrecy for secrecy's sake; fifthly, an independent commission on the Westminster voting system to consider the best alternative to the first-past-the-post system to be followed by a referendum; sixthly, proportional representation for the European elections—a Bill is already before the House of Commons; seventhly, reforming the procedures in another place. The modernisation of how the other place deals with legislation and holds Ministers to account has been the subject of a report from my right honourable friend the President of the Council and may have consequential implications for this House. It is a matter on which I am this afternoon asking the Procedure Committee to take a view. The eighth issue is devolution. Following the referendums on 11th and 18th September, the Government will introduce two devolution Bills, which will doubtless receive close and proper scrutiny in your Lordships' House.
So it is a substantial agenda but it is one on which we believe that it has been right and profitable to the country to consult closely with the Liberal Democrats. The Government have benefited considerably from their involvement and not just in thrashing out policy details. Discussions such as these signify an understanding, on our part at least, that there are issues which transcend party considerations.
There is one issue which, as noble Lords may perhaps have noted, I have so far omitted from the list of the Government's comprehensive constitutional programme. I have done so deliberately because I wish to underline the lesson of this debate in relation to it. That issue is, of course, the reform of this House, a policy overwhelmingly endorsed by the electorate and discussed in opposition with the Liberal Democrats. In the spirit of the terms of this Motion I believe that the Opposition needs to answer one straightforward question. Does it support the removal of the rights of
580
hereditary Peers to sit and vote in a reformed House? It seems to me that that is the fundamental issue. It seems also that the leader of the Opposition, Mr. Hague, has grasped it. He floated the idea that fundamental opposition to our plans should be dropped. He was promptly attacked by his chairman, the noble Lord. Lord Parkinson. I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, has argued publicly in the opposite direction.
From this confusion it emerges that the policy is "under review". I hope that the Opposition can soon resolve where it stands. I say this to them, and I hope very clearly. If they are prepared to accept that accident of birth should no longer give a right to sit and vote in this House, then we can have a sensible discussion about reforming our Chamber. If they are not prepared to accept that, then it seems to me that they have little to bring to that discussion. If the noble Viscount will allow me to pull his leg for a change, he needs to make his mind up on one other issue. On the "Today" programme on BBC Radio 4 on 9th October, he claimed that our proposals would "emasculate" the House. A little later he said that they would "give it more authority". That is a difficult dual concept for a brain as naïve as mine to understand. I do not see how the noble Viscount can have it both ways. If the House is emasculated it seems unlikely to have more authority in the future.
Wherever those of goodwill wish to work with us to achieve common aims, we welcome their contribution. Constitutional reform and our approach to Europe are only two examples of the areas in which we seek a new approach to party politics. After barely six months in office this Government are making great strides in forging a national consensus on our society's aims for the future, and I say again that we welcome the contribution that the Liberal Democrats are making to that process. We look forward to more of it. We invite parliamentarians and others of all parties or indeed of none to join us in this great project of taking this country forward as a leading nation into the millennium to come.
3.50 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, before I begin, I should like very much to echo the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal in respect of the late and very much lamented Lady Llewelyn-Davies. I know that the noble Lord, as so often in matters appertaining to this House, is entirely correct when he says that we do not want to devalue the currency of paying tribute. However, although I was not fortunate enough to know Lady Llewelyn-Davies as well as I would have liked, it is perfectly plain from the extraordinary affection in which she was held in all parts of this House irrespective of party allegiance that some rules at least are only good when it is clear that they should occasionally be broken—and this is one of them. I should like to echo the tribute which the Lord Privy Seal so eloquently paid to Lady Llewelyn-Davies. I was only fortunate enough to meet her twice and I have to confess that within about five seconds I was utterly seduced not only by her charm but by her extraordinary beauty. I can well understand how the noble Lord, Lord Carter, as the present Captain of the

581
Gentlemen-at-Arms, might find himself at a serious disadvantage because, although we know that he is a man thoroughly imbued with charm and skill, I think that he and I would agree that he is not nearly as beautiful as his predecessor—
Lord Carter: Predecessor?
Viscount Cranborne:—as any of his predecessors.
I echo what the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal said. Lady Llewelyn-Davies will be sadly missed and I only wish that I had been fortunate enough to have shared more time with her in this House while she was still active in it.
Like the Lord Privy Seal, I should also say how much I am looking forward to the very large number of maiden speeches that we are to hear later—some from our side of the House and some from the other. Again, like the Lord Privy Seal, I hope, in spite of commitments elsewhere in this House later today, to be able to listen to all of them.
I turn now to the Motion that we are discussing. As always, I was hugely impressed by the high-mindedness of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, which was so eloquently echoed by the high-minded attitude of the Lord Privy Seal. I cannot in any way hope to emulate such high-flown rhetoric or such admirable sentiments. I fear that I am only a hereditary machine politician and, as a result, I have no option but to say what is in my mind. I can only apologise to both noble Lords for what they may feel may be something of a come-down after the extraordinary virtuosity that we heard earlier.
I have to confess that I have been much interested by the history of the Motion now before us. The Lord Privy Seal mentioned that it had another incarnation. Unless I am much mistaken, it began its existence on the Order Paper in somewhat different terms from those that we see today. In the Minute of 11th November, for instance, the Motion for today in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, read as follows:
"To call attention to the value of non-confrontational politics and cross-party co-operation".
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, as a noted scholar who has experience of tricky textual analysis, will agree that the Motion that he introduced today with his customary style and brio, is drafted in rather more restrictive and somewhat less sweeping terms than that. Today we are invited to support a Motion only when parties co-operate "on major national issues". The noble Lord even helped us by citing a couple of examples in relation to Europe and constitutional change.
I have to ask the House in all seriousness why the noble Lord modified the terms of his Motion. After all—again, I say this in all sincerity—someone of his political experience and proven mastery of the English language in both its spoken and written forms will undoubtedly have considered extremely carefully what he meant to convey before he sent an emissary to the House authorities bearing the terms of his Motion for inclusion in the Minute. So, we can perhaps dismiss at once the unworthy thought that I have to confess had
582
occurred to me that a Peer of the noble Lord's distinction in both parliamentary and academic fields had made a drafting error. No, I fear that the explanation that appeals to me for this uncharacteristically hurried adjustment to the terms of the Motion arises from rather lower politics than the noble Lord led us to believe. Like so much that is low in politics, I fear that for that explanation we must look to another place.
Your Lordships may have noticed that on Monday 17th November the Liberal Party had a half-day debate in another place, introduced by Mr. Simon Hughes. The subject of that debate was Britain's key public services. The terms of the Motion, while taking a ritual side-swipe at the last government, which is something that we take entirely as a compliment, were not complimentary about the present Government. I am sorry to have to add—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will be doubly sorry to hear this—that neither was Mr. Simon Hughes.
I assume that some channel of communication exists between the Liberals in your Lordships' House and those in another place. I imagine that it is some sort of super high-minded highway, if I may put it like that. Would it be too fanciful of me to imagine an exchange between those channels of communication, the burden of which might be as follows, although I am sure that the actual language used would have been more stately and perhaps more polysyllabic than my imagination, poor as it is, can muster? The Liberal from the other place might have said something like this, "We have half a Supply Day on Monday. After all, it suits the Labour Party to give us one because they can't win Winchester and want us to have a go at it. If we attack the Government, we don't look to the Winchester voters as though we are Labour stooges any more. After all, this Ecclestone business means that they are not walking on water any longer and it might suit us to put a bit of distance between us and them. As we still present ourselves to the public as being whiter than white, we don't want to get splashed with Labour mud, do we?". I imagine to myself that the Liberal in your Lordships' House might have said something like this in response, "That sounds perfectly reasonable. There is one small difficulty though. We have been pretty big on cross-party co-operation with the Government in our House and our Leader is already closely associated with it, as is our Chief Whip. In fact, not only is Roy Tony's guru on PR and Europe, but he has a Motion down next week saying what a good thing it all is". The House of Commons Liberal might have said, "Well, that's a bit awkward, but no one notices very much what happens in your House so perhaps you can get away with it". The reply might have come, "Well, I'll tell you what, we could modify the Motion a bit and say that co-operation only really works for the great issues like Europe and the constitution". The reply might have come back, "Do what you think best. I have to run now because there is an idiot here I have to hose down who wants to say something about site value ratings although that's all a bit out of date nowadays".

583
I am sure that something like that exchange must have occurred—without my imaginative bells and whistles. The rewording of the Motion has all the hallmarks of a hurried Whip's solution which inevitably will have to be made to do—
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I hope that it will not disappoint your Lordships or insult my honourable colleague in the other House if I say that I was totally unaware of the Motion tabled by Mr. Simon Hughes. I changed my Motion entirely on my own initiative because I thought that noble Lords needed to be directed to slightly more concrete images. I thought that mentioning Europe and constitutional issues might attract one or two more Peers to speak.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as so often I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for putting me right on these matters. Obviously, my imagination has run more riot than it should have done, but I am deeply shocked to find that there is so little communication between the Liberal Party in both Houses. We very much look forward to the resulting dropped catches, particularly when the noble Lord has dropped the reins of leadership of his party in this House.
Be that as it may, when the revised Motion is considered—however it was reworded and for whatever motives—particularly in conjunction with the speech of Mr. Simon Hughes, which unlike the noble Lord I have had the advantage of reading, it begs a number of questions. For instance, what constitutes a major national issue in the eyes of the Liberal Party? Clearly, Europe and constitutional matters do—the noble Lord has told us that for himself—but not by implication key public services. From his speech Mr. Simon Hughes believes that key public services are an extremely important issue, but assuming that he had compared notes with the noble Lord—which I had assumed until corrected—it did not appear to be sufficiently important to indulge in cross-party co-operation, at least in the House of Commons, although it might be so in your Lordships' House.
Put like that, the Motion of the noble Lord does not really seem to stand up. All of us, including I imagine the Liberal Party, believe that key public services constitute an important issue. We are in no doubt that the electorate also believes that. The difference between us and the Liberals is how best they can be delivered. Incidentally, it appears to us that the Liberals are still in the dark ages of tax and spend, and we have moved on. Even the Labour Party has moved on a bit. Therefore, the Liberals have ended cross-party co-operation on this issue, at least in the other House, however important that issue may appear to them to be.
The truth of the matter is that the noble Lord is playing the oldest game in the political book. As he has reminded us, he has been writing that book for a number of decades so he ought to know it. It is called monopoly politics and it has exactly the same stultifying effect on the political market as commercial monopolies have on the commercial market. In this House, graced as we are
584
by the presence of both the noble Lord and the Lord Privy Seal, we are in this instance dancing the commissioners' quadrille of consensus in Europe.
The noble Lord and his friends in the Labour Party are convinced that this country should become part of western European political union. It must therefore be in their interests to emasculate Parliament, which is the only institution that is still able to hold them to account. In order to do that it is necessary to develop a rhetoric that is powerful enough to achieve their objective, just as it is essential to undermine the party system in order to do so.
Like all effective rhetoric, it relies on a few simple and emotive words. Some of the words that are used in the service of this cause are "modernisation", "inevitable" and "chauvinism". Like much effective rhetoric, more often than not it does not deign to answer detailed arguments that support another view; rather, the tactic is to build a consensus that is designed to appear so powerful that any opposition appears puny and marginal. The result is a political monopoly that, on great questions like Europe, the constitution and perhaps even key public services, is able to brush aside any genuine debate. In the end, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, implied in the course of his remarks this afternoon, politics is indeed about great issues. As he rightly pointed out, they can and often have split parties, including my own.
I maintain nevertheless that parties form and reform and flourish around great issues. The only real danger of any living polity arises if those issues are smuggled though undiscussed. One of the best ways of doing that is by the establishment of the monopoly that I have described. In the commercial world the great nationalised industries produced a similar effect which resulted in bankrupt enterprises across the British industrial landscape. The noble Lord's tactic will produce exactly the same effect across our political landscape. If he doubts me, he has only to look at the favourite subject of his honourable friend Simon Hughes: key public services. I submit that for far too long the political parties have not dared to break the political consensus on public services. The result is that we have saddled ourselves with a dependency culture—to do justice to the Labour Party, it has recognised it particularly in the person of the admirable Mr. Frank Field—that risks destroying society, and we pay nearly £100 billion a year for the privilege.
One reads with interest that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, writes on page 336 of his autobiography:
"There is no doubt that standing out against the apparent chauvinism"—
one sees that word again—
"of one's own party is a good recipe for attracting international acclaim".
I do not begrudge the noble Lord one jot or tittle of the international acclaim that he has garnered. I know him well enough to realise that that is certainly not the reason that he takes the view he does on Europe and the constitution. Indeed, on page 617 of the very same volume he states that he believes sovereignty to be an almost total illusion in the modern world. Therefore, his

585
beliefs and the acclaim come to exactly the same thing. I know that the noble Lord holds that view sincerely. Nevertheless, it must be comforting to find that all bureaucrats in Europe agree when many who believe in parliamentary government take exactly the opposite view. The difficulty for those who disagree with him is that he wants to impose a political monopoly to get his own way. It is therefore surely significant that when it does suit his party its passion for cross-party co-operation goes the way of all flesh, as it did with Mr. Simon Hughes last Monday in his debate on key public services; in others words, the Liberals will co-operate with other parties when it suits them and their political interests to do so. The victim is rigorous debate and parliamentary government. I am tempted to suggest, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, that he would do well to resign from the other club at once because he is in serious breach of the rules of that institution if he persists in what he has said this afternoon.
I end my remarks on a slightly different note. I apologise to the noble Lord for being late for reasons that I hope he well understands. I apologised to him beforehand. Before I came in I understand that he enjoined noble Lords to eschew tributes to him. I shall do so. However, on this last great occasion of his parliamentary career as Leader I should like to make a few remarks. I welcome and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, who is entirely suited to his new task. In particular, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for the extreme good humour, tolerance and kindness that he has shown me personally not only across the Floor of the House but in our private relations which I have always found extraordinarily agreeable during the three years or so that I have had something to do with the management of your Lordships' House. I have enjoyed our relationship even more than I have enjoyed the noble Lord's books, and that says quite a lot. Your Lordships may have noticed that we disagree politically in terms of policy and in visceral political instinct, if I may put it in that way, but I hope that the noble Lord will feel that our personal relations have nevertheless always remained of the warmest and will continue. Certainly, they do on my part. Perhaps a little prematurely, I wish him the most agreeable of retirements. Like the Lord Privy Seal, I express the hope that he will continue to make regular and distinguished, if constantly misguided, contributions to our debates.

The Utting Report
4.9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should now like to repeat a Statement on the Utting Report which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health. The Statement is as follows:
586
"The House will know that last year, after the conviction of people in North Wales for sexual and other crimes against children in their care over a long period, the previous government commissioned from Sir William Utting a review of the adequacy of safeguards against the abuse of children living away from home. They also set up a judicial tribunal of inquiry under the Tribunal of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 into the events which led to those convictions. The North Wales judicial inquiry, chaired by Sir Ronald Waterhouse, continues and is expected to report next summer.
"Sir William Utting has now reported to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales and myself. We are publishing his report today. There is a comparable review for Scotland, which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is also publishing today.
"Sir William's review was necessary because of continuing revelations of widespread sexual, physical and emotional abuse of children living away from home, and in particular in children's homes over the preceding 20 years. In addition to the convictions in North Wales, there are investigations or prosecutions in progress in the North West, the North East, South Wales and some home counties.
"The report presents a woeful tale of failure at all levels to provide a secure and decent childhood for some of the most vulnerable children. It covers the lives of children whose home circumstances were so bad that those in authority, to use the jargon, took them into care. The report reveals that in far too many cases not enough care was taken. Elementary safeguards were not in place or not enforced. Many children were harmed rather than helped. The review reveals that these failings were not just the fault of individuals—though individuals were at fault. It reveals the failures of a whole system.
"The review team found evidence of good work done by many children's homes despite adverse circumstances. It believes that residential care remains an important option for looking after children, but that staffing is a chronic problem.
"The report makes clear the following major faults: many children are placed in homes unsuited to their particular needs, because there is too little choice and too little planning. Some children go through a damaging succession of placements. Children are at risk in small unregistered homes. Over a third of children in residential care are not receiving an education. Children in foster care can be at risk of abuse. Safeguards intended in the Children Act are not being uniformly implemented. There is no requirement for residential maintained special schools to be inspected for welfare regularly. Some children abscond from residential care and become homeless. Some remain untraced. Children who ran away and were traced, have been in the past often returned to the care of their abusers. Disabled children, children with emotional and behavioural difficulties and young children are at higher risk of abuse or harm. Bullying and sexual abuse by other foster children was

