Sitting of 2 December 1998

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

Vaccine Damage (Compensation)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
9.33 am
Mr. Ian Stewart: I am delighted, after several unsuccessful attempts in the ballot, to have secured this debate today. This matter was last debated in the House in April 1996, when my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) presented a Bill to review and amend the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979. He has given much commitment and hard work to the cause and he hopes to attend the debate later. I pay tribute also to the campaigning work done by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General before his elevation to the Government.
My particular interest in the issue results from my meeting two constituents, Brendan Hanlon and Gary Hunt, whose lives and those of their families have been blighted by vaccine damage. Gary Hunt, who is 30, is profoundly mentally and physically handicapped and needs 24-hour care seven days a week, 365 days a year. He is wheelchair bound, cannot feed himself, is blind and epileptic, still wears nappies because he is doubly incontinent and, to top it all, cannot speak. Three days a week he attends the Links day care centre in Salford.
Brendan Hanlon, who is 37, has an academic age of a child under two. He suffers from unpredictable and severe epileptic fits, which frequently lead to physical injury. Only yesterday, his mother and sister took him to hospital for treatment for an ankle injury. Brendan must be accompanied outside by two people at all times, which considerably restricts his life style. He attends Craig Hall day care centre at Irlam in Eccles most weekdays, fits permitting.
We commonly talk about vaccine-damaged children, although, like my constituents, victims of vaccine damage are often well past the age of majority. Those children and adults have a spectrum of needs. They and their families are all different and try to cope in their own, unique way. Some children live at home and some are in residential accommodation. Some families rely on respite care and others rely on the extended family to give that support. All families want the greatest degree of independence and choice. I want fair and comprehensive compensation for my disabled constituents and their parents.
Following a parliamentary lobby in May, a cross-party group for vaccine-damaged children was formed by Members of Parliament. The group's aims are to assist parents and children in obtaining fair
798
compensation and to further the reform of the vaccine damage payments system. Officers of the group had a meeting with the Minister of State, Department of Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) last month to press the case for additional compensation. We told him that we hoped that the parliamentary group would be the shortest lived ever. The time has come for a just and adequate settlement for damaged people and their families.
This week I met two parents' groups—the Association of Parents of Vaccine Damaged Children and the Vaccine Victims Support Group—to discuss and agree on the components of a fair and adequate compensation scheme. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that he arranges a meeting with them in the near future to hear their proposals.
I make it clear from the outset that the parents of those children and adults and the cross-party group for vaccine-damaged children are 100 per cent. behind a public vaccination programme. We are discussing today what responsibility the Government have adequately to compensate people when accidents occur.
Earlier this year I attended a briefing for Back-Bench Members on the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. The Minister for Public Health and the recently retired chief public health officer, Sir Kenneth Calman, were present. Sir Kenneth made the point that politicians will always have to make hard decisions about any proposed Government vaccination programme in the full knowledge that there will always be accidents. I put it to him that if politicians make those hard decisions in the light of the wider public interest, it is surely politically, socially and morally right that before implementing the decisions, a system of adequate compensation for accident victims should be devised, and that funding should be shouldered jointly by the Government and the pharmaceutical industry. He replied simply, "Yes, I agree with you."
I am not here today to debate whether, or to what extent, vaccination is responsible for my constituents' disabilities. I know that the recent attempt to reopen that debate in a prominent Sunday newspaper has been very painful for parents. In my opinion, the Government accepted responsibility for vaccine victims with the 1979 Act and the scheme that was established a couple of years earlier. Successive Governments have honoured that responsibility—albeit inadequately—by periodically uprating the payment. The £10,000 payment of 1979 was increased to £20,000 in 1985, to £30,000 in 1991 and to £40,000 this year for new cases.
I shall focus on people damaged by the diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough vaccination—DTP—and on the level of financial help given, although I shall mention the six-year time limit for claiming payments and the 80 per cent. disability threshold currently in operation. Other hon. Members may wish to speak about these issues and their concerns about the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine.
In the early 1970s, parents of vaccine-damaged children argued for compensation on the ground that they were encouraged to have their children vaccinated as much for public health reasons as for the interests of the individual child. The then Labour Government established a royal commission on civil liability and compensation for

799
personal injury, known popularly as the Pearson commission. It reported in March 1978. Recommendation 158 concluded that there was
"a special case for paying tort compensation for vaccine damage, where vaccination is recommended by the state and is undertaken to protect the community."
The 1974–79 Labour Government, keen to ensure an early measure of help, introduced the 1979 Act. The then Health Secretary, the late Lord Ennals, said that the payment would not
"pre-empt decisions which the Government still have to take"
on the Pearson recommendations. Answering a Member who expressed great dismay that the payment was so small, he said:
"This is not saying, 'This is the end. We are wiping the slate clean'. This is some way in which we can help these people now".—[Official Report, 9 May 1979; Vol. 949, c. 977–80.]
However, when the Conservative Government took office in 1979, parents were told that the £10,000 was a full and final payment.
The value of the scheme has deteriorated considerably between upratings. In 1984–85, the real value of the £10,000 was about £5,600. In 1985, the payment was increased to £20,000. Upratings have been irregular; families waited until 1991 for another increase, and a further seven years for the latest increase.
Many Members of Parliament, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield, tried hard to persuade the previous Conservative Government to improve the level and scope of compensation. Their entreaties fell on deaf ears. I am glad that now several Conservative Members feel that they can support the case for adequate compensation and a review of the criteria laid down in the 1979 Act.