587
encountered. Bullying appeared to be ignored in some children's homes. The mix of fearsome children and vulnerable children amounts to abuse by the system which was supposed to give protection.
"Vetting of child care staff and foster parents must be improved. Unacceptable delays arise in checking criminal records. Staff who suspect child abuse can be deterred from coming forward for fear of victimisation by other staff or managers. Some directors of social services say they are reluctant to dismiss staff as their decisions can be overturned on appeal. The criminal justice system is ineffective in deterring offences against children and in securing convictions. Its failures are most marked where the victims are most vulnerable—the very young and the disabled. Prison Service policy to keep children in separate accommodation is not being achieved. Suicide, self-harm and endemic bullying occur. Boys aged 15 to 16 are still being remanded to prison because there is still not enough secure accommodation.
"The report concludes that, although there are no grounds for complacency, the repetition of abuse in children's homes on the scale of the past is unlikely. It makes 20 principal recommendations designed to: improve safeguards in foster and residential care, in schools and in the penal system; provide more effective safeguards and checks to deter abusers from working with children; provide more effective avenues of complaint and independent advocates to whom children should have access; provide more vigilant management; effective disciplinary and criminal procedures; and effective systems of communication between agencies about known abusers.
"The report calls also for changes to ensure that the criminal justice system provides children with better protection from abusers.
"I would like to thank those who produced this report. The situation it describes cannot be allowed to recur or continue. It must provide a spur to all concerned to make sure that in future children living away from home for long periods get a safe, decent and positive upbringing.
"This is a most serious report and the Government are taking it most seriously. We have set in train the following action: the Chief Inspector of Prisons has today published a report on young prisoners which reaches many of the same conclusions as Sir William Utting. The Home Office is making sure that standards to safeguard young people in prison currently being developed by the Prison Service incorporate the welfare aims recommended in the report. The Secretaries of State for Education and Wales will be making improvements to the welfare safeguards for children in boarding schools and will be working with the education service to achieve this. The Chief Social Services Inspector in England is assessing local authorities' compliance with essential management and staffing safeguards which are supposed to be in place already. The Welsh Office is implementing with determination the Adrienne Jones report on child care and protection.
588
"We will be consulting widely and carefully with all the public and voluntary agencies concerned before giving a detailed and comprehensive response. The report acknowledges that the review panel was not able to assess the costs of implementing the recommendations or what the spending levels on children's services should be. It also emphasises that any extra resources must be matched by managerial and professional effort to improve performance.
"The recommendations made in the report will be considered as part of the comprehensive spending review covering the whole range of services for children, including social services, juvenile and criminal justice, and education.
"After careful consideration and consultation the Government will put forward a full programme of policy and management changes to deliver the safer environment to which children living away from home are entitled. This programme will be clear, affordable and enforceable. It will ensure that high standards are set and that whatever standards are set are met. The Department of Health and the Welsh Office are already committed to two important structural changes endorsed by the report—the creation of a statutory general social care council to regulate standards of conduct and practice by social services personnel, and the statutory regulation and inspection of small children's homes.
"We are actively reviewing the way in which the courts treat children and other vulnerable witnesses to allegations of abuse. We are preparing a White Paper on social services which will set out detailed proposals for improvements in the regulation of social services. We are setting up a ministerial task force led by me, involving Ministers from all the relevant departments and a small number of expert advisers from outside government. Its first job will be to prepare the full government response to this report.
"Finally, I should make it clear that many dedicated people are doing a good job looking after vulnerable children living away from home. This is never an easy task and they deserve our thanks. We owe it to them and to the children they look after to root out and punish the wrongdoers and also to put into place a system which helps rather than hinders their efforts.
"These vulnerable children living away from home are the responsibility of us all. Many have been let down. We will make sure that in future they are looked after better".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.19 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I express my gratitude to the Minister for repeating the Statement. There can be no one in your Lordships' House who does not feel the utmost revulsion at the thought of children suffering abuse in residential care homes, and the deepest sadness for those children whom the state system has let down so badly.
Sir William Utting's report, from my brief scrutiny of it, appears to be a cogent and thorough piece of work. The need for it is now, regrettably, even more evident

589
than it was when the previous government commissioned it in June 1996. We join Her Majesty's Government in thanking Sir William for the effort and care that he has devoted to his task.
Although on these Benches we have clearly not had an opportunity to read the report or digest its implications fully, we stand ready to encourage and support Ministers in any fair and workable proposals that they may choose to bring forward to address the shortcomings in the system which Sir William has identified. I hope that the Government will act will all due speed to respond to the report's recommendations.
One of the report's findings is that over the past few years there have been fewer and fewer residential care places available to local authorities, as homes around the country have been progressively closed. The natural consequence of that is that fewer and fewer people have the relevant managerial experience of looking after residential care homes and the children in them. Unfortunately, it is a vicious circle in that in some areas caring for children in residential homes is regarded as a low status activity. Therefore, it is all too easy to see how paedophiles might have been able to infiltrate the staff of such homes.
Equally, a number of local authorities have no residential care facilities; they are obliged to purchase the service from outside. The inspection of homes is less straightforward; there is an increasing lack of choice of homes, which leads to unsuitable placements; and the risk of abuse and children experiencing bullying and intimidation from other children is accentuated further.
We should look seriously at Sir William's recommendation for a national child care strategy. Tighter standards, better supervision and better training will be a part of that strategy. Does the Minister agree that the possibility of an independent, nationally based system of inspection should be examined on a principle similar to the inspection of schools?
Since 1985 there have been three national inquiries into serious misconduct and abuse in children's homes. We should recognise that some progress has been made, although not enough, and, as the Minister emphasised, many good and caring people look after children in residential homes with skill and dedication. But the question which always arises when such a major report is published—and I put it to the Minister—is: how can we do better in identifying those individuals who pose a risk to children in care?
I am aware that there are blacklists. I understand that the Department for Education and Employment maintains such a list and that a similar list is maintained by the Department of Health. Are those lists co-ordinated? Is the system for collecting and disseminating information satisfactory? Can we examine ways of including other names on those lists; for example, an individual who is suspected of misconduct but who resigns from his post before being dismissed and being charged with an offence? Are the provisions of the Data Protection Act an insuperable problem to widening the scope of those lists to include the category of individual to which I have referred?
590
If the Data Protection Act is one of the obstacles, do the Government agree that the delicate balance between safeguarding the rights of children who need protecting and safeguarding the civil rights of individuals needs to be examined with care in order to ensure that vulnerable children are shielded from risk to the maximum extent?
I welcome the report and its recommendations. I wholly support the action which the Government have taken. I look forward to their detailed response and to the forthcoming White Paper on social services. We on these Benches undertake to adopt a constructive approach to both.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. We welcome the report. It is serious in substance and deals with a frightening issue. The abuse of people is reprehensible, but when it is the abuse of vulnerable people, in particular children, it is worse again. When that happens in the context of a trusting relationship iniquity is piled upon iniquity. But the greatest nightmare of all is when children are removed from one abusive situation and put into another—trapped into further abuse at a time when they should have been able to put their trust in protection by the law and by others.
We have not had time to study the report in detail. However, the matter to which it refers, and the litany of failure and abuse referred to in the Statement, ensures that it is not merely major and significant but that it carries with it a moral imperative. There have been previous such reports dealing with one important aspect of the problem; that is, how to protect young people from the malevolent. I refer, for example, to the Warner Report published in 1992. Yet it appears that some of the recommendations—for example, the extensive vetting of those who seek to work with young people—have not been fully carried forward. The report needs to be fully considered and a great deal of work will be required. However, we seek the Government's assurance that those needs will not be used as an excuse for further delay and lack of implementation. We seek an assurance that the report will be implemented without delay in order to protect vulnerable young people from the malevolent.
There is another side to the matter, which is the protection of the vulnerable. Such young people, aside from the abuse they might suffer, are vulnerable in all kinds of ways. They are vulnerable, for example, educationally. We know that such young people are not performing at anything like the level of other young people. Some 75 per cent. of this group are leaving school without qualifications and are 10 times more likely to be excluded from school. We know, too, that their personalities are likely to be affected by the abuse that they have sustained. In their relationships with others it is not infrequent that the abuse is repeated. It is not easy to work with such young people.
That leads me to another group of vulnerable individuals, mentioned briefly in the Statement. I refer to the staff who work with those young people. There has been a movement to have more young people dealt with in the community. Out of 60,000, approximately 40,000 are dealt with in the institutional context, but

591
one-third are dealt with in foster care. As we move towards those young people being dealt with out of the institutional environment, the concentration of disturbance within that environment becomes all the greater. The pressures on staff are greatly increased. If there are resource difficulties, staff under pressure, increasingly disturbed young people and heavier requirements and regulations, then the vulnerability of the staff in dealing with those young people is also greatly increased.
It is not sufficient merely to demand more professionalism and better management. We must also ensure real support and sufficient resources so that the staff do not become increasingly vulnerable and that the work is attractive to those who want to do what is best for the children. I seek the Minister's assurance that issues such as the educational vulnerability of the children and the vulnerability of the staff as regards supervision and treatment will receive urgent attention.
Finally, will the Government attend to the wise words of the NSPCC, which has so much experience of these affairs? It states that the standards and quality in different parts of the country are varied and that great attention should be given to ensuring equality across the country so that there are no pockets in which such incidents recur. The noble Earl pointed to one way in which that can be achieved. I look forward to the Government's response with eagerness.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, for their constructive response to the Statement. Both noble Lords indicated the seriousness of the subject under discussion and reflected what I think the noble Earl described as the general revulsion at some of the material revealed in the report. I am extremely grateful to both noble Lords for indicating that any constructive and forward-looking response by the Government, once we have gone through the consultation process which I described in repeating the Statement, will be supported on different sides of the House. I know that the Government will value that greatly.
The noble Earl referred to the general necessity to both underline and encourage the better training and screening of people involved in a professional way in looking after children living away from home. That is probably the crux of the matter and it is something to which the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, also referred. We shall of course give great emphasis to looking at that both in relation to the better training facilities which are needed and the better support to which the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, referred. Of course, it must be looked at also in the context of resources. As I said in repeating the Statement, the matter will be given attention in the cross-departmental discussions on the comprehensive spending review.
The noble Earl referred to the question of whether one should look to a national strategy to try to implement some of the report's findings and whether some issues should be approached on a broader basis. The chief of the social services inspectorate in England is now assessing local authorities' compliance with essential management and staffing safeguards and, it is hoped, will be reporting to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for
592
Health shortly after Christmas in terms of the national review of present practice and making some national recommendations for future activity.
We feel also that it will be possible to examine the whole problem in the context of a national strategy by the creation of the general social care council which will be able to regulate standards of conduct and practice by social services personnel throughout the country. We hope that it will provide some gold standards on that. I trust that that reassures the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, that we take seriously the need to maintain national standards and have a consistency of practising policy which I endorse entirely.
The noble Earl referred also to the need to exchange more information about the selection, vetting and management of care staff. We agree that that needs to be looked at again, particularly in the context of some of the original recommendations of the Warner Report, to which the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, referred. One problem which arises from making those procedures compulsory is that that may take more time and may make appointments more bureaucratic and expensive to fulfil. But we understand that that is a very important issue and we shall consult those affected professionally in every other way before we reach a decision.
We accept that it is important to look at the possibilities of making it easier to exchange information both between departments at national and local level and between different groups of people involved professionally in looking after those children. It is likely that we shall be able to take that forward but legislation will be needed. There will need to be particular statutory reference to the exchange of information between departments because of the issues raised by the Data Protection Act and related matters.
We are encouraged by the thought that the Private Member's Bill on public interest disclosure, which the Government have said they will support, may address some of the issues but it may not cover all of the points which the noble Lord raised and additional legislation may well be needed.
On the more general point about the seriousness with which the Government take this report and the need to implement it quickly, I want absolutely to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, that we shall take that forward as quickly as we can. The ministerial taskforce, which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is to lead, will be established and will be up and running very quickly. It involves cross-departmental liaison but from the initial response to my right honourable friend's inquiries of other departments, everyone in Whitehall takes this as seriously as they should do. I hope that it will be taken forward very quickly at that level and that that will then be translated into both national and local action.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, my noble friend has explained the report, its 20 recommendations and the setting up of the ministerial taskforce. In my 35 years in Parliament I have heard many statements dealing with these problems and they seem to go on and on. Something should be done immediately. Are all the

593
police forces aware of their responsibility in checking on, for example, teachers and people working in childcare establishments and other such fields? Is that being carried out properly? I know from my contacts with the NSPCC that it works with police forces in child abuse cases. Will the Minister check immediately to ensure that all police forces are aware of their responsibilities?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I share his concern that we seem to hear about these terrible events occurring time after time. It is almost as though there is a vicious cycle in terms of reports, as well as the actual activities which produce them.
As regards police responsibility, I shall check on that for my noble friend and write to him on the subject. He will be aware that there is a continuing discussion among the various departments responsible for those matters, both on the social services side and on the law enforcement side. There is continuing tension on the question of safeguarding the rights of individuals—the civil liberties problem—and the rights involved in safeguarding particularly vulnerable children. Those are extremely difficult matters. But I assure my noble friend that this report is a spur to looking at those problems yet again and perhaps reinforcing the legislation and some of the requirements of local police forces in the way that my noble friend described.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, in the course of the Statement the Minister mentioned that one of the points that Sir William Utting made was that a principal problem in this whole saga is the difficulty that members of staff have in reporting on one another and the difficulty that children have in complaining. That is an intractable problem on which I believe there has been some research fairly recently. It would be interesting to know whether the Government have looked at that, or, indeed, whether there is mention of it in the report, which I have not had time to examine.
I wonder whether it would be helpful to the Government if we had a debate, perhaps not a very long debate, in this House. We could then make sure that we do not just wring our hands, which we are inclined to do over this subject because it makes us feel absolutely sick. There is a good deal that can be said of a positive nature. We know that in this House there is a good deal of understanding and expertise in relation to the problem, and it may be that the Government would find it helpful to have a short debate.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for rightly suggesting that there is a good deal of authoritative evidence and opinion in this House from people with long experience in the field. The question of a debate would be for the usual channels. But I agree with the noble Baroness that an ability to tap in to the great expertise and authority of Members of your Lordships' House would be very helpful.
594
As regards research, the noble Baroness may be referring to research being conducted by Bristol University as to why there are so few convictions in this area and so few child witnesses involved in prosecutions. That research is expected to be completed early next year. The Government are aware of it and hope that it will be useful in leading to a path which helps us to understand ways in which we can better protect whistle-blowers on the staff side and protect children who may, in the jargon, wish to disclose experiences but not have the ability to do so or feel sufficiently safe with those adults around them to make any statement.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. As she says, it is a shocking report which describes a woeful situation. I listened to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who asked how we can do better. I feel extremely reassured by the fact that the Minister, in describing the work which is about to take place, committed herself—I am aware of her reputation—to setting up the formal mechanisms which can tackle the problem.
Does the Minister agree with me that there is a need also to be free of both dogma and complacency? I speak as a member of the local authority of the London Borough of Islington, which was the subject of allegations leading to an independent investigation into allegations of child abuse in our children's homes. That has taught me that we must be free of dogma and all join in the search for high standards of child protection without falling prey to rigid views.
Moreover, there is no room for complacency. Indeed, none of us can afford to think that it will not happen on our patch. It is dreadful to imagine the struggle that children have had to he listened to and awful to think that officials, and some politicians, have not wanted to know or hear. It would be inconceivable today to have a repetition of what happened in Islington five years ago when the then leader of the council accused the newspaper which first published the allegations of gutter journalism. I say that not for party political reasons but because it is a lesson to all of us: we cannot be complacent. I hope that the Minister agrees with me.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Baroness that this is not an area of complacency. The Government's initial response to the report makes it clear that certain actions are being taken immediately. As regards the point the noble Baroness made about the concerns of people who have a particular interest in the matter, whether they be from local authorities, local health authorities, from local education departments or others working at the national level, it is clearly important that the widest possible consultation is undertaken and that those views are taken into consideration. It is important that we listen to what people who have practical experience say. Moreover, as the noble Baroness rightly said, it is important that we do not proceed on the basis of any kind of dogmatic assumptions of what people's positions may be.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her kind words. However, I should point out to her that I only repeated the Statement. I did say that the ministerial

595
taskforce would be set up by "me", but I was of course referring to my right honourable friend in the other place. I was merely repeating a reported speech. My honourable friend Mr. Boateng is the Minister directly responsible for this area in the departmental context. I know that he will take the lead.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, we are all indebted to Sir William Utting and his committee for the report. I am also grateful to my noble friend the Minister for the positive attitude which she and her colleagues in government are taking not only in redressing the wrongs of the past but also, more importantly, in ensuring that they do not happen again. I have three quick points to make in that context.
First, as has been said, this is sadly not news in many ways. Sir William Utting has drawn together information about a range of activities which, regrettably. have been known to childcare charities for many years. Much of that has been addressed by many of the major charities such as Barnardos and NCH Action for Children. Will my noble friend ensure that, in drawing up the programme, full account will be taken of the work that has been done to introduce new systems of training, supervision, management, complaints procedures, and so on, which, incidentally, are very expensive? If the Government will the end of improvement in that respect, we hope that they will will the means.
Secondly, when drawing up the programme, will my noble friend and her colleagues consider the possibility of the provision of more residential facilities? The rate of reduction in the provision of residential care facilities has been too fast in recent years. I accept that many of the old homes should have been closed and indeed needed to be closed, but we have seen the alternative of keeping children in the community—often finding them in young offenders' institutions rather than in properly secluded care, whether it be of the residential or educational sort. In that context, will my noble friend address her mind to the fact that one of the main reasons for the reduction has been the inability of local authorities to fund placements? As they have withdrawn young people from those homes, so the unit costs of keeping other young people there have escalated out of this world. That is just one consequence of the appalling financial situation in which local authorities find themselves. Will my noble friend look at the possibility of providing more facilities of the smaller and more specialist sort?
Finally, will my noble friend examine the implications of the sharp increase in private children's care homes, the number of which increased by about 30 per cent. in 1996 alone? That conceivably might be the Achilles' heel in the future of further instances of abuse. Will my noble friend ensure in her legislation for such homes that, irrespective of their size, there is adequate provision for inspection and monitoring and that regulations are made in that respect?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am particularly grateful to my noble friend for highlighting the valuable work which the children's voluntary sector
596
has done, both in drawing attention to some of the problems which are reflected in this sad report and also in its active involvement in translating its findings into practice and policy in the area. Of course we will very much want to take the views and the authoritative opinions that those in the sector have on the subject when we come to consider the consultation which will precede our considered response to the report.
My noble friend is right to say that many of the recommendations have been made before, especially in the Warner Report (published some years ago), to which reference has already been made, as regards the vetting and supervision of recruiting staff to residential homes. As I understand it, many local authorities now have other systems in place, but, as was said earlier, there is a discrepancy between the practices of local authorities. One of the things that we hope will emerge from some of the actions that we are taking as a result of the report is greater national consistency. We also hope that the recommendations of several previous authoritative reports will now be translated into national positions.
I find what my noble friend said about the question of extending residential care most interesting. As he noted, that has been in decline in the conventional sense in recent years. One of the areas at which we need to look—and this is certainly something which is addressed by Sir William Utting in his report—is the extension and the regulation of more foster care and more foster places, rather than the re-establishment of the traditional type of home.
I agree with my noble friend that we need to look carefully at the extension of private care in the area, both in terms of foster care where children are living with, so to speak, surrogate parents and also in the more conventional homes. My noble friend will know that one of the recommendations of Sir William is that there should be inspection of the recruitment and support of foster carers and that the Government should establish a code of practice on foster care. We agree that there is a need for a code of practice. As part of the chief inspector's review of children's services, to which I referred earlier, he will be considering current practice on the recruitment of foster carers, and will identify any needs for further development with the statutory and voluntary sectors. We expect a code of practice on foster care to follow this report.