Mr. Llew Smith: Does my hon. Friend accept that although the Government have set up a vaccine damage unit in Blackpool—in recognition of the fact that things can go wrong and that people should be compensated—in the case of some vaccinations, such as the triple MMR and also just measles and rubella, the Government refuse to believe that there might be a link between vaccination and damage to a child? Does my hon. Friend also accept that it is difficult to prove that the vaccination led to the damage, even when a perfectly healthy child who has never had a day's illness becomes seriously ill within minutes of vaccination? Is it his opinion that the Government should introduce a scheme whereby, instead of its being the parents' responsibility to prove that the child was damaged by the vaccination, it is the responsibility of the Government and the pharmaceutical industry to prove that the child was not damaged by that vaccination?
Mr. Stewart: Yes, I accept the validity of some of the points made by my hon. Friend. However, today I shall focus wholly on the DTP and the 1979 Act.
In April 1996, an early-day motion was tabled calling for comprehensive improvements to the 1979 Act. The motion attracted about 300 signatories, including 26 Labour Members who are now Ministers and several more who are now Whips. They include my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson),
800
my right hon. Friends the Members for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Ms Jowell) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms). My call for improved compensation therefore has supporters at the Department of Health and the Department of Social Security and—perhaps most important—I believe that it has friends at the Treasury.
On 23 June 1998, my hon. Friend the Minister told the First Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation:
"The vaccine damage payment scheme provides a substantial measure of preference for those … severely disabled as a result of vaccination over those … equally severely disabled from some other source."
That acknowledgment of preference tells me that the Government have reviewed the evidence, identified vaccine damage victims as a special case and given some special support. However, I am afraid that I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Minister when he says that the preference is substantial. I believe that it is neither substantial nor remotely adequate.
My hon. Friend told the Committee that United Kingdom vaccination programmes had been very successful. We all agree. He said that, between 1951 and 1955, there were 627,033 cases of whooping cough in England and Wales, resulting in 1,103 deaths. Between 1991 and 1995, when vaccine coverage rates reached 94 per cent., there were only 1,873 reported cases and, thankfully, only five deaths. My hon. Friend said:
"The continued success of the immunisation programme is of enormous importance to individuals, their families and the country as a whole in reducing the incidence and effect of serious communicable diseases. Where, rarely, on the balance of probability, the programme does result in severe damage, the vaccine damage payments scheme provides a measure of financial help."—[Official Report, First Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 23 June 1998; c. 4–5.]
Essentially, we are arguing about what is the right measure. The £10,000 received by Brendan Hanlon is an inadequate measure. Even the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) said that the figure was missing a nought or even more. It would have helped if the Conservative Government had shown the compassion and responsibility that some individual Conservative Members are now showing. If all the children who received the original £10,000 were to receive £100,000, it would cost only £79.5 million; and we all know of recent medical compensation cases in which payments of £1 million or more have been awarded to individuals.
As of June 1998, 890 payments had been made under the 1979 Act and the scheme which briefly pre-dated it. That is from a total of 3,999 claims—a success rate of just 22 per cent. The vast majority of payments—some 795 of the 890—have been at the £10,000 level. I believe that the low success rate is related to the highly restrictive 80 per cent. rule. Parents find it hard to accept that a child can have a considerable disability yet get no compensation. The 1979 Act also includes a six-year time limit on the period during which claims must be made. That disadvantages parents who might not have access to full information about the scheme. It might be well publicised now, but that has not always been the case.
It could and can take time for parents to become aware of the cause of their child's injury, and it can take many more months or even years before the necessary medical information is compiled. Up to 31 March 1995, 210 claims fell foul of the six-year rule. I am today calling for a review of the limitation on actions to relax those restrictions.

801
The Government must not hide behind the mantra that additional compensation is for the courts to decide, and my hon. Friend the Minister cannot continue to say that legal aid is not a matter for him. The Government are committed to a policy of co-ordination—joined-up thinking, as it is now routinely called.
Litigation is a dead duck for most parents, although I was delighted that on 17 November the Legal Aid Board allowed 16 families the right to re-apply for legal aid certificates to fight cases on behalf of their children where medical negligence is alleged. My constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Hanlon, had their legal aid certificate withdrawn in 1994 after 13 years. They are among the 16 families who can now re-apply for a certificate. Mr. and Mrs. Hanlon are 74 and 78 years old respectively, and they are tired of getting on and off the legal merry-go-round.
For many parents, the courts offer no solution. The relevant documents are missing, and vaccine batch numbers are lost, destroyed or missing. The Government's proposed changes to the qualifying criteria for legal aid may make such cases even more difficult to pursue. It has been argued that the conditional fee agreement that the Government are recommending would be particularly difficult in medical liability cases.
Victims of vaccine damage and their parents are looking to the Government to provide a decent and adequate compensation scheme. I know that various proposals have been advanced. One suggestion is for a substantial lump sum. Other proposals are for the payment of a severe disability pension like that paid for industrial or war injuries. Both suggestions may be appropriate. It is also time to revisit the Pearson report, which gave the issue a thorough investigation. I do not want to be too prescriptive, but the parents of vaccine-damaged children and I are looking to the Government to present some realistic options that will move the matter forward quickly.