Constitutional Change: Cross-party Co-operation
4.48 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, I should like, first, to applaud the initiative of my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead and to thank him for having given us the opportunity to review the matter. As he said, the Motion has provoked sufficient interest to attract a significant number of maiden speakers. I am sure that we all look forward to hearing those maiden speeches.

597
However, my noble friend's own speech was significant and worth remarking upon. He is a more than noted chronicler of the achievements of progressive politicians of a previous time. In himself, my noble friend is a towering figure in the politics of his own generation and time. As a somewhat younger man, despite the increasing number of grey hairs in my beard, I and many of my generation find the vision that was expressed in the analysis in his speech today an inspiration as we continue to build our politics, our future and our relationships not only within domestic politics but also further afield.
However, this Chamber is no stranger to great speeches; indeed, not even to those that we have already heard today. As noble Lords will know much better than I do, if one makes one's way down from the Prince's Chamber towards the Library, one sees two major works of art, one on either side of the corridor, commemorating a great historic and political occasion in this House and a period of debate redolent of the great speech.
I was reminded of this when I heard the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, speak. On one side of the corridor there is a picture of the Lord Chancellor about to put the Question in the debate on home rule and on the other side there is a picture of the Marquess of Salisbury clearly objecting to the matter in hand. I found myself reflecting on that as I listened to what the noble Viscount had to say, because my part of the world, Northern Ireland, and indeed Ireland as a whole, has continued to suffer from the results of that debate and its outcome, and not least from the stance that was taken by the great-great-grandfather of the present Viscount; for it was his view at the time that, rather than there being co-operation in addressing the problems of Ireland, it would become a matter of enormous debate, division and disagreement.
As your Lordships well know, home rule was defeated on that occasion. Despite being brought back on a number of occasions, it did not finally achieve anything other than a partial completion in the early part of this century. I remind your Lordships that one of the costs was not only the reality for people like me many generations later but also what happened to your Lordships' House. I had cause to reflect upon this because I and my colleagues have been struggling to deal with some of the damage that I believe was wrought at that time; for I am firmly of the conviction—although it is not a particularly well educated one—that, had it been possible for the people of Ireland to have more responsibility and control of their own affairs at that time, the pressure cooker of militant republicanism and nationalism may never have reached the strength that it did and the people of Ireland would have been content to remain with the rest of the people of these islands, and we would all have had a much more fruitful and positive relationship with the rest of our common European home area.
I have been fascinated as I have observed how the party that the noble Viscount represents changed its attitude when it was in power and had responsibility for dealing with all the difficulties that had been created
598
over so many years. A century ago the party led by Lord Salisbury was insisting on no devolution—home rule was the name given to it in those days. The party insisted that it was a matter of sovereignty, that there could be no movement upon it and that electoral systems and governmental arrangements should change absolutely as little as possible. A little later it became apparent that this was not merely a question of a fundamental conviction in debate but was, in the words of another Tory, an orange card that could be played to advantage. But when many years later a Tory government became responsible for dealing with the difficulties of Northern Ireland, what did we find? On electoral systems they decided it was crucial to ensure that there was proportional representation in Northern Ireland at local government level and in any assembly. Why was that? It was considered crucial to ensure that the community was not split, divided and fighting among itself.
As regards the European election, the previous government were quite prepared to accept that proportional representation might be appropriate for Northern Ireland even though the rest of the United Kingdom would be blighted with another system. They said that should be the case because a consensual system was so important in a divided community. I found it extraordinary to listen to the Secretary of State in the previous government and his colleagues argue with energy and emotional conviction that home rule or devolution was critical to the health of Northern Ireland and to its welfare but anathema for the rest of the United Kingdom. They argued that it was the way of ensuring that Northern Ireland remained part of the United Kingdom but the recipe for fracturing the whole kingdom if it were applied to the people of Scotland or the people of Wales.
As regards human rights, after considerable debate and after the discussions of 1991 and 1992 the Secretary of State began to make it clear that a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland would be important and appropriate while at the same time the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights for the rest of the people of the United Kingdom would be an aberration and an appalling business altogether, likely to wreak havoc with our administration of justice.
It seems to me that when one has responsibility for dealing with big questions or divisive questions, somehow or other there is an appreciation that we must work together in the face of these difficulties because they are so strong and because they are so critical. In that regard the Conservative Government realised the importance of Europe and of working together with our closest European neighbour, the only one with whom we have a land frontier, Ireland. We joined the European Community on the same day in 1973. We must work together with them in a special Anglo-Irish Agreement, establishing intergovernmental arrangements and making sure that Ministers are meeting together. Why is this done? Is it done in order to sell ourselves out to people who had rebelled and left, and in order to dilute national sovereignty and to tear our United Kingdom apart? Not at all. It is done in order to build peace and prosperity with our closest European neighbour.

599
Yet, somehow, it appears that to work in the same fashion with the rest of our European neighbours is a profound threat to all that we hold good. I find that an extraordinary proposition.
Perhaps I might be permitted a wry comment. When we look at the difficulties in Northern Ireland and those battles which are celebrated every summer, we find that it is not an Irish prince, nor even an English prince, who seems to be at the bottom of it, but a Dutch prince who was persuaded to take upon himself the throne of England in order to struggle against some of his European enemies at the time. The truth is that on these big issues that involve our history and our future, our peace and our prosperity, there is something bigger than party advantage. In Northern Ireland we have tried to work at this. We have made it clear that difference should not be pushed to division; that power sharing does not mean giving up one's party, its commitments and its principles: but rather finding ways of working together with those with whom one differs for the greater good of all and the achievement of what is best in the community.
I know that your Lordships may well find that I come back again and again to the difficulties of Northern Ireland and to its history. I trust that it will not be a plague on your Lordships' House. In times past others kept coming back to this matter to disrupt the affairs of this House. I trust your Lordships will understand that I return to this matter because I believe that sometimes as regards our most difficult problems we can see most clearly the way not only of resolving them but also some of the problems that have caused less dismay. In that context I am not only persuaded of the critical importance of power sharing in Northern Ireland but also of sharing power in the whole of our United Kingdom and in our increasingly united European home.
4.58 p.m.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity of participating in a debate in your Lordships' House. I hope that some day I shall be able to match the fine oratory of my noble friend Lord Alderdice. I was advised, as I suppose have been many other noble Lords, that a maiden speech should be short and uncontroversial. As an advocate at the Criminal Bar I have always understood the effectiveness of brevity. However, I had more trouble with the ordinance about controversy. My granny used to say that a kiss from a man without a moustache was like meat without salt. I have to say that I feel much the same way about a speech without just a frisson of provocation. However, I shall do my utmost to keep to the injunction.
On the topic of kisses, I was introduced into this House a fortnight ago and have been met with kindness itself. I think it started well with a misunderstanding on my part of the initiation rite. After the elaborate doffing, the oathtaking and much bowing, I followed the procession out of the Chamber, where I was met by the noble Lords, Lord Hollick and Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, who kissed me warmly. There was a queue of noble Lords waiting to enter the House and I enthusiastically kissed each of them in turn, thinking this was part of the ritual. It has made me very popular
600
with noble Lords on all sides of the House and I look forward to building on that good will. Indeed, perhaps your Lordships have been too inhibited in the past and this could be the way to greater cross-party co-operation on many issues.
I chose to launch my participation in this House in this debate because the idea of cross-party co-operation on major national issues seems so incontrovertible. Having chaired for four years—between the last two elections—the constitutional reform organisation, Charter 88, I am only too aware that support for change crosses party loyalties. On many issues people do not divide along the old political fault lines and the public would welcome greater honesty and openness where agreement exists in particular on areas of policy which will have such a profound impact upon our institutions and our lives. I also believe that many other areas of policy could benefit from a consensual approach. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, spoke about Northern Ireland. Both as regards Northern Ireland and many other issues such as drugs, the environment and crime, about which I know rather a lot, it is clear that we need not have a particular party angle in seeking a proper and helpful debate.
A worrying feature of modern democracy has been the increasing cynicism among the public about governments and politicians. The issue of trust was very much at the heart of the last election. Clearly many factors contribute to the erosion of public trust. Sometimes it can be the failure of governments to keep promises; it can be the questionable behaviour of Members of Parliament; it can be the inability of politicians to say "We got it wrong"; and it can also be the feeling that perhaps the Government were no longer listening. However, public disenchantment was in no small part due to mindless adversarialism. It was that mindless adversarialism which in many ways blighted fruitful political discourse for many years.
In the politics of the brawl, whatever is said by the other side has to be opposed or ridiculed. The sides square up and are quick to exploit opportunities to embarrass each other. While that may score points in the short term, it does not make for thoughtful or reflective debate and I am sure it reduces public confidence in politicians. Happily, such posturing has never been characteristic of this House.
However, lack of trust and public cynicism have already taken their toll upon policy choices. For example, opinion polls show that people are privately willing to pay more taxes but in the ballot box do not vote for tax raising parties. The reason is that they are not confident that the increase will find its way effectively into health or education and they are not confident that the tax raising will stop where it was promised. Lack of trust limits policy choices, as parties who wish to govern have to tie themselves into a straitjacket.
This Government's programme of constitutional change is not about change for change's sake. It is precisely about rebuilding trust, reconnecting people and institutions and renewing our democracy. I recently led a commission which looked at ways of drawing more

601
people into further education. In the course of gathering evidence I visited some of our most deprived and despairing communities. When you do that, you see just how little our formal democracy can mean to people in some parts of the country.
What has become clear to so many is that we must decentralise power and bring decision-making closer to the people affected by those decisions. We have to give rights to our citizens, look again at our voting system and find ways of making it reflect the way people actually vote. These changes will remove the "Winner takes all" mentality from our political culture. Westminster will have to learn to share power with Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. Laws will have to be framed and interpreted to be consistent with fundamental human rights values. Members of that other place will no longer just be voting fodder but partners in framing legislation. These changes will not be additional frills but pre-conditions of a wider social renewal.
Rebuilding trust is never easy, but more consensual policy-making could undoubtedly contribute to that end. And cross-party collaboration or co-operation on matters which go to the very underpinnings of our democracy must be not just welcome but essential.
It may seem strange that someone who has spent the whole of her professional life in the English legal system should seek an amelioration of the adversarial mode of debate. All my colleagues at the Bar—a number of them are here today—will confirm that I do not shrink from the fray. Indeed, I chose to practise in the most adversarial part of the system as a jury trial lawyer, and I like the battle. I like the taste of blood. I believe strongly that our adversarial process is the most effective way of trying criminal issues. However, the legal system has begun to recognise that pure adversarialism does not always produce justice, and more effort is now going into establishing areas of consensus between prosecution and defence. For example, judges are reining in needless, destructive cross-examination which puts people such as rape victims on trial, and procedures are being invented to prevent ambush tactics which involve one side taking the other completely by surprise.
What we are seeing both in law and in politics are significant incremental shifts which are making our systems more appropriate to the modern world. Unmitigated adversarialism has had its day. As a woman, I see it as the bringing of some of the strategies of the domestic or private sphere into the public domain. It is a modern way of managing conflict. It is the future, and it works.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, I value cross-party co-operation. But may I respectfully offer some words of warning about consensus politics? Consensus can mask difference. It can offer the pretence that no real differences exist when there are some very real differences in our society. While there are people who gain from policy, there will often be those who lose. Let us not pretend that there are not honest disagreements. Even nuances of difference should be given expression. I am sure we all believe in the power of creative argument as the lubricant of democracy.
602
We should also recognise that consensus can favour the powerful. Consensus can often most easily be reached around the interests of the most influential groups in our society. It is they who decide what is the "sensible" course on which we can all agree. When that happens the interests of the more marginal groups in our country—the poor, the dispossessed and minorities of various kinds—can easily be neglected or ignored. That is not healthy politics; and it is not a form of politics which interests me.
What is essential to consensus is a culture of openness, access and dialogue. When the grandees of the political parties agree behind the scenes, people feel excluded rather than included. They can easily feel that a political elite is making the decisions. What I urge upon noble Lords is that where there is an effort to seek honest agreement between the parties, it must be conducted, not sub rosa between men in grey suits, but openly and with public involvement.
We must all be mindful that if the public are not properly informed and really engaged in this dialogue about constitutional change and our involvement in Europe, the consequences could be very serious indeed. We could hand democracy to chauvinism. So what one needs is an agreed set of rules for this new politics of consensus.
I thank noble Lords for their indulgence. I greatly look forward to participating in the work of this House. Your Lordships can expect me to be both co-operative and controversial.
5.9 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, there will be a total cross-party consensus in the House that that was a splendid maiden speech. It is a great joy for me to have the opportunity of congratulating the noble Baroness on her speech. She is a fellow barrister; she is a star of our profession; and she has, as we all see, great wit—indeed, the proposal she made for the change to the Introduction ceremony to this House might add to its time, but in her case would win total support. She has long supported causes which were sometimes minority causes. She has always been brave, always a batailleur. Of her it can truly be said, as Judge Tapping-Reeve, who founded the first law school in the United States, at Litchfield, Connecticut, said was his ambition for his students—that they would go out as advocates, burning to uphold the right and avenge the wrong. That is true of the noble Baroness. We very much look forward to her taking part in the work of this House.
Co-operation in many spheres of life is admirable. However, it is not a panacea. The career of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is an illustration of a career that gained its strengths from battles fought, from ideas courageously developed and from ideas that were often ahead of their time.
There is one striking illustration in the life of our country today. Looking back over the past 20 years—and it is an often under-appreciated part of the record of the Government led by Mrs. Thatcher and her successor—the framework for the economic success of this country was hammered out on the anvil of strife.

603
It was reluctantly accepted by some other parties. This country would not have the opportunity for economic progress that it has today had that battle not been won. It is encouraging that there is now a consensus that we need a sound economy and low inflation; that there is no trade-off between high inflation and unemployment; and that we need to curtail public spending and reform the welfare and social security system. That is a very encouraging consensus. But it would not have been won simply by an attempt at cross-party co-operation. A striking example of the growth and development that can take place across parties in terms of controversial ideas is the building on what was done by the previous government through the present Government very wisely deciding that the Bank of England should have operational independence. In a curious way, I should not expect to find total consensus for that on the Benches on which I sit. However, I believe it was a right decision.
It would be highly desirable if we could secure the maximum consensus on constitutional change. There has been precious little constitutional change in this country since 1928, when the universal franchise was complete. That was a time when, as A. J. P. Taylor said, "government was little intrusive". He said that you could walk the length and breadth of England and, if you did not commit a crime, the only representative of government you might meet would be the postman. If we add to that the fact that over that period our people have developed educational skills, more leisure and more opportunities for information, it is high time that they were offered a greater part in government.
The previous government rightly stressed subsidiarity in Europe. Subsidiarity (which is curious "Euro-jargon") is actually a matter of common sense. It means that decisions should be taken as close to the people as possible. In terms of the strengthening of local government, in terms of devolution and the judicious use of referendums, that is a guiding principle which I hope will be more and more respected on a cross-party basis. It was the present Leader of the Conservative Party who, when Secretary of State for Wales, said:
"People everywhere want more say in decisions which affect them".
However, it does not follow that, just because one supports the aim of co-operation and consensus, it can necessarily be easily achieved. I listened with interest and encouragement to the speech of the noble Lord the Leader of the House. Successful constitutional reform must start with Parliament. It was, after all, a Conservative, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, who described our government as an elective dictatorship. The fact that three out of the last four elections produced governments of different complexions with a minority of the votes but elected with vast majorities bears that out.
We talk easily of parliamentary sovereignty. What do we mean? We mean that we elect a government every five years and, if they have a decent majority, they can put through what measures they like; and the Back-Benchers, far from fulfilling Burke's splendid tradition, are all too often the tame footsoldiers of democracy.
604
I mention that point because personally I am not against changing the composition of this House. Having had the enormous privilege of being here for some nine years, I have often felt that this House lacked the courage to exercise all its powers. I believe it lacks that courage in part because it feels that it lacks—in the purest sense of the word, I hasten to say—legitimacy. It is reluctant to use the delaying power. It did not even use it in relation to the poll tax, and has very rarely used it. In the previous Parliament, for example, it did not delay the change to the Bill of Rights, passed in a single afternoon in this House, to the potential benefit, as it was then believed, of a Member of the other place. This House needs the opportunity to exercise the powers that it has. That can come about only as the result of some change.
However—here I part company with the noble Lord the Leader of the House—I do not believe that it is as simple as saying: do you support a change in the hereditary principle? Parliament has to be looked at as a whole. I believe that the House of Commons needs proportional representation. The type of proportional representation needs to be considered. But we need to avoid what happened in, I believe, 1918 when there was agreement on the need for proportional representation but no agreement on the method. So in a typically British compromise, we decided to stick to the existing first-past-the-post system for the next 80 years.
Any examination of reform in this House needs to be undertaken together with an examination of reform in the other place. It is not as simple as saying that we should eliminate the right of hereditary Peers to vote. We have to look at the way in which this House should be composed as a whole: what electoral means there should be—perhaps bringing in people from the regions; what percentage should be appointed, if indeed a percentage should be appointed; and how one can avoid the tyranny of the party list. I hope it will be realised that any change on a cross-party, co-operative basis is precious to us all and must be properly thought through. It is not desirable that, every time this House votes against a government proposal, the mantra goes out that the House of Lords is undemocratic, in an apparent attempt to undermine the validity of the decisions taken by this House. So long as the composition remains as it is now, it should be properly respected on all sides.
I wish to address one other issue—that of Europe. It is very important that this country should have what it has lacked for far too long—a policy "for" Europe. All too often we have a policy "on" Europe for domestic consumption. There is a vast difference. The leading Singapore statesman, that formidable but very able man, Lee Kuan Yew, recently said to me that there was only one stance that the United Kingdom should take on Europe, and that was, "In there, pitching".
However, even if we agree that that is right, it does not take all the difficult issues away. I think that European monetary union is one of the great and difficult issues of our time. I respect the sceptics. I do not believe that anyone who read Milton Friedman in The Times this morning, with his powerful argument,

605
could possibly do otherwise. There are risks to monetary union. Business is to a considerable measure unsure about it; the City is still sceptical.
The plain fact remains that 11 of our partners are determined to have a monetary union on 1st January 1999. But if they do it will affect us. I believe that we should preserve our flexibility, and I would be disappointed at any firm decision in any party that we should not contemplate going in for a particular number of years. We should keep the flexibility, in the economic interests of this country, to decide to join if the single currency is successful and if we think that our economy has converged so as to make it possible.
But that said, I recognise that it is one of the most important issues of our generation. A single currency, even if successful, will not be easy. I am convinced that, whenever it comes, the decision can be taken only with the support of all our people. I look forward to a referendum, in which I have the feeling that the people I most admire in each party will, when it comes to the moment, be on the yes side, as they were in that most decisive, interesting and determinative of referendums in 1975.
I have spoken long enough; there are others still to speak. I am encouraged to sit down because I look forward with keen interest to all the other maiden speeches and to the speech of my noble friend Lord Blackwell, who served the previous government with distinction. I am privileged to have him now as a valued and senior colleague at NatWest. I also look forward with great and immediate pleasure to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I know him through the work we do together on Justice, the all-party law reform group. He is our representative on the International Commission of Jurists, and he, like the noble Baroness opposite, is passionate about human rights. How marvellous it is that so many barristers are coming to this House. Perhaps that is the clue to reform. I look forward to the noble Lord's speech.
5.22 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am one of those who became involved in politics initially to a large extent as a result of listening to the magnificent Dimbleby Lecture delivered by my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead in November 1979, 18 years ago. It is therefore a source of great pride to me to be able to make my maiden speech in the last debate which he will be initiating in his capacity as Leader of the Liberal Democrats in your Lordships' House.
I am also pleased, though somewhat overawed, to be speaking immediately after the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon. I regret that the traditions of this House do not allow me to describe him as "my noble friend", which he is. He is a profound thinker on constitutional issues and I must say that there is considerable cross-party agreement between the two of us on the subject.
I rise with some trepidation because I have already, in my time as a Member of your Lordships' House, listened to two debates of an alarmingly high standard.
606
The first was on the day of my introduction, a week ago, on the funding of Oxford and Cambridge colleges. The other to which I had been able to listen from the steps of the Throne a few days earlier, was the debate on the Second Reading of the Human Rights Bill. I have had a long commitment to the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into the domestic laws of the United Kingdom. I would have chosen to make my maiden speech in that debate, had I been able to obtain a somewhat higher place in the queue for introductions. I had hoped that that process might have been speeded up by having mass introductions somewhat like the Reverend Mr. Moon's mass weddings. Indeed, I may say that the process of being introduced seemed to me to be rather like a wedding in the sense that one gets dressed up in rather peculiar clothes—I am sure it would be out of order to describe it as "fancy dress"—and one then processes slowly between two groups of people who look at each other with a certain amount of mutual suspicion and hostility. One then signs the register. The critical difference is that on this occasion I had two best men but no bride.
The Human Rights Bill is very relevant, however, to today's debate because it is a Bill of profound constitutional importance. It is perhaps the most important constitutional Bill to have come before your Lordships' House since the European Communities Act 25 years ago. As such, I believe that it requires cross-party support, not all-party support, but the support of more than a single party. It is clearly right that it should have the support not just of a party with a majority, however large, in the other place, but the support of parties that together have been elected by a majority of the voters who have taken part in the last general election. That principle applies not only to the Human Rights Bill, which imposes important curbs on the powers of the Executive, but it also applies to the Scotland Bill which transfers important powers of legislation from Westminster to Edinburgh; and it applies, to a lesser extent, to the Wales Bill. It applies to the Bill to alter the system of voting for members of the European Parliament and it applies to—though I hardly dare mention it in a maiden speech—the proposed Bill for changing the composition of your Lordships' House.
Sometimes, of course, cross-party co-operation is not a matter of co-operation between parties but of co-operation between groups within parties. As my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead pointed out, that was particularly the case in the debates on Europe in 1971 and 1972 and again at the time of the referendum campaign in 1975. Something very similar could happen again, no doubt on the same subject.
However, let me make it clear that cross-party co-operation is not, in my view, the same thing as cross-party consensus. Very few of the major constitutional changes which have occurred in this country have been achieved as a matter of all-party consensus. Perhaps at the end of the day the extension of the vote to women in 1918 and 1928 was an example of that, but only after years when there had been something that was clearly not a consensus at all.

607
So I believe that constitutional changes do not require a consensus but they require clear majority support among the voters—the support of parties backed by a majority of the voters. That is why I warmly welcome the co-operation between Her Majesty's Government and my party, the Liberal Democrats, on the Human Rights Bill and on other proposals for constitutional reform. The programme of constitutional reform now being implemented is the most far-reaching programme of its kind for decades. Most of it, once implemented, will be irreversible. Therefore, it needs legitimacy, and that legitimacy can be obtained only through cross-party co-operation. I thank your Lordships.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, it is my great pleasure on behalf of the whole House to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on an interesting and distinguished maiden speech. He is a distinguished lawyer with wide experience and has much to contribute to debates in your Lordships' House. He will greatly strengthen the Benches of the Liberal Democrat Party. We wish him well and look forward to hearing from him again on many an occasion.
When I first read the list of speakers it occurred to me that there must be more in this than the standard Liberal Democrat debate. To find that it was being opened by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, and that the noble Lord the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition were also participating, made me realise, if I may be forgiven such a phrase, that "something must be up". The following day we saw in the press that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, was giving up the leadership of the Liberal Democrat Party and was being succeeded by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. This therefore gives me the opportunity of paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, who has been one of the great statesmen of this part of the present century. He has brought great talent to both Houses of Parliament and also to the European Commission and the European Union. He is one of those people of whom it may truly be said that he has not only ability, but wisdom as well.
I turn briefly to the substance of the debate. There are clearly some issues on which not only cross-party co-operation but also a national consensus is desirable or, indeed, essential. That is obviously true on certain major issues of foreign policy; it is certainly true on issues of war and peace; but it is also true on other issues as well.
There are major issues which divide the parties, and Europe is one. In my view—other people take a different view but I express my view, not theirs—there is a consensus in the country as a whole which crosses party boundaries in favour of close involvement in the European Union and in its future. It may well be that when it comes to a referendum it will have to be fought on cross-party lines.
If one listens carefully at Question Time, one finds great concern in this House about what is regarded as a lack of democracy on the part of other countries. But little is ever said in relation to the lack of democracy in
608
our own country. Over the years, particularly in the past few years, there has been a growing rift between the politicians and the public; between the government and the people. In fact we are a long-suffering people—at least the English are; I doubt whether the Welsh or the Scots are quite as long suffering. But the English are long suffering and put up with bad government for long periods of time. At the end of the day, however, the plebs revolt, as they did in 1979 and as they did again in May of this year. We then find the politicians abasing themselves and saying how much they got it wrong and how right they are to say how much they got it wrong.
However, there is obviously a divide. One of the reasons for it is the tendency, particularly where there is a strong party division, for people to look at the party interest rather than at the overall national interest. It is also the case—one must be careful how one puts this—that from time to time politicians seem to be more interested in their own position as politicians rather than the interests of the public they are supposed to be serving. I shall not go into any great detail now.
I want to make one comment on the speech of the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal. I took great exception to some of the things he said, particularly when he talked about men of "goodwill"—they being the people no doubt who are prepared to co-operate with him on his terms—dismissing the rest of us as being below the salt and barely capable of recognition. Let me make two points, in case there is any misunderstanding on his part or on the part of anybody else, about my own position.
I do not support the hereditary principle either in politics or in business. I firmly believe in what the original drafters of the American constitution said—that it is self-evident that all men are born equal. But at the same time I do not buy a pig in a poke; still less do I buy half a pig in a poke. What the noble Lord the Leader of the House is currently offering the House, having dismissed everybody who disagrees with him as people not of goodwill, is half a pig. And we do not even know what that half a pig looks like. If this matter is pressed to a Division, I shall take great pleasure in voting against the Government's proposal. I do so not on the basis that I support the hereditary principle but because I support good government and because I support knowing what one is setting out to do, however unfashionable those concepts may be in the political world.
I also want to take up the question of proportional representation, with particular reference to what the Government propose doing in the case of the European Parliament. We see politics at its worst in the European Parliament with the decision by the governance of the Labour Party (the party machine) that four of its members—one would otherwise have thought of them as being rather insignificant people—should be put on the rack and cast out because they had the temerity to express some dissent from the party line. I do not know any of those gentlemen; I probably would not support anything that they say. On the other hand, it is an abuse of power to behave in the way that the Government are behaving towards them.

609
Therefore, with that rift between the Government and the people, we must look at the situation also in the light of the way that the party system has developed in recent years; where the machine has become too powerful and is riding roughshod, not only over the public interest, but also over its own people. Why should I object if the Labour Party machine rides roughshod over supporters of the Labour Party? A few less of them might well be in the public interest. Nevertheless, I do not regard that as proper or acceptable behaviour.
The Government are not proposing in the case of the elections to the European Parliament to introduce a proper proportional representation system. I am not saying that I support proportional representation. They are introducing a closed list system which strengthens the party machine at the very time when what we need to do is strengthen the hand of the people—the foot soldiers, the people out on the front fighting the battle, not those in the offices of Whips or in party headquarters. Therefore when, as I may be tempted to do, I vote against the Labour Party proposals on this matter, it does not mean that I do not support some measure of reform in the "first-past-the-post" system.
There is little more that I want to say. This has been a valuable debate. It has brought to the fore a number of important issues which need to be addressed. But I make one final point about your Lordships' House. In many respects it is a more democratic body than the other place. That may be a strange thing to say, but the fact of the matter is that if the whip is cracked in another place, the troops have to toe the line. The sanction is that if they do not toe the line they end up being deselected and lose their livelihood. That, presumably, is what is meant by "democracy" as we understand it these days. But that sanction is not available against your Lordships. Apart from the golden characters on the Front Bench the rest of your Lordships are not paid and therefore there is fortunately no sanction open to the party machine against the occasional free spirit that may emerge on both sides of the House.
5.39 p.m.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I should like to start my first speech to the House by thanking noble Lords on all sides for the friendship with which I have been received here. I fear that I have not yet received the kiss of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws; no doubt an omission that we can soon rectify. I should like also to thank all the staff of the House for the grace and civility with which they have greeted me, a grace and civility that I must say I did not know existed outside the great 19th century hotels.
As the Liberal Democrat treasurer for the past 10 years, I am somewhat nervous to stand before the House in the week of Mr. Ecclestone. Of course, Liberal Democrat treasurers, in particular at the beginning of this century, had a close affinity with the House, an affinity that I was worried was being taken too far when today I had the privilege of introducing the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, only two weeks after I had been introduced myself. When I discovered that not only was
610
I introducing him but that I had become the senior supporter, I wondered whether the procedures of the House were in some way being abused.
I am delighted this evening to support in my first speech the Motion of my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. I am particularly delighted to do so because I do not come from what could be described as the co-operative political wing of politics. I was first elected to a London borough in 1974. Those noble Lords who are or have been members of London boroughs will realise that confrontation, not co-operation, has been the hallmark of London town hall politics in the past 24 years. In supporting my noble friend's Motion despite my background, I take comfort from the fact that, in what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, described as the first period of my noble friend's life he must have had an early experience of Labour Cabinets that could from time to time have been akin to taking tea with the Borgias.
Now I believe—and I believe with my noble friends on this side of the House—that it is time for a change of approach from confrontational politics to the politics of co-operation. I believe that many of us who have just come into the House are lucky to do so in 1997. It is arguable that there have been certainly two watershed elections in the 20th century—the 1906 election and the 1945 election—and possibly the 1979 election, although it may be that we are too close to that to know. But it is certainly possible and quite likely probable that the 1997 election created a climate for constitutional and political change for which many of my noble friends have fought all their lives.
It was not only the creation of the Social Democrat Party which started this process—I think that three members of the so-called "Gang of Four" are present today—it was also Lord Grimond before that, who marched, in his phrase, "his red guards towards the sound of gunfire", in order to attempt to break the mould of British politics. Certainly, the signs in the first six months are good that the 1997 election has created one of the great reforming Parliaments.
I shall list the things that are to happen or are already in train. We have the measures put in place to create a Scottish parliament and a Welsh assembly; we have the decision on independence for the Bank of England on monetary policy; we have the decision to grant trade union rights at GCHQ; we have signed the social chapter; and we are taking steps to introduce proportional representation for the European elections. For me and like-minded Lords, that is an excellent start. How could a Liberal Democrat of my persuasion not support and co-operate in the development of this agenda?
However, we have heard this afternoon some siren voices. There seem to be two strands of complaint about the co-operative style of politics proposed by my noble friend. First, people say that we, as a party, will lose our independence and will be swallowed up and destroyed by the Labour Party. Secondly—the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, expressed this view earlier in the debate—whenever we appear not to agree with what the Government are doing, we are treated as though in some

611
way we have been caught out like naughty schoolboys making signs behind teacher's back. That argument fails to understand what we mean by constructive opposition.
What it means—it is quite obvious to members of the public—is that as a party we would intend to co-operate where we agree and oppose where we disagree. There are many areas where we agree with the Government. We agree with the Government on much of the agenda for constitutional reform. We agree with the Government on much of their European policy. From this side of the House we shall clearly support the Government and co-operate with them to bring in the legislation necessary to implement those policies. There are many other areas where we believe the Government share our instincts but are somewhat too timid. Indeed. there is a suggestion that many new Labour Members elected to the other place wish that they had been elected on our manifesto.
In what the noble Viscount described as key public services, we believe—as Mr. Simon Hughes demonstrated in the debate in the other place—that the Government are not going far enough. In those areas we shall act as their scourge. But in many areas, we, as a party, oppose what the Government are doing. We oppose the Government's position on university fees. We oppose the Government's policy with regard to the tobacco sponsorship of Formula One. In those areas we will oppose. But there is nothing inconsistent with co-operative politics in saying that where we disagree we will oppose and where we agree we will support.
I am grateful for the reception that I have been given in the House and today. I am grateful, too, for the opportunity given by this Motion to set out to the House the principles which I believe should guide our words and actions in the coming years.
5.49 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, it is my privilege to welcome to our counsels another recruit with a distinguished legal background; indeed, one who was nominated in 1994 as European lawyer of the year. However, he is no narrow lawyer, as noble Lords may have judged from his splendid address. He has experience in teaching, in business, and even in retailing; and, as he revealed, he has experience in local government. In the reference books he gives his recreations as sport, food and wine. I hope he feels among friends on both sides of the Chamber who share at least two of his three absorbing activities. We all hope that he will find time to drag himself away from the Bar and take part in many of our debates in the future.
When I first saw the terms of the original Motion—the real thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins—at first glance they seemed so reasonable and innocuous that even a paid-up member of the awkward squad on the Cross-Benches had to think hard and ask himself, "What is the catch; where is the snag?". Like the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, we would all like a great deal less of the crude party political slanging match. But as the noble Baroness said, consensus can mask important differences. What is wrong with
612
political parties vigorously confronting one another—challenging one another? Should not democrats revel in the open clash of rival beliefs and concepts?
Before challenging the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, I should like to associate myself with the graceful tributes paid to him by others and offer him one of my own. After all, the noble Lord has not always been so fastidious or so squeamish in disdaining confrontation. As other noble Lords have remarked, he was not above a spot of what the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal called "the rough trade" of politics. We recall his courageous confrontation with former Labour colleagues in 1981 which led to the breakaway SDP. At that time there were plenty of Labour Members of Parliament and others who shared his anxieties to the full, but they preferred a quiet, non-confrontational life. It was certainly, for a time, a bloody battle. but the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, emerged unbowed and victorious.
In 1981 we saw an historic triumph. I would go further and say that next to my noble friend Lady Thatcher and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Owen, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, deserves most political credit for confronting and purging what had then become the natural party of opposition of its more self-destructive shibboleths.
I do not find much to support in this great call for cross-party co-operation. As other speakers have said, it sounds very reasonable despite a slight whiff of moral superiority. But it can smack of a contrived consensus, based on backstairs compromise, to serve short-term convenience or party advantage. My worry is that consensus and compromise are precisely the follies that cost us so dear in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.
I am an economist and not a lawyer so perhaps I may invite noble Lords to sit back comfortably and reflect on the fashionable panaceas to which the leaders of all three parties paid almost abject deference in the post-war years until 1979. I give noble Lords a preliminary list of the sacred cows, all of which finished up in the intellectual abattoir. The pride of place among consensual policies that all reasonable and good men upheld was the universal, self-sufficient, state monopoly of welfare, now acknowledged by its well-meaning progenitors to be unsustainable and urgently undergoing radical reform.
Not far behind in cross-party favour was the famous mixed economy based on subsidised state industries, which have since been privatised, making profits and contributing to the Exchequer. Then there was the all-party incantation of growthmanship leading directly to stop-go instability of the economy and inflation. Not far behind that was the cross-party enthusiasm for naïve Keynesianism as a substitute for monetary discipline of which, by the way, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, as Chancellor, was far less guilty than most of the people who occupied the Treasury in the post-war years.
During the same period all patriots were required to pay lip service to fixed exchange rates until that was punctured by periodic devaluations and abandoned altogether in 1972. Nor must we forget the cross-party enthusiasm for the National Economic Development Office in 1961 which led to George Brown's national