A new or revised scheme should acknowledge five principles. First, it should recognise the need for a lump-sum payment which takes account of the wide spectrum of need among vaccine damage victims and the variety of suitable care provisions, ranging from full-time home care to full-time residential care. Families should have the financial wherewithal to make choices about the best care for their child now and in the future.
Secondly, it should be acknowledged that the longest suffering children and families have had the most expense and the least help. Any proposed settlement should recognise that. Thirdly, it must be accepted that in any vaccine programme, even in the future, inevitably there will be a small number of accidents. Therefore, an adequate and fair system of benefits and/or pensions should be established. Fourthly, the funding of such compensation should be the joint responsibility of Government and the pharmaceutical industry. Fifthly, the 80 per cent. and six-year criteria should be relaxed.
Since the early 1970s, parents have done all the right things. They have lobbied, they have tried litigation, they have persuaded sympathetic Members of Parliament to raise the matter, they have had an early-day motion tabled and they have lobbied Ministers, most recently in May this year at the House of Commons. I know that for many families it was a great struggle to get here, and that it was expensive for those who came from far-flung parts of the United Kingdom. They did so despite having to attend to
802
the constant needs of severely disabled children and adults. Now they want action. They want their sons and daughters' futures to be secured and they want an end to almost three decades of fighting for justice.
To my mind, the parents and sisters of Brendan Hanlon spoke for all the families and all the damaged children when they wrote:
"We have been extremely patient for many years, but the urgency of providing our sons and daughters with the financial muscle to purchase dignified care is ever pressing."
Mr. and Mrs. Hanlon, who are in their 70s, want to ensure that during their lifetime they have secured and provided for the future care of their child. In that sense they are no different from all the other parents who have mature vaccine-damaged children. They know that they are stoic. They have been told that they are heroes, and undoubtedly they are, but time is running out. They want justice and concrete proposals for proper compensation now. I am confident that my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government will meet that challenge.
9.56 am
Mr. David Rendel: I congratulate the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) on raising the matter in the House and on his eloquent and moving speech, in which he put the arguments extremely well. I whole-heartedly support a great deal of what he said. He made a strong case and brought to the attention of the House, and, I hope, of the Government, the needs of families with a child damaged as a result of the vaccination programme.
I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about the importance of that programme. However, one thing that should not come out of the House today is any scare story about the vaccination programme in general. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it has proved an enormous success, leading to a huge reduction in the incidence of diseases, which have almost been eradicated from our country, and a huge reduction in the number of deaths, especially of young children, as a result of those diseases.
Our generation owes the greatest debt of gratitude to the medical services, as we were the first generation to enjoy the full benefits of the vaccination programme. In my very early years the vaccinations were just being introduced. As a result, most of my friends and my generation have not suffered as previous generations did.
It is important that the vaccination programme should continue. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that even the families of children who have suffered as a result of accidents following vaccinations are aware of the need for the programme to continue for the sake of the public. It is inevitable that there have been and always will be one or two children who are damaged as a result of vaccinations. We must take care of them. It is in the best traditions of the hon. Gentleman's party and of mine that in the House we should consider not just the public as a whole, but the individuals who, in one or two cases, may have suffered from what is in the best interests of society at large.
Mr. Llew Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we are speaking not about one or two cases, but about thousands of cases? If he is in any doubt about that, perhaps he should consult some of the solicitors and barristers dealing with those cases.
Mr. Rendel: I apologise if I gave the hon. Gentleman the impression that I was trying to minimise the

803
importance of the matter. The number of people damaged by vaccines, as opposed to other causes, is in dispute. The numbers now are small in comparison with the huge numbers being vaccinated in the overall vaccination programme.
Mr. Andrew Love: It is not only the numbers that are in dispute, but whether the vaccine is responsible for what has happened in some cases. I attended the same meeting as my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) with the chief medical officer. For every statistic that we could throw up, the chief medical officer threw up a counter-statistic. Does that not tell us that more research is needed, so that we can establish whether and when vaccines are responsible? That would allow the people described by my hon. Friend to be adequately compensated when it is clear that the vaccine caused the damage.
Mr. Rendel: I am sure that we would all welcome more research, but for some families it is already too late—the damage has been done. We should concentrate on what can be done to help the families of people who have already been affected.
Many hon. Members have probably had the opportunity—the privilege—to visit such families, as I have, and will know how severe the effects of vaccine damage can be. Those affected may need direct care for as much as 24 hours a day. Young children who are disruptive as a result of mental disability must be watched for every moment of their lives, because they may be a danger to themselves and others. As the hon. Member for Eccles said, the current programme does not provide enough compensation to enable such people to be looked after properly.
In other cases involving medical accidents, compensation has run into millions of pounds. If we are to retain the system whereby lump sums are provided in compensation for some medical accidents—and I am not sure that it is the right system—such sums must be large enough to give the family a continuing income, so that proper care can be paid for. Compensation should be higher than the £40,000 agreed in the summer.
The hon. Gentleman was also right to point out that there are different degrees of damage. Some people will need more care than others. There is a good case for a sliding scale, and for a reduction in the current highly restrictive requirement for sufferers to be 80 per cent. disabled to receive compensation.
That the 80 per cent. requirement is restrictive was demonstrated last summer, when the Minister told us that the number of cases receiving compensation had fallen to about five a year. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) said that the figures that I had mentioned might be too low in relation to needs. Certainly, compensating a mere five families a year will not require much in terms of public resources.
There has also been a problem in regard to legal aid. I am delighted to learn that in a number of cases that is apparently being resolved, but if we are to continue with the programme as it is now we must consider the needs of families, many of whom, because of their difficulties, have few resources of their own. They should be given a chance to take their cases to court and to obtain compensation.
804
We have been told that a review of the whole scheme is under way, but the process seems to be rather slow. The Government are very keen on reviews: they are reviewing all sorts of things, and setting up working parties. Admittedly the issue is difficult, and, as has been said, a number of the medical problems have not been fully resolved. I accept that a review must be proper and thorough, but I hope that the Government will not consider the fact that fairly small numbers are involved to be an excuse for allowing this review to drag on and on. It should be speeded up as much as possible because the issue is critical for those involved, although they form a relatively small proportion of the population.
The Government may wish to consider a no-fault compensation scheme as a way of resolving not only this problem, but other medical problems. It is time that they did so. Many people have special needs as a result of medical damage of some kind, whether or not that damage was a result of negligence on the part of a doctor, and those caring for them experience difficulties in providing for those needs. Surely we should do what we can for them, regardless of the cause of the problem.
Mr. Simon Hughes: One good reason for the Government to establish such a scheme is the possibility of avoiding endless actions against different health authorities and trusts which must then arrange for administrators and staff to deal with the litigation. A central system tied in with no-fault compensation would hugely reduce administration costs in the national health service, as well as making matters much easier for claimants.
Mr. Rendel: My hon. Friend is right. Sadly, the only people who are likely to benefit from the retention of the current system are the lawyers who, year after year, deal with these lengthy cases in the courts. It would be better for some of the money to be given to the victims of medical accidents. My hon. Friend was also right to mention trusts. A number of trusts are known to be in great difficulty after losing cases that they expected to win, and being stung for large amounts of compensation.
I ask the Minister to respond to the points that I have made, and to tell us whether he is considering a no-fault compensation scheme. I feel that that must be the answer in the end, and I hope that that end will come sooner than seems likely at present.
10.7 am
Mr. Richard Burden: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) on securing the debate, and apologise to him, and to my hon. Friend the Minister, for the fact that I shall be unable to stay until the end.
I have been interested in vaccine damage for some time. In the last Parliament, I introduced a ten-minute Bill and tabled an early-day motion on the subject. Significantly, the early-day motion secured more than 200 signatures from hon. Members on both sides of the House, which demonstrates the strength of feeling in all parties.
My involvement, like that of many other hon. Members, began as a result of a constituency case. I pay tribute to Mrs. Olivia Price, and to all the other parents of vaccine-damaged children who have worked so hard over the years and have shown such resilience in campaigning for justice.

805
"Vaccine-damaged children" is, in a sense, a misnomer. As my hon. Friend pointed out, we are now dealing mainly with vaccine-damaged adults. That certainly applies to the cases approved under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979. The parents of those concerned are getting on in years, and the time has come for us to address the issue. Indeed, such action may be overdue.
The position was clear back in 1978. The Pearson commission recommended a weekly disability benefit for all severely disabled children,
"irrespective of cause of disablement".
It went on to say that
"the Government or local authority concerned should be strictly liable in tort for severe damages suffered by anyone (adult or child) as a result of vaccination which has been recommended in the interests of the community".
That, surely, is the key issue. The vaccination programme, which I support, is a public health measure. Vastly more children have benefited from it than have suffered. Given that it is a public health measure, however—a measure promoted by the public for public health reasons—and given that there will always be a small number of children who are adversely affected by vaccines, we, as a community, have an obligation to look after them and their families. That is all that parents have been saying for all these years. The obligation is important not just in terms of justice for those families, but in terms of the credibility of the vaccination programme.
There are legitimate arguments about the MMR—measles, mumps and rubella—vaccine and other issues, on both sides. I am a supporter of vaccination, but, in all seriousness, I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that until we sort out the issue of compensation for the small number of families who have been affected, those two matters will continue to get mixed up. The credibility of the vaccination programme will suffer as a result of the issue of compensation not being adequately addressed.
Although I accept in many ways what the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) said about the need to examine an overall no-fault compensation scheme, we should not leave the addressing of the issue of compensation until we tackle those broader questions. This has gone on for too long already, and there are some fairly simple things that can and should be done. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles said, the level of compensation should be dramatically increased for all those affected. That is a vital component.
Secondly, we should remove the 80 per cent. rule, which has unjustly ruled out too many families. Thirdly, we should do something about the six-year rule, which has had a corrosive effect. That would not cost a great deal of money. The parents deserve it, and we as a community have an obligation to the families involved and to the credibility of the vaccination programme.
10.11 am
Ms Jean Corston: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) on securing the debate and on the moving content of his speech. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden), who
806
did so much during the previous Parliament to call public attention to the number of children who have been casualties of an immunisation programme to which we are all committed and to which we want parents to be committed.
I am vice-chair of the newly formed all-party group on vaccine damage, and I put on record the fact that we are working to put pressure on the Government about promises and obligations that we think rightly fall on them. We have been assisted by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, who, before his elevation to that august post, was an active member of our group.
I shall use the time available to me to detail a particular case in my constituency—that of Matthew Needs. Matthew, and his parents Enid and Ivor, became my constituents as a result of boundary changes following the general election. Before that, they had been the constituents of, in reverse order, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry); Mr. Rob Hayward, who was Conservative Member for Kingswood for a time; and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who at that time was the Member for Bristol, South-East. Mr. and Mrs. Needs have worked with all those Members of Parliament to try to achieve justice for Matthew.