613
plan in 1965. That collapsed within a year. The national plan had a shorter vogue than the Spice Girls and it was a whole lot less fun.
Let us remember the way in which both the main parties, Conservative and Labour, but with the Liberals not far behind, whored after the phantom of bigger, better and more draconian incomes policies. That is what we all had to believe in the 1960s and early 1970s. They were all doomed to fail ignominiously. In a way, most shaming of all until 1979, is that all parties accepted the legally entrenched trade union monopoly as a fact of life. It was inevitable and had to be accepted.
Have we not suffered enough over these years from cross-party co-operation, from Churchill's Butskellism; Macmillan's middle way and Wilson's white heat of technology? I have a different view. Indeed, for the whole of these 30 years what we needed was a straightforward, open confrontation between rival conceptions of government and society. We needed a straightforward shoot-out, if one might put it that way, between creeping collectivism and competitive capitalism. But the craven consensus fobbed us off with trivial party sniping and phoney polarisation.
I must declare an interest. For 30 years I was general director of the Institute of Economic Affairs. During those years it was left to independent economists outside government and business to warn that central planning, like incomes policy, NEDDY, growthmanship and the rest, provided no enduring substitute for a radical reconstruction of a competitive market economy. I can vouch that throughout that time the great party swells took little or no interest in our musings until the emergence—I would almost say the eruption—of the then Keith Joseph, followed by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher.
The noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, has spoken eloquently about the economic and political transformation wrought by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, after 1979. That was the pure fruit of confrontational politics, which now frightens the life out of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. Yet that confrontation was necessary to break the mould and eventually to make possible the emergence of Mr. Blair's new Labour Party.
In conclusion I suggest three lessons from this potted history. The first is that the avoidance of confrontation should never be a high priority for a party based upon principles. Too often it is a pretext for dodging hard choices which have to be made in the longer run. It is the perennial lure of the soft option or the easy life. The second lesson—and I particularly address the noble Lord. Lord Jenkins, and his colleagues—is that the Liberal Party leaders, famed for their independence, with the honourable exception in my experience of the then Jo Grimond, proved far from immune to the novelty of sweeping panaceas however illusory they proved to be.
That brings me to my third lesson, which may not altogether surprise the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, whom I am glad to see has now joined us having missed my eloquent tributes earlier to his achievements. The third
614
lesson is the current attempt, which is now out in the open, by the political establishment in Westminster and Brussels to stitch up a cross-party consensus in favour of a single European currency. On my consistent market analysis, this project exemplifies precisely the same wishful thinking as did the incomes policy, the national plan, growthmanship and the rest. It is equally doomed because it subordinates objective economic realities to short-term political expediency. It was the cross-party co-operation, backed up the Whips of all three parties, that deprived our people of democratic choice on Maastricht. The result was simply to store up trouble for the future and it has dogged the Tory Party in particular.
Frankly, I welcome the signs of a full frontal confrontation between the main parties on the fateful question of whether Britain should join the European Monetary Union. For me, the death knell of the euro was sounded this very day in a brief and persuasive essay by Milton Friedman in today's edition of The Times. I commend it to your Lordships. I look forward to seeing one of the exponents of the euro set out an equally analytical and persuasive line of argument. I have some confidence that if those rival arguments can be fully deployed and confront one another, we shall avoid involvement in yet another doomed experiment.
6.1 p.m.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, it is a great privilege to be able to make my maiden speech in your Lordships' House in such a distinguished debate which has so many distinguished contributors. It is particularly a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, whose distinctive free market economics have been such an inspiration to so many of us for so long. I must also thank the noble Lord for having used many of my best lines!
The injunction to be brief and non-controversial could lead to the conclusion that I should sit down now while I am ahead, but I concluded that my objective should be to make all my contributions in your Lordships' House brief and non-controversial on the grounds that they would be wrapped up in such impeccable logic and common sense that nobody could ever disagree. The fact that I suspect that that is unlikely points me towards what I see as the first fallacy of the Motion; namely, that all men of good will, whatever their party or background, can be brought to a consensus on great issues of moment.
Like everyone else, I bring my own views to this House and we are all likely to interpret the same facts and the same arguments differently. I believe that that is fortunate because I suggest that the second fallacy of the Motion is the notion that consensus—cross-party or otherwise—can be trusted to be right. I have always had sympathy for the minority view and I suggest that history shows that the minority view is often right. The fashionable consensus of the time held that the world was flat. The fashionable consensus held that witches should be ducked and, in his lifetime, that Schubert's music was not worth listening to. That was certainly the fashionable consensus some centuries ago. The fashionable consensus just before the war was that Churchill was an extremist who should not be listened

615
to. More recently, the fashionable consensus before what turned out to be an ill-fated entry into the exchange rate mechanism was that Britain had no choice but to join.
I grew up in a period of political consensus—of Butskellism. That consensus held, among other things, that state services such as telecommunications, water and electricity had to be publicly owned. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, set out a long list of some of the other elements of that consensus which were held to be fashionable and right at that time. I remember that it was long believed that governments should intervene in prices and wages and in what the noble Lord referred to as the "mixed economy". Despite my great respect for both leaders who gave their names to Butskellism, I believe that, as my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon said, Britain's current success has depended on breaking that cross-party consensus.
I think it critical that a strong voice of opposition is raised to the political fashions of the day. Even where the Government view is right, opposition is essential to sharpen decision-making in government. I know that many noble Lords have had direct experience of holding high government office. Having had the privilege of working at No. 10 under two distinguished and, I believe, highly principled Prime Ministers, I am no less conscious that the demands of having to face critical opposition across the Dispatch Box are in reality highly valuable—even if at times Ministers may wish that away—in forcing discussion and debate within government and the Civil Service and in avoiding the lazy adoption of easy solutions. It is no accident that the word "consensus" is often coupled with the word "cosy".
So, I am not a great believer in the great issues of our time, such as constitutional change and Europe, always benefiting from cross-party consensus; nor do I believe—I am not yet convinced—that fashions such as proportional representation, which attempt to force a consensus on government, necessarily lead to better government. I see no evidence of that when I look around the governments of the world.
However, that does not imply mindless confrontation. There is a difference between opposition based on principled argument and opposition based on opportunistic confrontation or on bigotry. Opposition based on principled argument and belief must surely be our aim for the relationship between the Government and the Opposition. I hope that this House will continue to value and respect those who hold the counter point of view to the fashionable cross-party consensus of the time. I thank noble Lords for their indulgence.
6.7 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, on his most interesting maiden speech. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, has already referred to the noble Lord's political service at No. 10 as head of the Prime Minister's Policy Unit and to his current position at NatWest. I was particularly interested to read in his biography that the noble Lord spent time with McKinsey
616
& Co., ending up as a partner in that great consulting business, and that he had worked previously for Plessey, having had an academic career and gained an MBA at Wharton in the United States. I look forward to hearing many contributions from the noble Lord in future, particularly on the subject of business, about which I have a great passion, and possibly on the quality of British management. On behalf of all of us, I wish the noble Lord well in your Lordships' House.
I congratulate also my two noble friends on their maiden speeches, my noble friends Lord Goodhart and Lord Razzall. Not surprisingly, I concurred with a great deal, if not all, of what they said.
I congratulate also the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. The phrase that she used regarding her grandmother and kisses from men without moustaches was, I believe, "meat without salt". As there is some "meat and salt" right here, I look forward to taking part in that new introductory ceremony at a later stage!
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead for introducing this subject, which raises two issues which I believe, and have always believed, to be fundamental requirements for the future of our modern democracy; namely, constitutional reform and the requirement of a broad consensus for achieving that.
I am also grateful to my noble friend for introducing this Motion today because this is the last time that we shall have the opportunity of being led by him. In this respect, I have to say that my noble friend was possibly guilty of one small political misjudgment. Although he asked for no premature obsequies, virtually every noble Lord has paid tribute to my noble friend and I do not think that he could ever have got away without any tributes being paid. With your Lordships' indulgence, I should like to add a very small one. In the short time that I have been in your Lordships' House I have come to have a great respect and admiration for his leadership. I hope he will take it in the spirit in which I intend it if I say that this is one young Turk who has greatly enjoyed and appreciated being at the feet of an old master.
There are many important matters facing the Government and Parliament such as education and health where it is vital that we make the right decisions. Important though those subjects are, I have long believed that the single most important issue before us is that of constitutional reform. When I was campaigning before the last election I was shocked to discover how cynical and apathetic the vast majority of our people seemed to be towards politicians and the political process. Rightly or wrongly, a great number of people viewed Parliament with distrust and cynicism. This is confirmed today by an article that I read in The Times headed "Riddell on Politics". That article refers to a report entitled British Social Attitudes" and says:
"The survey confirms earlier findings about a decline in public confidence in democracy. Fewer than one in four people trust government to put the interests of the nation above party".
I find that truly shocking.
At the other end of the power spectrum, it is extraordinary that barely 30 per cent. of those entitled to vote in local elections take part in those elections.

617
When talking on doorsteps one is struck by the fact that most people probably do not know who are their local councillors. Even if they do, they do not really believe that they will do anything for them. That combination of distrust, apathy and frustration is a terrible cancer which has eaten away the trust that the people once placed in the political process and in their politicians. It is therefore essential that we embrace constitutional reform at all levels and as a matter of urgency. This does not mean simply tinkering with your Lordships' House, but looking further at the relationship of power at each level of government to ensure that in every case maximum power is devolved to the lowest level. That process has already begun with devolution for Scotland and Wales. But it is equally important that we look not simply at your Lordships' House but also another place and at local and regional government.
As part of this process, I believe it to be imperative that power be returned to local government so that it may properly be held accountable to its own electorate for its actions. The centralising process that has gone on for the past 20 years or so must be halted and reversed. The time has come to trust local people to take local decisions for which they can be held accountable. When in the previous Parliament we debated the excellent report of my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf on wealth creation and social cohesion I posed the following question: if the doctrine of subsidiarity was so good for this country in Europe, why was it so bad for local government in this country? Inclusion and citizenship must be founded on participation, which in turn must begin with local democracy. That statement remains the core of my belief in respect of constitutional reform, but the key element is to understand that sovereignty rests with the people and that power should be exercised as close to the people as practically possible.
When I entered the Chamber today I noticed something rather curious. When I looked at the list of speakers I noted that, apart from the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, I was the only other hereditary Peer taking part in this debate. It is clear that someone must put the other side of the coin, so here comes the turkey that wants to vote for Christmas. It is unthinkable that we should enter the 21st century with a legislative chamber composed of accidents of birth, on the one hand, and perhaps accidents of patronage, on the other. We should all go. Emotionally, I am extremely fond of your Lordships' House; indeed, I am extremely fond of most of your Lordships. In many ways my heart might like us to remain the happy band that we are, but my head tells me that it is utterly illogical.
More importantly, it is now abundantly clear that we have lost our legitimacy. Every time a controversial measure comes before your Lordships' House, particularly if there has been a media campaign behind it, we are confronted with the twin barrels of media pressure and public opinion, on the one hand, and our lack of legitimacy in the face of another place, on the other hand. In the face of these two large-calibre weapons we have failed to carry out our duty. The only argument that I can conceive for maintaining your Lordships' House in its current form is that it works;
618
but I am afraid that recent events have demonstrated quite categorically that when it really counts it does not work.
Since anything which is done to your Lordships' House will automatically increase its legitimacy, so it will increase the power which the Upper House requires, and this in turn will automatically challenge the relationship between this House and another place. I do not see that as bad for one moment. I see it as one of the main reasons in favour of reform. But it brings me back to my point of departure. Once you have embarked on the route of reform, as we already have with devolution, all aspects of it have to be considered together in order to reach an overall constitutional arrangement that delivers a participative political system with power as close to the people as possible.
It would be unthinkable for any one political party to embark on such levels of reform without first having secured a very wide measure of cross-party co-operation. There are occasions when 51 per cent. is an inadequate majority. It is extremely difficult to pick the wheat of tradition from the chaff of history or to select real progress from the many great changes which may be proposed. To do this requires the contribution of many opinions of all hues. For such changes to last and carry the weight that they deserve, it is essential that they are founded on a broad national consensus.
I am genuinely sorry that the Conservative Party should in this, as so many other things, choose the ostrich position. Doubtless in 1832 the argument in favour of rotten boroughs was much as it is today in favour of the current arrangements. I hope that they will change their minds. With regard to my own party, I am delighted that it has had the courage of its convictions and that on this all important issue has accepted the Government's invitation to find consensus. Our two parties' combined share of the popular vote at the last election contributes greatly to the required legitimacy.
I believe that there are moments in the development of our constitution when the system can no longer simply be tinkered with. Like the pressure of great tectonic plates, an earthquake is required. I believe that we have reached one of those seminal moments when we must go for complete change. Now is such a time. Let us get to the task before the people lose faith entirely.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I join in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, on her most excellent maiden speech. I first met the noble Baroness when I was informed that I was to lead a young lady who was the queen of the radical Bar. Indeed, the noble Baroness was said to be so far left of the Labour Party that she could have qualified for one of Lord Grimond's red guards, to which my noble friend Lord Razzall referred. Together we formed a team in those days. I may have been the first of your Lordships to have the Kennedy kiss implanted on my forehead after one famous result. My noble friend Lord Hooson and I welcomed her into our chambers until she left to be a doughty fighter elsewhere. We on these Benches

619
hope that we shall work with her as a team against the opposition that we face. I know that she will maintain the radical tradition for which she has always stood. I hope that my noble friends Lord Razzall and Lord Goodhart, who have also made excellent speeches today, will forgive me if I go a little further in my personal reminiscences of the noble Baroness.
My noble friend Lord Alderdice referred to Ireland in the most moving terms. I am fresh from the combat, bloodied but certainly unbowed, of the latest co-operation between the parties; namely, the referendum in Wales. At one time during that campaign, I was a little worried at the seeming lack of Labour Party activity in my part of North-East Wales. I was pushing out leaflets with a picture of Neil Jenkins in a town devoted to Association Football. I did not see much support from the Labour Party, but eventually my fears were allayed when an MP who came from a neighbouring constituency assured me that the whole might of the Labour Party and the trade union machine were dedicated to producing mass apathy in his constituency.
The value of co-operation is illustrated by the two referendum campaigns in Scotland and Wales. In Scotland, co-operation between the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party had produced the Scottish convention. For years arguments had gone on in the Scottish press and on Scottish television in which the issues were rehearsed; everyone knew what they were voting about, and there was overwhelming support for reform. Even the Labour Party itself was dragged into a form of consensus. However, in Wales on three occasions we Liberal Democrats called for co-operation with the Labour Party and, indeed, with Plaid Cymru on the proposals for devolution. That was not forthcoming. So when we came to the referendum campaign the need to give information to the people of Wales was paramount.
I recall that in the devolution referendum debate in your Lordships' House I suggested that the rationale for having a separate day for voting in the Welsh referendum was so that there could be some concentration upon Welsh issues. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, called that an insult to the Welsh people. "Patronising", said the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. The result in Wales depended upon information. To which part of the country were the television aerials turned, and what sort of press was being read in Wales? If we look at the results, the eastern part of Wales, whose aerials were turned to Granada, the Midlands and Bristol, and where no hint of the Western Mail can ever be found, was the area which was uninformed about what was happening and what the issues were.
There is a lesson for the future that where referendums are suggested on issues such as EMU there must be long discussions; there must be an ironing out of problems within and between parties; and, above all, there must be an attempt to gain the support of the people, as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, said, by projecting information and ensuring that everyone knows what is at stake. One wonders whether one of the major contributing factors for the postponement of any commitment for entry into EMU
620
was the Welsh result, where the Government realised that they had not gone through that long, educative process that was so necessary.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he agree also that it is important, in the case of referendums, for the electorate to see that those referendums are conducted fairly? Therefore does he also agree with me and his noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham that it would be sensible to encourage the Government to introduce, as soon as possible, a mechanism by which rules could be drawn up under which referendums in future could be held?
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords. on that issue I have the greatest pleasure in agreeing with the noble Viscount, that rules for referendums, if they are to be held, should be drawn up and applied consistently whenever that issue arises. However, I disagree with the noble Viscount when he talks about monopoly politics, and that the result of co-operation between the parties is monopoly politics. That reminds me of what the Earl of Derby said in 1841:
"The duty of an Opposition is … to oppose everything, and propose nothing".
That has always struck me as an empty mantra, and yet it is so often chanted at us on these Benches when we endeavour to reach a degree of agreement and co-operation with the government of the day.
The adversarial system may be all very well in the law. Everyone understands that lawyers are paid to put forward a particular point of view. No one would ever suggest that politicians should be paid to put forward any particular point of view. The price that is paid for that is that lawyers are not the most highly regarded people; they are not thought to be sincere. That is the price of adversarial politics, where one opposes merely for the sake of it.
I recall the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, once saying to me, as she likes the taste of battle and blood, that it was all very well to be a commercial lawyer, like the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, and my noble friend Lord Goodhart, but that what we were doing was fun. I have always borne that in mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, listed the failures of consensus politics over a period of time. It seems to me that there was the greatest possible confrontation between rival conceptions of government in the 1960s and 1970s. I thought that the confrontation in those days was between socialism and capitalism; and that there were indeed two distinct strands of opinion. Yet those two strands produced what the noble Lord described as consensus politics, which he denigrated for that reason.
Consensus does not last forever. There are always minority views which eventually make their way into the mainstream. Thatcherism was not a concept in 1979; Thatcherism was a minority view which became a majority view in the early 1980s. In the later 1980s it reached its full flow. There are other minority views. I recall my adoption speech in West Flint in 1964.