The total sum of compensation available in the statutory scheme is slightly more than two years of the average wage. At the same time, children who have been damaged at birth or who have had a disability, and have been in the fortunate position of being able to prove negligence in civil law, are receiving damages counted in millions because of the cost of care for a lifetime. That is what is involved: a lifetime of care from parents, many of whom are reaching retirement, as my hon. Friends have said.
Matthew was born on 11 June 1975. There were no complications in his birth, and he held up his head at between six and seven weeks, which is quite forward. He sat up at six months, in December 1975. On 16 September 1975, he had his routine three-month check at the local authority children's health clinic. The doctor who saw him, Dr. Joan Boyd, had 43 years experience as a child health doctor by the time of her retirement. She said:
"My clinical examination in conjunction with peri-natal and post-natal hospital tests showed a very long baby with tests within the norm for his age, in my opinion."
On 8 January 1976, Matthew had his first injection of the vaccine DTP—diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis. Pertussis is commonly known as whooping cough. Afterwards, his mother said that he had a prolonged screaming fit, became drowsy and slept for 17 hours. His behaviour was noticeably different when he woke, and he was unable to recognise his mother, which is extraordinary in a child of seven months.
Quite a long way down the road, and after lots of pennies had been put in the legal meter, a medical opinion was sought from two eminent specialists—Dr. F. Clifford Rose of Harley street and the Charing Cross hospital neurology department, and Professor G.T. Stewart of the University of Glasgow. They said:
"On the evidence submitted to us it would appear that he had a severe adverse reaction a few hours after this injection."
Mrs. Needs said that he
"seemed suddenly lifeless and floppy … like a rag doll".

807
A couple of days later—on or about 10 January—Matthew had brief seizures in which his body became rigid and his eyes stared for a few seconds. Mrs. Needs reported that to the clinic and to her doctor, but she was told that there was no need for concern, but Matthew remained backward and disturbed in the weeks thereafter. Dr. Clifford Rose and Professor Stewart said:
"We interpret this as a global disturbance of cerebral function which was followed immediately, as the record shows, by severe mental and physical retardation."
At that point, some hearing loss was noticed, and Matthew saw a doctor at a hearing clinic in March. Nevertheless, on 4 March 1976 he had his second injection of the triple vaccine, because Mrs. Needs was told that there was no cause for concern. After that, Matthew had another prolonged screaming fit and the retardation increased.
On 16 March 1976, Matthew had his nine-month check-up with the same doctor, Dr. Boyd, at the children's clinic. She said:
"Clinical examination by me showed a very long child again with, in my opinion, poor muscle tone and some delay in the development of locomotive skills.
I considered that development delay needed further investigation at specialist level. An appointment for Dr. Brian Speidel of Southmead Hospital, Bristol, to see Matthew in Out patients was made."
Obviously he was being referred to a consultant because of the inexplicable deterioration in his condition, from being a normal baby at three months to a slow child at eight months.
On 7 May 1976, in Southmead hospital, it was discovered that Matthew was unable to sit unsupported. He later saw Dr. Carpenter at Purdown hospital in Bristol. He had an appointment with a paediatrician, who said that the child's condition was not related to vaccination. That seems to be the sole bit of evidence on which the Department relies in shutting Matthew out of the scheme altogether. My hon. Friends have made the point that the scheme as it stands is inadequate to compensate these children—most of whom are now adults—and their parents, but Matthew's parents have never received a penny because the Department relies on that one written comment from a paediatrician.
On 1 July 1976, despite that catalogue of horrors, Matthew was given his third injection of the vaccine. The consultants to whom I have referred said:
"There is no evidence of a pre-existing neurological or other lesion to account for his condition. We are therefore of the opinion that it is more likely than not that the first injection caused brain damage which was aggravated by the second and third injections. These were given in violation of scheduled contraindications and of doubts expressed by Matthew's parents.
In this respect they were given negligently of the child's best interest especially since at the time of the third injection he was over one year of age and therefore no longer at serious risk of severe disease or complications from whooping cough."
The Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 was passed in the dying days of the 1974–79 Labour Government. For its first 18 years on the statute book, it was the responsibility, and under the discretion of Conservative Secretaries of State. Cases were heard by a vaccine
808
damage tribunal. On 10 September 1979, the tribunal turned down Matthew's application. Its judgment says:
"From the history it appears far more probable that the influenza illness which coincided with the first immunisation caused this child's condition rather than the immunisation."
In particular, it was noted that
"the second and third immunisations with the same vaccine did not result in any deterioration of the child's condition."
That is a strange point to make. Furthermore, that was the first Mr. and Mrs. Needs had heard of Matthew having had influenza. It looked as though that had been entered on Matthew's medical records by his general practitioner.
Mr. and Mrs. Needs applied for a re-trial based on a mistake as to a material fact, which was that Matthew had suffered influenza at the time of his first vaccination. In October 1979, Dr. Carpenter, who was the consultant psychiatrist at Purdown hospital, said:
"Matthew's clinical picture at present certainly fits that of a brain damaged child and this, coupled with the fact that he appeared to be a perfectly normal developed baby before the alleged immunisation at seven months, must cast grave doubts upon the suggestion that his brain damage or deterioration was due to influenza. Certainly influenza, like many other viruses, probably could cause brain damage whether by direct infection or by an allergical mechanism but I cannot think of a single case off-hand and feel it must be excessively rare. Judged on probability therefore it is surely far more likely that it was the whooping cough vaccine."
In 1980, the vaccine damage tribunal turned Matthew down again, and did not give any reasons. It just said that, on the balance of probabilities, it did not think that his condition was as a result of a vaccination.
A psychological assessment of Matthew in 1981 said:
"It is very difficult to imagine Matthew advancing to any degree, other than a physical increase in stature, regardless what treatment methods are used and to my mind"—
the doctor was James B. Norman—
"having seen what milestones he had reached prior to the vaccination, I feel that he is less advanced now than he was prior to the vaccination which to my mind suggests very strongly that the vaccination may well have been the cause of his brain damage."
Since that time, Mr. and Mrs. Needs have been on a legal merry-go-round. They do not have a batch number for the vaccination, because the records have been destroyed. I do not allege any malpractice. Matthew's medical records referred to influenza, but they have now gone, so no one has any evidence that influenza was given as a cause. It is impossible, or at least very difficult, to prove negligence.
The matter has gone backwards and forwards. It has gone to various Secretaries of State. Lord Henley said that the case was out of time. When the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) was the Secretary of State, he turned down an application. In the interval, Mr. and Mrs. Needs have, to my knowledge, spent £5,361 of their own money trying to get justice for Matthew.
Some people have said that there is a question mark over whether vaccine damage exists, despite the 1979 Act. I have a letter from the Minister for Public Health, who referred to the findings of a national childhood encephalopathy study. She said that it
"failed to identify a statistically significant link between pertussis vaccine and neurological damage."
She went on:
"However, we do know that pertussis itself can cause brain damage."

809
In 1976–77, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration reported on the yellow card system. He noted that doctors were not reporting suspect adverse reactions on the yellow card system as rigorously as they should, and that that was a matter of concern. Although there was no statutory requirement for doctors to do so, it was made clear that it was extremely important. The Department had reminded doctors from time to time of the yellow card system to help identify hazards, but the Commissioner felt that it was generally accepted that there was under-reporting.
The report made specific reference to the whooping cough vaccination. It said:
"The main reaction of triple vaccine apart from other local reactions which have been reported and which give cause for concern are first, convulsions and encephalopathy and secondly the sudden onset of shock or collapse and the shrill cry or screaming attacks which may persist for several hours."
Those are precisely the symptoms that Mrs. Needs described. The report reviewed research from 1961 to 1974, and said that
"the sudden onset of collapse within 4 hours of immunization and the peculiar screaming attacks following the triple vaccination in the young infant may be attributed to the vaccine with greater confidence as they do not appear to have been observed after other prophylactics given at the same age or in children who have been given no vaccine."
When Mr. and Mrs. Needs came to see me in my advice surgery last year, Matthew came with them. He was very frightened at being in a room with people he did not know, and sought refuge by constantly hugging his mother, as would a baby of seven months who was in a room with strangers. For reassurance, he put out his hand to his mother and said, "Round and round the garden." She had to stop and do "Round and round the garden like a teddy bear" on his palm—he was 22. That reassured Matthew and he beamed, but there was not a dry eye left among the rest of us in the room. This was a man of 22 exhibiting the familiar behaviour of a 7-month-old baby.
I pay tribute to Ivor and Enid Needs for the love and care they have given Matthew and his siblings. I cannot imagine how much patience they have required. I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to make it clear to the Secretary of State that the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 gives him the discretion to make an order to add medical evidence, such as that submitted by many doctors in the case of Matthew Needs, in the absence of proof, such as a batch number or GP's records. If eminent specialists in the field say that the cause of disability is almost certainly vaccination, that should carry equal weight. I do not want to criticise the vaccination programme, but we have a responsibility towards its victims.
I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms), who met me recently to discuss Matthew's case. However, I am not convinced that the Department is taking this matter seriously enough. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take careful note of what I have said and to recognise that young people such as Matthew, and their parents, deserve justice from the Government.
10.28 am
Dr. Peter Brand: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short contribution to this important debate. I am sure that there is consensus in the House on
810
this issue. The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) set out the case extremely well. I shall concentrate on the public health aspects, which were discussed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden), and shall touch on the case described by the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston).
Many of my medical colleagues find it difficult to accept the concept of vaccine damage. There is an association between having an immunisation and neurological diseases occurring, but we know that many neurological diseases in small infants occur at about the time vaccines are given. It is extremely difficult to prove causality as opposed to a link. Many of my colleagues say that, if we allow causality, it may undermine the public's confidence in the vaccination programme. They are profoundly wrong.
Nowadays, for each individual child, it is safer to rely on herd immunity rather than to have a vaccination, but if many individual parents made that decision, herd immunity would disappear almost within weeks. Then we would all, as individuals, be at risk again of a number of diseases that, thankfully, we do not see very often now. Therefore, it is important that individual parents, when they make the responsible choice of having their child vaccinated on behalf of the community, have the assurance that should anything go wrong—whether or not cause and effect can be proved—if there is a link, they will be looked after by the very state and community that benefits from that selfless act.
It all sounds slightly dramatic, but that is a decision that each parent has to make. During some of the irresponsible scares that we have had recently, the focus on vaccine-damaged children not being treated properly by the state has created an on-going festering sore. All of us in the Chamber and everyone who has spoken know parents. The people affected are growing older. Parents are more anxious about those dependent individuals, clearly described by the hon. Member for Bristol, East.