621
There were four key issues: the first, devolution for Wales; the second, proportional representation; the third, closer ties with Europe by joining the Common Market; and the fourth, I regret to say, was reform of the House of Lords.
Those issues in those days represented minority views, but one has seen, over the decades that have passed since then, that those minority views have grown to a consensus, and are now becoming the type of consensus of which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, does not approve. It is events which cause minority views to come forward in that way.
When we have a situation where we on these Benches have put forward issues, values and principles over many years, and we find suddenly that the Labour Party has been moving towards our point of view, that it is adopting devolution, proportional representation and talking about reform of the House of Lords, what are we to do? Are we just to oppose for the sake of opposing, or are we to co-operate to try to improve the detail of the plans it is putting forward? That is what co-operation is and should be about.
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead for introducing this debate. I pay my own small tribute as a foot soldier in his army over the past 12 months or so to the magnificent leadership that he has given us. May I speak for the wider Liberal Democrat Party and say that in his position as our leader he will be greatly missed.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I shall make just a brief response. I have never much believed in second bites, certainly not large second bites, of the cherry in these debates. I should like to begin by repairing an omission in my opening speech which is to follow the tribute which the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, paid to the late Lady Llewelyn-Davies. I should not like that to be an omission, because it so happens that I probably knew her long before either of them did. I first put my foot on the humblest rung of the ministerial ladder when I became parliamentary private secretary to Philip Noel-Baker who was Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and she was then his trusted and invaluable personal assistant. If noble Lords rightly thought that she was dazzling when she was Captain of the Gentlemen at Arms I can assure you that she was even more dazzling in the Commonwealth Relations Office in 1949. She will be greatly missed.
I wish to congratulate the four maiden speakers. I begin with the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell. We must look forward to hearing him again, particularly when he is freed from the restraints of being non-controversial, under which he was obviously labouring heavily during his speech today. It was a notable speech. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, added a phrase to our parliamentary language. "Kennedy's kiss" will become like "Angela's ashes", that cult novel of the present time. It was a great comfort to me on my departure to
622
hear the successful speeches made by my noble friends Lord Goodhart and Lord Razzall. They are an asset to our Benches.
Clearly, I am in danger of making a speech like the grandfather of a familiar Member of this House, whom I will not identify. It was said that his speeches were remembered only for the compliments which he paid in particular to his opponents. I thank all noble Lords—I said no obsequies but I did not say no tributes! I assure your Lordships that they have saved time because there need be no tributes when I leave.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, courteously informed me that he would be a little late. I am not sure when he slipped in, but he obviously thought that he would arrive later. I am reminded of an incident relating to his forebears—in this case a lateral one—who paid what I have always regarded as the best feline compliment I have ever heard. He chaired a meeting of a singularly dull lecture. He complimented the lecturer saying that, unfortunately, due to increasing deafness—which did not apply in his case—he had missed certain parts of the lecture which, clearly, were more significant.
The noble Viscount was obviously afraid that he would miss the more significant parts of my speech as a result of lateness, so he wisely provided himself with the alternative of replying to a speech given by Mr. Simon Hughes in another place. I hope that that was very satisfactory for Mr. Simon Hughes. However, he redeemed the situation by the warmth of his tribute—I also thank the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal for his tribute—and I reciprocate his remarks about the pleasure of working together and the assurance that I hope that our personal relations will continue on this basis. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Organ Donation
6.33 p.m.
Lord Norrierose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to improve the care of patients awaiting an organ transplant and what steps they are taking to encourage an increase in organ donation.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in tabling this Question, my intention is to debate an emotive issue that is of great importance to thousands of patients awaiting transplants, be they cornea, kidney, heart, lung or liver. First, I wish to hear from the Minister what steps the Government are taking to improve the care which there patients receive. Secondly, I wish to hear what steps the Government are taking to increase the rate of organ transplantation.
I have deliberately cast the net widely so that issues relating to the broader transplant community can be raised. While I intend to set out some of the concerns relevant to all branches of transplant medicine, I shall refer in particular to renal services and will identify areas where I believe progress is necessary. Tonight I speak not only as president of the National Kidney Federation, the only organisation run by kidney patients

623
for kidney patients, but also as the parent of a son who has kidney failure. Happily, after four and a half years of dialysis, my son has had a successful transplant.
I am conscious of the pressures on kidney patients and their immediate family. I am also knowledgeable about another important aspect; that is, when the next of kin of a potential donor is faced not only with bereavement but with a decision on whether the organs of the deceased can be used for transplantation.
I wish this to be a purely constructive debate which will produce for the Minister a range of ideas that her department can investigate and can report back in detail. I look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, whose experience in medical matters I am sure will be a positive asset to this House. I am grateful to the Minister who, during the summer months, gave me time to put across some of my ideas and I thank her for her encouragement in tabling the Question tonight.
At the outset, it might be helpful to identify the large number of patients awaiting a transplant. I wish to acknowledge the help of the UK Transplant Support Service Authority in compiling the figures. Substantially more transplant operations are carried out today than 10 years ago and I pay tribute to the NHS and its staff for that. However, I must express concern that the number of kidney transplants plateaued in 1990 and would now seem to be in decline. I shall deal later with some possible causes for that decline and propose some solutions.
Currently, more than 5,500 people are awaiting a kidney transplant, which is an increase of 5 per cent. on this time last year; 677 people are awaiting a heart or lung transplant, an increase of 9 per cent.; and about 200 people are awaiting a liver transplant, a 6 per cent. increase on last year. In 1996, the total number of kidney transplants was 1,600, which was down by more than 8 per cent. on the previous year. The number of heart transplants totalled 290 and there were 651 liver transplants.
Currently, patients are waiting on average well over two years for a kidney and the number of patients on the waiting list is growing. Patients on dialysis have a poorer quality of life than those who receive a transplant and the cost of renal services to the NHS is increasing because dialysis is more expensive than transplantation. The problem boils down to a shortage of donor organs. There is no one solution to the problem, but I wish to set out some areas where progress may be possible.
The first and most obvious step is to encourage more members of the public to carry organ donor cards. That scheme is backed by the Organ Donor Register, a centrally held list of those willing to donate their organs in the event of their death. I am heartened to see that the register has recently topped 4 million members. I trust that the Government will continue actively to promote the organ donor scheme and encourage the public to make that most precious of donations, the gift of life. Will the Minister tonight pledge to increase the number of people carrying a donor card to 5 million by the end of the century?
624
Currently in the UK we opt in to organ donation by carrying a donor card. In other countries, such as Austria and Sweden, consent is presumed. In those countries, an individual who does not wish to donate his or her organs must opt out. A register is set up to record that preference. The BMA does not support a donor scheme where people would have to opt out of the system. I have received representations in favour of a change in our system and I am sure that that is an issue which will continue to arouse lively debate.
I wish to refer to my noble friend the late Lord Finsberg. Lord Finsberg identified the fact that as the law stands the next of kin may overturn the wishes of a deceased relative to donate his or her organs, even when the deceased carries an organ donor card. Lord Finsberg introduced a Bill to back the wishes of the would-be donor in law. Following, I suspect, considerable arm twisting by the Department of Health, that measure did not become law and it was withdrawn. I believe that the measure would command public support and I urge the Government to take a lead in the debate, perhaps through the publication of a draft Bill for consultation.
I should now like to commend to this House the work of the Manningford Trust, a charitable organisation which exists to advance organ transplantation. The trust makes a number of important recommendations in a report published last month on organ transplantation, including the establishment of a national transplant commission. The commission would work to break down barriers to organ donation and consider whether there are lessons we can learn from approaches adopted in other countries.
A national transplant organisation has already been established in Spain resulting in a doubling in the number of organ donors between 1989 and 1995. The Spanish transplant organisation also oversees the recruitment of trained transplant co-ordinators in every hospital and the training of medical staff in counselling for relatives. Those measures have improved the availability of organs and therefore the number of transplant operations conducted.
The waiting list for a kidney transplant went down by almost 20 per cent. in Spain in the five years to 1995 and Spain has the highest rate of liver transplants in the world. That is impressive progress and is a credit to the Spanish transplant organisation. I accept that there is a higher rate of road accidents in Spain which affects the availability of suitable organs. In this country we have been extremely successful in cutting the number of road deaths through seat belt and crash helmet legislation and, indeed, drink-drive campaigns. However, I recommend the Spanish system to the Government. Would the Minister consider arranging a fact-finding mission to identify what we can learn from the progress that has been made there to increase organ donation?
The National Kidney Federation recommends that a thorough examination of elective ventilation should take place in the UK. Elective ventilation is the process whereby, with the consent of relatives, selected patients considered suitable for organ donation are kept breathing temporarily by artificial means when natural

625
breathing ceases. In that way, the organs are preserved in a state fit for transplantation following certification of death. That has proved to be an effective means of increasing the number of organs available for transplant in hospitals where it has been practised.
In the Exeter kidney unit at the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, notable increases in the number of organs for transplant were achieved through the application of elective ventilation. Indeed. Exeter managed to keep the number of patients on dialysis stable for four years at a time when numbers were increasing everywhere else in the country. It was able to carry out more kidney transplants because it achieved the highest rate of organ donation in the UK through that system of elective ventilation. I regret that on the advice of the Department of Health, that procedure has been discontinued and the transplant rate in Exeter has fallen dramatically.
There are a number of ethical concerns associated with elective ventilation. Exeter worked to a protocol endorsed by the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Nursing, the British Transplantation Society and the BMA. The BMA Ethics Committee addressed the subject and is satisfied that the procedure is acceptable, subject to the enforcement of strict protocols. The National Kidney Federation is also in favour of the procedure. With that in mind, will the Minister not agree that constructive progress is possible? With the co-operation of the Department of Health and the resolution of moral and legal arguments, there are considerable savings to be made through elective ventilation due to the difference in cost between dialysis and transplantation; and more patients will receive a transplant, which of course is the best quality treatment for kidney failure.
Therefore, I urge the Government to be brave and stand up to their official advisers and take a lead in bringing together interested parties to seek a consensus. The medical profession, those concerned with ethics and the law, and the public must be encouraged to participate in that debate. Ministers may be surprised at the public's enthusiasm for organ donation.
I turn now to xenotransplantation. There has been much speculation in this House and elsewhere about the use of animal organs in transplantation. Having persuaded your Lordships, I hope, of the shortage of organs for transplants, this would seem to offer a panacea. However, there are many issues that we need to tackle before transplantation of animal organs into humans becomes a reality. This is at the cutting edge of health technology and there are naturally concerns such as the risk of cross-infection and the moral arguments about using animals in this way. I consider it important that we should move forward with all speed to tackle the ethical and regulatory issues surrounding xenotransplantation, and I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, intends to refer to these issues in more detail.
It is of paramount importance that the science should develop within a framework that satisfies the concerns of the public with regard to the use of this new technology. But, equally, it would be regrettable were
626
progress towards the use of animal organs in human transplantation to be held back by the failure of politicians to agree an appropriate framework. Can the Minister give us any information about the establishment of a statutory body for the regulation of xenotransplantation as proposed in the Kennedy Report? In my view, xenotransplantation is a very exciting development and I wish the scientists well in their research. However, this technology may still be some way over the horizon. That is not an excuse for inaction in addressing the issue of organ shortages now.
I now turn to the care of patients with renal failure. There are an estimated 23,115 patients being treated for kidney failure in England alone. With long waiting lists for a kidney transplant and a shortage of organs for transplant, it is important that patients receive top quality care. There has been progress in that direction, but I want to draw attention to some national and international comparisons to highlight where I believe further progress is required.
An organisation known as the European Dialysis and Transplant Association has been set up to collect information about patients accepted for dialysis. That is one indicator of how effectively countries are providing for patients with kidney failure. Their data shows that the United Kingdom is 21st in the list of countries ranked according to the number of new patients per million of the population per year accepted for dialysis. We come just ahead of Bulgaria and lag behind a majority of our European partners. Greece, Belgium, Italy and the Czech Republic all accept more new patients for dialysis each year than we do.
I shall put some figures to this analysis. The Renal Association has recommended that a minimum of 80 new patients per million of the population will require dialysis each year. This is a conservative estimate as it does not take account of variations in ethnic mix, to which I shall refer shortly.
The take-on rate of new patients in Greece is 118 patients per million of the population; in Belgium it is 103; in Italy it is 91. These figures refer to 1993, the latest year for which international comparisons are available. At that time the UK total was 60 patients per million.
I sought to shame the previous government into action and I am pleased to report that there has been some progress. A recent Renal Association report estimates the figure in 1995 to be 82 patients per million in England and Wales. This still leaves us some way behind the Czech Republic, with a rate of 92 patients per million of the population.
I shall continue to harry the new Government because the figures as they stand are, still, unacceptably low. There is no such thing as a waiting list for renal replacement therapy—if people with kidney failure do not receive dialysis. they die.
I should now like to focus on what is going on in different parts of the United Kingdom. We see that, just as on a European level, large variations in the take-on rate of new patients exist in different parts of the UK.

627
At the laudable end of the scale, the take-on rate of new patients per million per year in Wales is 108. In Merseyside it is fewer than 40. Of course, a majority of regions lie somewhere in the middle. But as the example I have just given shows, there are stark contrasts between regions which lie in close proximity. A patient's access to renal services varies substantially with his postcode. That is fundamentally unfair and unacceptable. I believe that it has been referred to in a different context as the lottery of NHS care.
I should just like to refer to the experience of patients in Lancashire. I have in my possession a letter to Mr. Austin Donohoe, the chairman of the National Kidney Federation, from a consultant nephrologist in Preston. I am pleased to say that in this part of the country there is a very constructive relationship between the department of renal medicine and kidney patients. The unit covers a large population of some 1.6 million people. Of the four purchasers of renal services in the area, it is not really putting in sufficient funds to pay for a take-on rate of 43 patients per million of the population. Let us remember that the Renal Association recommended a minimum take-on rate of 80 patients per million. According to the Preston consultant there is,
"a lack of commitment from the Purchasers to invest sufficient additional funding into renal medicine … adequate money is not forthcoming to increase access rates".
The publication today by the Audit Commission of a report recommending improvements in the way in which specialised services ought to be commissioned is a timely contribution to our debate. I know that the Government are committed to tackling these inequalities and I look forward to very early progress.
As I have run over my time, I move on now to my conclusions. I consider that health authorities have a critical responsibility for commissioning high quality renal services. I have already mentioned the Audit Commission's contribution to the debate. I should also point out that Parliament is currently updating the purchasing guidelines for renal services. I hope that they will be promoted by the Minister when they are published.
I should like to come to some conclusions about how we might increase the availability of organs for donation. First, I would strongly urge swift and positive action by the Government to seek a consensus on elective ventilation. Secondly, I would ask the Government to lead the debate on xenotransplantation. The public has yet to form a view on these matters—the Government should be active in this and not leave it to the more sensational branches of the media to shape public opinion. And, finally, I have asked the Government to investigate the Spanish system to see whether we can apply any of their protocols in this country.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to take part in such a debate. I did not expect the transition from the other end of the building to this part to be easy. The transition is far from complete, and. indeed, I have much to learn. However, the generous welcome that I have received from noble
628
Lords of all parties and of none and the courtesy and helpfulness of the staff have certainly meant that the transition has been painless so far. I am grateful for that. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, on introducing this debate on the vital subject of those awaiting transplants and the need for more organs to be available. As President of the National Kidney Federation, the noble Lord brings a wealth and depth of knowledge to the debate with which I fear I cannot compete.
I believe the facts are reasonably well known. Currently waiting lists, especially for kidney transplants—the most usual surgery—are increasing. In 1994, 4,851 people were on waiting lists: the current figure is over 5,500. At present, some 30 children under the age of 10 are awaiting kidney transplantation. There are 147 between 10 and 20 years old. If one takes the middle age, if you like, from 30 to 50 years of age, there are 2,400 people waiting. Indeed, there are even four people aged 80 and over waiting for transplants.
The numbers of those waiting for heart, lung and liver transplants, although they are much smaller, are also increasing. It is only in the case of heart-lung transplants that there is some stabilisation and perhaps a smaller reduction in the waiting list. The reason is the immense shortage of donor organs. There are two things which bring that about. First, there is the increase in medical technology which keeps people alive longer; and, secondly there is, ironically, the growth of legislation as regards wearing seat belts and the increased attention by car manufacturers to safety, both of which have brought about a decrease in the number of deaths. Of course, we applaud that immense saving of life. Nevertheless, it is a little like the old engineering principle that,
"for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction'.
What are we to do? I have to say that I reject immediately the proposition that xenotransplants—that is, animal to human transplants—are a solution, although there is much experimentation going on in that respect. The committee under Professor Kennedy of King's College into the ethical and scientific issues approved the procedure on ethical grounds but was unsure about proceeding given current scientific knowledge. There are problems about the transfer of viruses, and so on. Therefore, future generations may well take a different view, but at this moment I believe that it is a bridge too far to cross.
So the question remains: what can we do? The most obvious' answer would seem to be to increase the amount of advertising so that more people carry a donor card. That certainly would be worth doing, but it will not solve the problem by itself. I recently learned, much to my astonishment, that the carrying of a donor card does not automatically mean that organs can be used. In any event, as far as I am concerned, I do carry a donor card, but I suspect that the only service which my organs could provide would be as a demonstration to medical students of what happens if you do not follow medical advice about living a healthy lifestyle.
However, the terms of the Human Tissue Act 1961 require that it has to be established that the deceased has not changed his or her mind since signing the card.