It is in the interest of the Government and public health to make the decisions that parents have to make easier by acknowledging that, if there is any association between a disability and an immunisation procedure, the Government will face up to their responsibilities, without driving those people through the protracted misery of having to go through the courts.
10.32 am
Mr. Eric Pickles: This has been an interesting and thoughtful debate. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) on his selection. He spoke movingly about the plight of his constituents and about the difficult decisions that have to be made, as did the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston), whose description of her constituents' problems I found deeply moving. I could see that she, too, was moved by their plight. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to reconsider the individual case that she mentioned.
The hon. Member for Eccles made a slight side swipe at the previous Government when he said that the late Lord Ennals had suggested that more reform might be forthcoming. The hon. Gentleman quoted from the official record. If he studies that debate carefully, he will find that Patrick Jenkin, now Lord Jenkin, remarked that Lord Ennals had gone out of his way not to say that it was an

811
interim payment. Part of the problem with which we have been bedevilled is that there have been hints and suggestions that something else is about to be done. I hope that the Minister of State will not be guilty of the same fault.
We are struck by the effects of vaccine damage on individuals and by the amount of injury that is suffered. Hon. Members have referred to the fact that a child must be classified as 80 per cent. disabled before qualifying for payments. The effect of that must be devastating not only for the individual but for the family; the hon. Member for Bristol, East gave a clear example.
It is also striking that the percentage of awards against claims has steadily gone down. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) talked about a handful of awards; I think he mentioned five. It is interesting that there have been five awards against 260 claims in the past three years.
As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) said, we should not forget that the assistance given under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 was based on the principle that parents should be actively encouraged to have their children vaccinated on grounds of public health, as well as for the welfare of the individual child.
As hon. Members have pointed out, controversy continues over the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. I have a letter from the Minister for Public Health in response to a constituent's inquiry about the safety of that medicine. I will not quote the whole letter; nor, for reasons of confidentiality, will I name my constituent. The letter says:
"There has been much adverse reporting in newspapers and on television about MMR vaccine over the preceding months. We very much regret the anxiety this has caused, especially since much of the reporting has been factually wrong."
It talks about the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and says:
"The Committee's view remains unequivocal that, on the scientific evidence available, there is no link between MMR vaccine and inflammatory bowel disease or autism."
It is against that background that we seek to reassure families that vaccination remains safe.
The hon. Members for Eccles and for Newbury talked about whooping cough. I was born in the early 1950s—1952 to be precise.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: Hear, hear.
Mr. Pickles: The Whip is right. I look a lot younger, but I thank him for that remark.
At that time, whooping cough was a great killer of children. Great fear stalked the streets. Years later, my mother talked about the constant fear, the effects on children and the effects on families in our locality whose children had died or contracted the disease.
In the early 1950s, the number of whooping cough cases was roughly 157,000 a year, compared with 2,000 today. The number of deaths was 300 a year, compared with one a year 40 years later. The public vaccination programmes remain safe and are a sensible precaution for parents to take for the well-being of their
812
children and their children's playmates. As hon. Members have said, however, when vaccinations go wrong, the consequences can be tragic.
Hon. Members have referred to the problems in the 1970s, when some members of the medical profession expressed doubts about the safety of whooping cough vaccine. The result was the 1979 Act. As several hon. Members have it made clear, that was not intended as compensation, but, to quote the late David Ennals, as an "urgent measure of health". He made several statements on Second Reading that have since been subject to different interpretations; indeed, we have had heard some differing interpretations today.
At the time of the debate, the royal commission on civil liability and compensation for personal injury had made recommendations on a limited compensation scheme, but as that would, in the words of the late Lord Ennals, "inevitably take time", the Government decided to introduce a lump-sum payment. It is important to emphasise that each uprating relates only to new cases.
Many people took that to mean that other measures would be introduced. Clearly, the sums that have been involved—£10,000, £20,000—are nothing like the levels that would be available in court. I have some briefing papers supplied by a lawyer on comparable schemes involving the courts covering 80 per cent. disability. The figures include £520,000 for an 11-week old girl; £708,000 for a five-year-old boy; a case from Leeds involving £105,000; a case involving £346,000; leading up to one involving £1.25 million compensation.
It is fair to say that, despite the legal aid changes, action on such cases has largely been ruled out because it is very difficult to prove causation: from the early 1980s until the recent cases, the Legal Aid Board refused to grant legal aid to pursue them.
It is to the Government's credit that in June they uprated the amount payable in new cases to £40,000—on roughly the same basis as the two previous upratings by the Conservative Government. In the debate, the Minister made some interesting points that suggested that there would be a further review. On the uprating, he said:
"I should also like to draw attention to the other part of the announcement about the vaccine damage payment scheme being considered as part of the welfare review, which includes disability."—[Official Report, First Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 23 June 1998; c. 3.]
In a written answer in another place, the Under-Secretary said:
"The Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme is the responsibility of the Department of Social Security. Consideration is still being given to this complex and sensitive issue and an announcement will be made in due course."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 November 1998; Vol. 594, c. 28.]
The promised statement on vaccine damage payments came in "A new contract for welfare: support for disabled people", which on page 41 states:
"We have increased by £10,000 to £40,000 the tax-free lump sum payment which is awarded, in addition to the normal range of disability benefits, to children who are severely disabled as a result of recommended childhood vaccines. We are continuing to consult with representative bodies on any future changes to the scheme."