629
In the case of sudden death, or even an expected death, the next of kin and relatives are undoubtedly traumatised. It is perhaps understandable that relatives are often reluctant to give consent. Figures vary as to how large that consent is. In the case of intensive care patients, the figure varies according to one survey or another between 25 and 50 per cent. That is even more so when the deceased has not exercised the right to carry a donor card.
It must be dreadful to be told one minute that your son, daughter, husband, wife, partner or whomsoever has been killed in an accident and then, moments later, be asked whether you will make the organs available. The wonder perhaps is not that so few people refuse but that so many actually give their consent. Our system is, of course, a "contracting in" system; in other words, you have to carry a card. In the early 1970s, my colleague Tam Dalyell and I canvassed the idea that we should have a contracting out donor card. The outrage at this hugely contentious issue was such that we dropped the idea fairly quickly. Fortunately, the idea has not gone away.
I would certainly wish to join the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, in paying tribute to the late Lord Finsberg, who, I understand, successfully piloted a Private Member's Bill through this House in 1995, only for it to fall in the other place. I should also like to add a tribute to John Marshall, the former Member of Parliament for Hendon South, who attempted an identical Private Member's Bill in February of this year which, unfortunately, failed due to lack of time. The issue remains contentious, but I believe that recent comment in press reports and elsewhere suggests that the time may be right to move towards this solution.
The trauma of waiting for a transplant—the trauma for the relatives—is immense but there are other issues which we should bear in mind. In addition, there is the anguish of patients and their relatives who are told that a transplant is not an option. The issues that arise there can be very delicate. Of course, such decisions must be taken on purely medical grounds. Some have suggested that lifestyle should be taken into account in bringing about a prognosis on whether someone will survive if given a transplant. Members of the medical profession have immense duties placed upon them as regards who shall and who shall not have a transplant. In fact, it is who shall live and who shall die.
Being on a waiting list in itself is not a guarantee of a transplant. The number of transplants of kidneys, for example, in 1996 in the UK as a whole was only 1,700, made up of 1,416 in England, 136 in Scotland, 90 in Wales and 58 in Northern Ireland. When one thinks of a waiting list of over 5,500 one realises the difficulty that we are in.
There are issues of lifestyle. I once had a constituent whose daughter had an adverse reaction to an Ecstasy tablet and she was not offered a transplant. The parents believe to this day that a judgment was made that she should not have a transplant on ethical grounds rather than on medical/ethical grounds. A public inquiry revealed that that was not the case. However, there are
630
clearly fine lines of distinction on these issues. I certainly do not wish to proceed down that particular contentious road this evening.
In conclusion, there are three things that we can do. First, we could certainly have a significant advertising campaign to increase the carrying of donor cards. Secondly, we must clarify the Human Tissue Act of 1961 to allow the automatic use of organs of those who carry a donor card without further reference to relatives. Thirdly, I believe the Government must have the widest possible consultation with a view to moving speedily to a contracting out system of donor cards as soon as possible. We have debated this evening—sadly, shortly—one of the most vital things that we have to give to people: the possibility of prolonged life. I hope this debate will bring some clarity to the issue. I thank your Lordships for your courtesy in listening to my remarks.

7.1 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, it is my pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, on his excellent, well informed and well argued maiden speech. The noble Lord comes to your Lordships' House with a wealth of experience in the other place as a former Minister and Front Bench spokesman for his party and with the reputation of one who has acquired in his long political career a depth of knowledge on Scottish affairs, transport and agriculture, to name but a handful of his political interests, which few can match. It is our privilege to have heard him speak this evening on yet another of his areas of expertise, that of health. I am sure all of your Lordships will have found what the noble Lord said both wise and persuasive, as well as elegantly put, and will, like me, look forward to many contributions from him in our debates in the future.
I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Norrie for introducing this important topic. I congratulate him on the clear way he did so. It seems to me that he highlighted the key issues which bear upon his Question. I should like to explore some of them further and elaborate somewhat on his conclusions. My noble friend, not unnaturally, focused particularly on kidney patients. As many kidney transplants are performed in the UK as of all other solid organ transplants combined, and while demand outstrips supply for all transplantable organs, and the need for more donors is self-evidently acute across the board, it is the lack of kidney donors which affects the greatest number of patients in clinical need. At the most recent count the active national transplant waiting list for kidneys—as my noble friend mentioned—stood at some 5,500 people, compared to the number of kidney transplants performed in a year of some 1,600 to 1,700. That gap between demand and supply has been growing steadily for at least 10 years due in part to the progressive decline in the number of deaths from road accidents and, it must be added, the scarce supply of intensive care beds in hospitals.
Unlike the patient awaiting a liver or a heart transplant, the kidney patient has an alternative treatment available; namely, dialysis. But dialysis, although life-saving, is, as my noble friend pointed out,

631
a second best option. It does not enable the patient to lead a normal life and it involves considerable physical discomfort. Compared to a transplant it is also much more expensive. A patient on dialysis costs the NHS approximately £20,000 to £25,000 a year. By contrast, a transplant operation costs around £20,000, followed by recurring annual costs of between £1,000 and £3,000.
Therefore, from the taxpayer's perspective, as well as that of the patient, a renal transplant is infinitely the preferred form of treatment for kidney failure. Yet, as we heard from my noble friend, the UK lags behind many of our European Union partners in the percentage of kidney patients who receive a transplant. How might it be possible to increase the number of kidneys available for donation? Raising public awareness of the issues is, I think, essential, and should be a continuous process, but it is not enough. The sad fact is that over the years such efforts have simply failed to make an impact. Public attitude surveys show that about 25 per cent. of the population is actively opposed to organ donation compared, for example, to 5 to 10 per cent. of people in Belgium. Persuading even a quarter of that 25 per cent. would make a huge difference to the available supply of organs.
In parallel with this come the options for legislative change. It does not perhaps need pointing out that any debate to modify the law is necessarily suffused and overlaid with questions of medical ethics. At the moment in the UK, doctors are required to obtain the confirmation of the next of kin that they have no objection to the removal of an organ and that they do not believe the donor would have objected. Frequently. this procedure leads to consent being withheld or, if not withheld, being obtained too late for an organ to be used in a transplant.
Are these requirements too strict? I shall not dwell too long on the arguments for introducing a system of presumed consent for organ donation or "opting out", as it is known. Such a system would cause grave ethical difficulties for the medical profession. But even setting those aside for one moment it seems to me highly doubtful, for a variety of reasons, that it would gain public approval, not least because people would feel that improper pressure was being put on them. A system of opting out has been adopted in both Belgium and Austria, and donor rates are higher in those countries than they are here. But it is far from clear whether one is the cause of the other. Of much more significance, some argue. is the clear difference to be found in those countries in public attitudes towards organ donation.
A more fruitful area for discussion, as my noble friend indicated, is elective ventilation. To permit a protocol of ventilatory support for patients who stop breathing after an untreatable stroke, solely to allow that patient, when brain dead, to become a donor is an idea which many surgeons see as ethically acceptable. For most, if not all, those surgeons, the procedure could take place only if all concerned, including the patient's relatives, had given their informed consent. But there are other practitioners who entertain the most profound doubts about the ethical acceptability of a procedure which does not respect the patient's own autonomy, which carries a risk of that patient being placed into a
632
persistent vegetative state, and which is inherently distasteful and undignified in that it manipulates the manner of a patient's death.
Elective ventilation also falls foul of legal difficulties. Here again, the issue of consent is central. Unless the patient himself has previously given specific, unambiguous consent to artificial ventilation for organ donation, that ventilation may not be permitted. No consent from any other source will do. The patient is alive; if a doctor is to administer treatment without consent, that treatment must be for the patient's direct benefit. Anything that falls outside this definition could constitute common law assault. These are the reasons which led the Department of Health to suspend the procedure some time ago.
In fact the difficulties do not stop there. I believe there are important practical issues relating to the capacity of intensive care units to devote resources to a type of treatment which is unrelated to a patient's recovery. However, I shall be interested to hear from the Minister whether she thinks that the legal difficulties are capable of satisfactory resolution. Does she think that the answer simply lies in a system of more detailed and informed consent by prospective donors? Or would she seek to go further and look for ways of permitting elective ventilation without such consent provided that certain conditions were met?
I wonder, too, whether the Minister could comment on another type of procedure where the law is at present unclear, at least to me. This relates to a technique for preserving in situ the kidneys of potential donors who are dead. As the noble Baroness will know, kidneys which have been taken from a patient who has suffered respiratory and cardiac arrest can be transplanted successfully provided they are removed within 60 minutes of the heart stopping. In those circumstances, the best way of protecting the kidneys prior to removal is to cool them by inserting a catheter. This procedure is of greatest use in cases of sudden or unexpected death where the next of kin are not on hand to give consent to the immediate removal of an organ: it buys time. The issue it raises, however, is the legality and ethical propriety of carrying out a procedure on a dead body without permission.
The technique I have described is one which has been adopted successfully in Leicester with, I understand, the approval of the local coroner and with no objections raised elsewhere. If taken up nationwide, it has the potential to increase the supply of organs for donation by a very substantial percentage. Can the Minister add her own perspective to this issue? Can she say whether health authorities might be encouraged by the Government to promote kidney cooling in non-heart-beating donors as part of a wider campaign to raise public awareness?
On a similarly practical level, I mention the role of transplant co-ordinators. This specialist discipline has grown up on a somewhat ad hoc basis over the past 15 to 20 years but is a key component in a hospital's ability to arrange organ transplants successfully. It is felt by many people that there should be a proper managerial structure for supervising and training transplant

633
co-ordinators and that this could usefully take the form of a national umbrella body to promote consistency across the country. Can the Minister say how far the Department of Health has progressed in its examination of this issue?
I wish for a moment to revert to the issue of dialysis facilities. For all this country's expertise in the care of patients with renal failure, we lag behind many of our European neighbours in the number of renal units and the number of new patients starting dialysis each year. The sobering conclusion from that is that some individuals needing treatment are not receiving it, or are not receiving it soon enough.
The need for dialysis can vary considerably by region. For example, I understand that renal failure is more common among the Asian community than in other ethnic groups, necessitating greater provision of renal facilities in Asian centres of population. More generally, many patients have to travel a long way in order to attend a renal unit. Indeed, I should like to share with the House some advice well known among patients with kidney failure in the West Country. Do not live in Wiltshire! The health authority there has turned down overtures from patients in the area to fund a renal unit in Swindon. As it is, patients are required to travel to Portsmouth, Oxford or Bristol for their dialysis. Has the Minister any news about the PH hospital project proposed for Swindon and can she provide any reassurance to kidney patients there that when the hospital is built there will be a dialysis unit in it?
On a separate but related point, will the Minister undertake to look at Wiltshire health authority's purchasing policy for renal services? Concern has been expressed to me that renal care is effectively being rationed in Wiltshire on cost grounds and that elderly patients in particular are being denied the care they need.
As my noble friend mentioned, the publication today of the Audit Commission report, Higher Purchase: Commissioning Specialised Services in the NHS is timely in this context because it identifies a number of ways in which health authorities could improve the manner in which specialised services including renal care are commissioned. I look forward to the Government's response to that report in due course.
The issues raised by my noble friend are of fundamental importance for many thousands of men and women. I hope that the Government will take on board the very real concerns that have been expressed and will confirm their determination to see more resources devoted to this key area of patient care. I look forward very much to hearing what the Minister has to say.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, for raising this issue tonight. My noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior would have taken part in the debate tonight were it not for the fact that he is on business of the House in Atlanta.
We have spoken many times about the ethical, moral and animal welfare issues involved in xenotransplantation. As an honorary associate of the
634
British Veterinary Association, I should like to put forward a view which covers the veterinary aspects as well as the animal welfare of the pig donors.
The first animal-to-human transplant was in 1906 when a French surgeon implanted a pig's kidney into one woman and a goat's liver into another. Needless to say, neither survived. But here we are, 91 years later and on the threshold of a break-through some few years hence. Previous speakers have already mentioned the acute shortage of donor organs and the waiting lists. Therefore I shall not go into that.
The long-term possibility of producing human organs or tissues in vitro, coupled with significant advances in mechanical devices, may eventually provide sources of replacement organs. The immediate need could be solved by the science of xenotransplantation, although some may not agree. The pig is the ideal animal for such work, having a relatively short gestation period (approximately 112 days) and producing an average of eight offspring per litter.
Progress to date in xenotransplantation has been to modify by 0.0001 per cent. the genetic make-up of the pig with human genetic material, so that when it is transplanted into humans it is not immediately rejected. In other words, the pigs are genetically engineered to carry human proteins on the surface of their cells. This will allow pig organs to be used as a temporary bridge for patients awaiting a human organ or, as has happened in the USA in the case of human liver failure, to use pig livers kept alive in a sterile container and perfuse them with the patient's blood, rather like kidney dialysis.
The ethical aspects of xenotransplantation have exercised the collective minds of several committees. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics concluded that the routine supply of pig organs was ethically acceptable and the report also identified the possible transmission of infectious disease as an important consideration. The Kennedy Advisory Committee set up by the Department of Health last year came to similar conclusions and recommended the establishment of the UK xenotransplantation interim regulatory authority to oversee developments in this field.
The British Veterinary Association's ethics committee has recently considered the issue of transplantation between species. The committee considers that it is not unethical to use, to modify genetically and to breed pigs so that their organs may be used in transplants into humans. Xenotransplantation is seen by the committee as an effective means of countering the current organ shortfall, since present and future needs for organs seem unlikely to be met by other means. However, and I stress this, the use of primate organs for transplantation into humans is considered unethical and totally unacceptable. The BVA also considers that the welfare of animals bred for transplantation should be carefully safeguarded and commercial pressures should not he allowed to jeopardise animal welfare standards.
Provided that the very real benefits in terms of the relief of human suffering can be achieved without causing unnecessary suffering to or adversely affect the

635
welfare of the pigs concerned, the committee does not object to the practice of xenotransplantation on ethical grounds.
Perhaps the most worrying aspect of xenotransplantation is the presence of viruses, particularly retroviruses, in donor pig organs which are capable of infecting human cell lines. Although it is not known whether such viruses can become established and cause disease in the recipient, the fact that recipients are immuno-suppressed adds a measure of caution. It may be possible to breed pigs free of retroviruses, though that is considered extremely difficult. An alternative would be to try to genetically engineer pigs so that they lack the ability to harbour retroviruses.
It is right that great caution is necessary in the introduction of that technology to human medicine and it is important that animal-to-human transplants are offered to patients only when there is a good chance that they will work. Obviously the patients themselves will have to be fully informed so that they can make an informed decision before accepting an organ from a non-human donor. I am sure that many committed animal welfarists might find this technology both ethically and morally unacceptable; but we must remember that pigs are already farmed for meat.
The welfare of these animals is paramount. The genetically engineered piglets will be born into a controlled environment. At that stage the unmodified sow will be lost; but it is to be hoped that in the future, when the herd has been built up, the by now genetically altered sow will be able to survive to suckle her young. They will be able to do all the things that pigs normally do and their quality of life will be carefully monitored. The RSPCA is concerned that animals might be reared in a sterile and barren environment; and the society's concerns also relate specifically to the consequences of xenotransplantation for animals.
I have talked to the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, about this problem. He has observed the piglets and assures me that they are happy and well cared for. The RSPCA would also want to ensure that the five freedoms recommended for farm animals by the Farm Animal Welfare Council would be applied as a minimum basis for animal husbandry standards. They are freedom from fear and stress; freedom from pain and injury; freedom from hunger, thirst and disease; freedom from discomfort; and, finally, freedom to express normal behaviour.
The RSPCA's position as a charity would in any case not allow the society to oppose a use of animals that is considered by majority view to be of human benefit, but would ask that every attempt be made to find alternative solutions to the shortage of human organs before resorting further to taking the lives of our fellow creatures. Finally, we must also be sure that pigs do not suffer during organ removal.
7.23 p.m.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Norrie for initiating this debate. Noble Lords may recall a long time ago a determined campaign by Elizabeth Ward on kidney transplants,
636
because her young son, Timothy, had to endure years of dialysis. As a result of knowing the Wards over many years, I decided to change my will in order to donate my organs. My family are all aware of my wishes. I can understand that many people will not see things in the same way. However, I hope that this evening's debate will persuade some noble Lords seriously to consider doing as I have done. I have been told that I am too old for anyone to benefit from my decision! However, there are many young Members in this House who no doubt could, and should, follow my example.
7.25 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, for introducing the debate. I congratulate the noble Lord. Lord Hughes of Woodside, on his maiden speech. Being the final speaker before the Minister, I have listened to all the speeches. They have been very well-informed and I agree with most of the arguments advanced. I wish to concentrate purely on kidney transplants. I do not intend to talk about the transplantation of other organs.
It is a tragedy that there is such a shortage of donor kidneys. I wonder whether there is a thought in the back of people's minds that the matter is not all that urgent because, after all, people can live on dialysis. That might to some extent account for the lack of people coming forward.
There are, after all, nearly 4 million people carrying donor cards, who are listed on the NHS donor register. That is 7.6 per cent. of the population. It is quite a large number of people. But despite that large number, there have been only 15 donors per million of the population. The number has been more or less constant for the past seven to eight years. So there is something wrong in the way we approach this subject.
As the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, mentioned, the donor rate in Spain is much higher; it is 26.8 per cent. In this country approximately 1,700 kidney transplants take place per annum, of which 10 per cent. of the organs donated come from members of the family. That is a tremendous sacrifice for a family member, but something to which I believe the family member quite happily agrees. In other countries, such as Norway, 40 per cent. of donations are from the family. Noble Lords will realise that when a kidney comes from a member of the same family, the danger of rejection is very much smaller.
Every speaker has mentioned the Human Tissue Act 1961, which created the "contracting in" system. It required written consent by the person who wanted to contract in. However, when, 10 years later, we introduced the donor card, we failed to clarify and resolve whether the card constituted an authorised form of consent. I should have thought that that would be so. I should not personally carry a donor card unless I meant it to apply if anything happened to me. But that has not always been the case.
The problem has been made more difficult because the law has allowed relatives to countermand the wishes indicated by the would be donor. That is rather like allowing relatives to reverse a dead man's will in any

637
other form. We must respect the wishes of the donor. It is high time that the Government clarified the position of the donor and, I hope, make it the final arbiter in any decision as to whether an organ can be transplanted.
Those difficulties, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, have given rise to some surgeons advocating the introduction of a contracting out system to improve the supply of organs. I would not be prepared to go that far. However, I should like to see a strengthening of the law so that where a person has indicated his wish to become a donor his wish may be carried out without interference.
Apart from the shortage of donors, we have the problem which was mentioned by most speakers of the care of people awaiting transplants in the National Health Service. The waiting list was quoted by some speakers. The number of people living on dialysis is highest in the age groups 30, 40 and 50. Only one in three of the people on the waiting list will receive a transplant in any one year.
According to the medical opinion which I have obtained, it is claimed that there is now no shortage of machines, but there is a great and growing shortage of staff, both nurses and technicians. Therefore, it is important that we ensure that the existing centres are fully staffed so that we can make the maximum use of the machinery we have at our disposal. The cost of dialysis was also mentioned. It is very great, much greater than the long-term cost of a transplant operation.
However, quite apart from whether it costs a lot of money, we must achieve a higher output of organ transplants because not only is there the hardship for the patient of having to attend a hospital, sometimes every day or for long periods during the week, but the illness also prevents the patient from living a full life and often from working.
Of course, not all hospitals perform transplants, but it may be that we have too many. The UK transplant audit shows that the relative performance of those hospitals varies by as much as 20 per cent. Iyy do not believe that that is acceptable. The standard should be level over the country. We need proper national standards and larger centres where the staff—both doctors and nurses—get enough experience to be able to achieve the highest standards attainable. We should not accept anything less.
What we also need above all, as was mentioned, in order to counteract the resistance to being a donor, is a nationally organised system of education for the public, emphasising that out of one tragedy there is the chance of giving a new life to someone who needs it desperately. We should be able to persuade the nation that that is what we should all consider. If you resist the thought of someone removing your organs when you are dead, you should turn your mind to the happiness it might give to someone else.
7.33 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, first I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, for giving the House the opportunity to debate these important issues
638
by asking his Question this evening. I also wish to pay tribute to the noble Lord's energetic leadership as President of the National Kidney Federation. As I am sure noble Lords are aware, the voluntary sector plays an important part in transplantation and organ donation. I am grateful to the noble Lord and others involved in the voluntary sector for the time they have taken to give me useful personal briefings since I became a Minister. I am also grateful for their important work in the field.
I also wish to congratulate my noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside on a distinguished maiden speech, in which he revealed an authoritative and long-standing interest in the issues we are discussing tonight. Although he said that his translation from another place had not always been easy, in the context of this evening's discussion we could describe him as a very successful transplant. We look forward to hearing him a great deal in the future.
As is so often the case in your Lordships' House on issues of this kind, all the speeches have been extremely well informed and wise. But even in this brief debate we have seen revealed the variety of strongly held views on the subject which reflect the controversy not only about the ethics but the practice involved in transplant policy.
Perhaps I may begin by replying to the first part of the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, about the care of patients waiting for organ transplants. I believe that things are getting better. Significant progress has been made in improving the treatment of people waiting for organ transplants and the way that they are looked after, particularly in the area of renal dialysis. When the national review of renal services was first published last year, it was clear that there were marked differences in the provision of services which patients could and should expect. Compared with other European countries, as the noble Lord said, the number of new patients taken on in England for renal dialysis was comparatively low, but much has been done to address that in the recent past.
The NHS Executive has issued guidelines on commissioning renal replacement therapy which include a model to enable health authorities to project the number of people requiring treatment. Taken together with the health needs assessment review that is currently being updated, health authorities and clinicians will be able to work together to ensure that all patients with renal problems receive specialist assessment and, we hope, specialist treatment.
The good progress that has been made recently is evident in the preliminary information from a national survey which we will publish shortly and to which the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, referred. The survey was commissioned by the NHS Executive as a follow-up to the national renal review. I am pleased to report that it shows a significant increase in the numbers of patients receiving dialysis during the past few years since the original review was carried out and a significant reduction in the variation in new patients taken on for dialysis which was a feature of the previous survey.
There are as well increases in the numbers being prescribed important specialised drugs, in those using the modern disconnect system and those receiving

639
dialysis three times a week. As noble Lords will know, there is considerable variation in the proportion of patients using the disconnect system, but it is beneficial to many. For the benefit of anyone unfamiliar with it, as I was before I was well briefed by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, and others working in the field, I should explain briefly that it is an enhanced system of continuous dialysis which enables the patient to be more mobile, to have more control and therefore to have a better quality of life.
The variations in the provisions of the system are not viewed with any complacency by the Government, and I hope that it will be feasible for all patients to have access to this higher quality, though it has to be said more costly, system as soon as local resources permit. However, inevitably it will take some time to achieve, given the pressure on renal services in some parts of the country, to which noble Lords have drawn attention. That is largely due to the increased numbers being taken on for treatment and the overriding need to ensure that patients are offered dialysis as soon as they need it. That has to take priority.
I am pleased to say that the new report also shows that since 1992 there has been a marked rise in the number of renal satellite units and a significant rise in the number of consultant nephrologists. Both the national renal review and the local report of the London Implementation Group a few years ago made recommendations for the future configuration of renal services which suggested that people adopt what is known colloquially as the "hub and spoke" approach, which included the use of more satellite units. That should reduce the distance which patients have to travel for treatment. As we know, that can place an unacceptable burden on the elderly and infirm and it can bring with it considerable costs.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised the question in relation to Wiltshire of whether there was specific discrimination on the grounds of age in regard to kidney dialysis. I wish to make it clear that nationally we firmly adhere to the principle that NHS treatments should be open to all on the basis of clinical need. We would regard it as unacceptable for appropriate treatment to be denied on grounds of a patient's age alone. However, there are clearly issues like the general health of the patient that are taken into account when discussing with a patient and carers whether to embark on renal replacement therapy. But I can assure the House that there are many patients over the age of 70 who are currently receiving renal dialysis.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised that question specifically in relation to the PFI undertaking in regard to the new hospital in Swindon. All I can say at the moment is that there are threatening matters which seem to suggest that a successful conclusion of the PFI arrangement may not be reached as quickly as we had hoped. It was one of the arrangements which was prioritised by the new Government in the summer. We hope that it will meet its deadlines and milestones by financial close, which should happen by the end of the year. If the PFI deal does reach a successful conclusion, it is expected that there will be adequate renal services included in it.
640
Perhaps I may return briefly to other national initiatives which we think will be helpful. They include the National Renal Registry, funded in part by the NHS Executive, which will provide an up-to-date clinical audit covering several aspects of treatment. The NHS Executive is also funding an update of guidance on how to conduct an epidemiological needs assessment of renal failure. We hope that that will help health authorities in assessing a likely level of need in their population.
In addition, the NHS Executive funded a health technology assessment of renal dialysis based on a comprehensive review. That will be widely disseminated. Finally, a report on standards of renal dialysis will be published shortly by the Renal Association and the Royal College of Physicians. The executive intends to help with the cost of disseminating that to the NHS.
In connection with those national initiatives on service standards and clinical effectiveness, I emphasise that it is this Government's clear intention to pursue a policy of national benchmarking for all types of complex therapies and treatments. I hope that when our White Paper on the NHS is published, which will be shortly, noble Lords will see that among its primary objectives is the establishment of monitoring methods for measuring the quality of care and the outcomes for patients. Those will be the touchstones of success by which the NHS will be judged in the future, and I expect them to produce greater consistencies of treatment across the country for all types of therapies.
I turn to the second part of the noble Lord's question in relation to the donation of organs for transplant. Each year in the UK some 1,500 kidneys, 300 hearts, 150 lungs and 600 livers are transplanted from fewer than 900 donors. Sadly, in 1996, for the first time there was a fall in all of those kinds of transplants. The main constraints for all transplants is on the pool of potential donors, and that is something to which noble Lords referred this evening. That pool has been shrinking for some years due to the reduction in the number of road accidents and the improvement in the treatment of stroke and other sudden brain injuries. What is clearly a great improvement in the well-being of one section of the population, for one set of patients, has paradoxically been a major disadvantage for another—for those waiting for transplants.
As all noble Lords who spoke in the debate emphasised, we all want to see donations increase. We shall therefore continue to encourage organ donation through national and local publicity campaigns aimed at persuading people to join the NHS donor register, to carry a donor card at all times and, very importantly, as noble Lords emphasised this evening, to tell their families of their wishes. Already, as the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, said in introducing the debate, 4.5 million people joined the organ donor register and applications are coming in at the rate of 20,000 a week. I do not believe it is a rash pledge to make: I am pretty confident that we will reach 5 million by the year 2000, as the noble Lord asked me to project.
People can register as donors at their family doctor surgery when applying for a driving licence or passport or they can obtain a form by ringing a freephone

641
number. I have no shame in your Lordships' House in giving a commercial for that freephone number. It is 0800 555 777. Perhaps if it is recorded in Hansard we shall reach 5 million tomorrow.
I have had a series of meetings over the past few months with representatives of the medical profession and organisations involved with organ donation, including, as I said at the beginning, the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. They have been helpful in producing different views on the ways in which donations could be increased. I commend the actions of those organisations; I was greatly assisted by my discussions with them. But I draw attention also, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples, to the work of the British Kidney Patient Association and its president, Mrs. Elizabeth Ward. The BKPA is supporting the work of the organ donor register by carrying out an intensive recruitment drive in one area. I shall be interested to see the results of that exercise, which may prove to be a pilot for a wider programme.
In some parts of England programmes of training are being held to help clinicians deal with grieving families and to try to find the best ways of discussing donation with them—a subject raised by several contributors to tonight's debate. That has the aim of securing their agreement that organs may be taken. In other programmes some hospitals are looking into ways in which they might identify and maintain more potential donors and so increase the number of organs. Again, I am keen to learn the outcome of those different methods of approaching the problem. Several of them may produce models for national programmes.
As the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, suggested, we will continue to examine information received in relation to donation and transplantation programmes abroad. We need to learn all the lessons that we can from them. The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, specifically requested that people should visit Spain. I can say to him that consultants working for the UK Transplant Support Service Authority have already visited that country and prepared a report on their findings. We are also in touch with the Spanish transplant community through the Council of Europe. If more information is needed, we shall certainly consider another visit to Spain.
As several noble Lords emphasised, the law in this country allows organs to be taken from a person who has died and left instructions to that effect. It also allows organs to be taken if the deceased person left no such instruction, provided that the family does not object. Unfortunately—I was surprised to learn this—relatives object in around one-quarter of all cases. My noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside drew attention to some of the reasons why there may be concern among families.
As several noble Lords suggested, it could be that the loss is overcome by introducing an opt-out system whereby organs may be taken from any person unless that person had expressed objection. However, on the other side, it has also been said that relatives would be just as likely to object if such a scheme were introduced. Some people would like to see relatives prevented from objecting to the donation, and several noble Lords
642
referred this evening to the attempts of Lord Finsberg to bring that into law. As my noble friend mentioned, a further unsuccessful attempt was made in another place.
Common sense suggests that it is difficult to imagine doctors asserting a right to remove organs against the wishes of a grieving family. In any case, refusal by the patient's family is almost unknown when the relatives know that their loved one wished to donate. That is why our publicity stresses and will continue to emphasise, "Let your family know your wishes". That point was eloquently reinforced by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson.
The problem in regard to elective ventilation is one that has—if I may mix my metaphors—been well aired this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, gave us an eloquent explanation of the case for that. I fully understand the motivation for looking at the potential means of increasing organ donation through that route. However, it is a controversial and difficult subject and we would need to take both the legal and moral issues carefully into consideration. Addressing the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, there are anxieties in relation to the legal situation which may be resolved if more clever brains than mine were put to it. But it is not easy to respond to that point in a debate such as this.
What does elective ventilation involve? The process is that patients on ordinary wards who are expected to die shortly would be, with the permission of their families of course, taken to intensive care and placed on life support systems so that once death was pronounced their organs could be maintained until they could be removed for transplantation. At the moment—this is where we enter the legal minefield—as the law stands the practice is illegal. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, made clear, any intervention made without the patient's consent must be in the patient's best interests or it will be judged as an assault. Clearly, elective ventilation in the circumstances I have outlined cannot be described as of benefit to the patient being treated. The procedures involved are not minor and could clearly be interpreted, in the legal niceties, as assault.
Elective ventilation is illegal at the moment, so why not change the law to overcome that obstacle? Again, as I said just now, this is not simple. A change in the law would hinge around consent to treatment. As one who sat for nearly two years on the Committee on Medical Ethics of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, I know how difficult and how long drawn-out these discussions can be. The general principle that a person may not, without consent, be given treatment which is not in his or her own interests is an important one. It would be very difficult to modify it, as we have discussed in many different contexts.
On the other hand, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is reviewing the recommendations of the Law Commission on mental incapacity and consent. There will, I am sure, be further opportunities to look at all of these issues, but I would emphasise that, even in the broadest terms as described under the Law Commission's recommendations, an advance directive, as it is called, cannot direct doctors to do what is illegal. I suspect that we would very soon enter into the

643
problematic area of definitions of what constitutes death. We all remember the controversies of a decade and a half ago when disputes about the definition of death as being brain-stem death led to a collapse in organs being offered for transplantation. It was thought that they might be taken at a time when brain-stem death had been agreed but that was not publicly or culturally accepted.
To attempt any such change in the law we would also have to be sure that elective ventilation was the best way forward in terms of practice. Can we be certain about that? The noble Earl, Lord Howe, made the point that many people both inside and outside the medical profession have grave reservations about the possibility of subjecting a patient to invasive procedures which would be of no benefit to that patient but were aimed solely at maintaining organs for eventual transplantation into others. Indeed, a report by the British Transplantation Society found that, of 97 intensive care units which had considered elective ventilation, almost 60 per cent. were opposed to the practice. That is not surprising because, as I have tried to describe in a very short time, the issues are difficult and the questions surrounding anticipated death are worrying for many people. Any move forward in this direction must have the confidence of the general public in order to be sure that we do not raise difficulties and scares which might lead to a worsening of the situation rather than the improvement which we all want to see.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to the question of cooling kidneys and the possible potential for taking that forward. He referred in particular to the practice that has been occurring in several local areas. As he will know, this is known as non-heart beating donors. We are aware that some protocols are in operation in different parts of the United Kingdom. But, again, the issue is not clear-cut. To decide on a legal change, it would be necessary to look at each protocol and see what was proposed. I would be very interested to hear what the outcomes of this practice are. But we need to emphasise again that public confidence must be maintained. This could be another area where bad publicity could arise, which, I believe, is what happened in the United States when non-heart beating donations in some areas resulted in a fall in organ donation.
We are talking here about general cultural attitudes, a point raised very eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, at the end of her contribution. It is difficult to foresee how we make changes to the law which in a sense run ahead of changes in cultural attitudes to transplants. My belief is that we need to work more firmly and directly on the kinds of considerations that the noble Baroness raised about the need for gifts of life before we can seek to change the law in an area where many people may feel threatened.
Several noble Lords who spoke, notably the noble Lord, Lord Morrie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, raised the possibility of transplanting animal
644
organs into humans—the process known as xenotransplantation. I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, that the questions of animal welfare are being taken very much into account in the protocols surrounding the interim authority which is looking after these issues.
Several noble Lords raised the question of the Kennedy Report about transplanting animal tissue into humans. The report concluded that the potential benefits of xenotransplantation made it an important avenue to explore, but there is insufficient evidence to justify an immediate move to clinical trials involving humans. We are all concerned not just about the possible infection risks but about the likely efficacy as well as the ethics of any such procedure. We must be as sure as we can be, for the good of both the individual patient and for our wider population, that the procedure may work, that the organ will not be rejected and that infection will not be transmitted to the patient and thence to a wider population.
Having said that, we clearly see the potential of xenotransplantation. Recently, I visited Imutran, a British firm which is at the leading edge of developing this technology. I was extremely interested to hear about its work and to see the transgenic pigs it is breeding. The United Kingdom Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority, very wisely chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, is charged with advising the Government on these important developments. I am very grateful to it. The authority has worked hard during its first six months. We are now looking at its proposals to take its work forward and considering whether or not it is appropriate for it to become a statutory commission.
I have covered much ground today. I am aware that time is running on and that, although the debate is not timed, I should now conclude. I simply want to say that further management as well as medical developments need to be considered before we take any further decisions about the reorganisation of the transplant system. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised the question of an umbrella body to look after transplantation policy. Certainly, a review of the Transplant Special Health Authority is being looked at. That is something I shall want to consider.
On the general question of organ transplantation, we are looking at all the different issues raised by various noble Lords today which have been expressed in ways which reveal, as I said at the beginning, both their authority and their wisdom on the subject. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Morrie, that I hope he will accept that we have an open mind, that I do not think we are afraid of being brave in this area, but that any action the Government take must be based both on widespread consultation, as my noble friend Lord Hughes suggested, and also on the basis that the public will come with us and will not be frightened by any measures we take.
House adjourned at three minutes before eight o'clock.

  Immigration Rules: New Concession
  Immigration Rules: New Concession
  Albert Memorial Exhibition Centre
  Albert Memorial Exhibition Centre
  Channel 5 Obligations: Retuning of Videos
  Channel 5 Obligations: Retuning of Videos
  Fish: Landing Sizes
  Fish: Landing Sizes
  Common Fisheries Policy: EU Decision
  Common Fisheries Policy: EU Decision
  Glasgow to Ayr Road Link
  Glasgow to Ayr Road Link
  Tolls on Scottish Bridges
  Tolls on Scottish Bridges
  Scottish Parliament: Voting Procedures
  Scottish Parliament: Voting Procedures
  Scottish Parliament: Standing Orders
  Scottish Parliament: Standing Orders
  Child Protection in Scotland
  Child Protection in Scotland
  Water Quality Survey of Scotland
  Water Quality Survey of Scotland
  Single Vehicle Approval Test
  Single Vehicle Approval Test
  London Cycle Network
  London Cycle Network
  Lord Chancellor's Residence: Refurbishment
  Lord Chancellor's Residence: Refurbishment