The Minister, for whom I have a great deal of time, would hardly have made those promises unless he was about to deliver on them; he has just nodded to that effect. I am delighted that he has taken the unusual course of

813
making that major announcement during a Wednesday Adjournment debate. To be worthwhile, the review must consider things beyond inflation uprating. At the end of his speech in the uprating debate, the Minister said that the uprating would stand "for some time". Let him say now how often it will be uprated.
Is the review only about the scheme's operation and administration, or are extensions proposed? Are there proposals to introduce a payment on the lines described by hon. Members, to institute a trust for those suffering, to reopen cases previously considered and/or to deal with the problems of adults? Will the 80 per cent. rule or the six-year rule be affected? Any review must consider those matters. Unless the Minister wants to follow the path of Lord Ennals and imply promises that perhaps cannot be kept, let him give us what the hon. Member for Eccles called his joined-up thinking on the issue.
10.45 am
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) on securing this debate and on raising an issue of concern to the House. It is a complex and emotive subject, and my hon. Friend spoke clearly and with great sensitivity.
I know that the matter is of considerable interest and that an all-party group on vaccine damage has recently been formed. I acknowledge the work of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Cranston)—now the Solicitor-General—who has been active on the issue since he entered the House. Although he is now a Minister, and so unable to speak in the debate, he found time to join me on the Front Bench this morning.
There were many good contributions. I hope that I will address most of the points raised; hon. Members will forgive me if I do not ascribe them to each Member who spoke. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) made several important points. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) has been active in the campaign for a long time. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) spoke movingly about a constituency case that she is pursuing with one of my colleagues. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) spoke about the importance of the immunisation programme, as did several other hon. Members. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) posed several questions.
Before I go into how the scheme operates, may I say that I recognise the difficulties that many children, and their families, must tackle daily? Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I have constituents who must deal with all the pressure on them and their families that comes from being the parent of a severely disabled child. I, too, recognise that where it is believed that a disability arises from vaccine damage, whether or not it can always be established as fact, that belief can add greatly to the sense of distress, anger and even guilt that parents may feel. In common with parents of other disabled children, many such parents grow increasingly concerned about how their children will be provided for when they become adults: they begin to wonder what will happen when they can no longer offer care in the way that they have for so long.
814
The national immunisation programme is, as was acknowledged throughout the debate, an important programme and the responsibility of the Department of Health. The diseases covered by it are diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, poliomyelitis, measles, rubella, tuberculosis, mumps and haemophilus influenza type B. I should restate, although it was noted by hon. Members on both sides of the House, that the programme was introduced for a good reason.
The diseases covered by the childhood immunisation programme can lead to serious illness and be life threatening. How well vaccines work is shown by the incidence of diseases before and after the introduction of immunisation. Between 1951 and 1955, there were more than 620,000 cases of whooping cough, to which the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar alluded, in England and Wales, resulting in more than 1,000 deaths. Between 1991 and 1995, when vaccine coverage reached 94 per cent., there were only five deaths, and the incidence of the disease fell to much lower levels, with only 1,873 cases in 1995.
The success of mumps, measles and rubella, or MMR, vaccine has resulted in notifications of measles reaching their lowest ever levels. Measles vaccine was introduced in 1968, and by the late 1980s, notifications had fallen from a maximum of 800,000 per annum to a maximum of 100,000 per annum. MMR was introduced in 1988, and cases fell to between 10,000 and 20,000 per annum between 1990 and 1994. Slightly more than 4,000 cases were notified in 1997, and the true figure is thought to be much lower, because many reported cases were misdiagnoses. No child in England and Wales has died from acute measles-related illness since 1992. All those figures establish that the immunisation programme provides benefits not only to society as a whole but to the individual and his or her family.
After the separation of the Health and Social Security Departments in 1988, the administration of the payments scheme under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 was placed in the custody of the Department of Social Security. A payment under the scheme is not in any way a bar to any subsequent legal proceedings. It does not prejudice the rights of a disabled person and his or her family to seek compensation. Indeed, cases have been taken to court, although it is true that, to date, there has been no successful case on the issue. However, as hon. Members are aware and have mentioned in this debate, some parents have obtained legal aid to pursue their claims against manufacturers of the MMR vaccine.
Hon. Members have asked about legal aid. My understanding is that, notwithstanding the Government's proposals, the current MMR legal aid cases that have been mentioned will be protected while they continue to satisfy the eligibility criteria. The Government have made it clear that we wish personal injury cases to be funded by conditional fee agreements. I acknowledge the issues in the vaccine damage cases that have been raised in the debate, and I shall of course draw those concerns to the attention of the Lord Chancellor.
Since our return to office, many hon. Members have pressed us about the scheme. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles will recall, on 5 November, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms) met representatives of the all-party group on vaccine damage for a very useful discussion. We are aware of concerns on

815
time limits, the disablement threshold, the adequacy of the £10,000 payments under the 1979 Act and other matters. We are aware also that medical opinion on vaccine damage has changed in the past decade or so.
It is important to stress that no prior assumption is made about the possibility of vaccine damage in any individual case. Each claim is dealt with on its merits. However, it is important to state the current understanding of the prevalence of vaccine damage.
Reports in the mid-1970s linking pertussis vaccine and encephalitis resulting in brain damage were based on anecdotal evidence concerning a small number of affected children. Since then, several large studies, such as the national childhood encephalopathy study, have shown no scientific evidence of a causal link between vaccination and brain damage. As such a causal link remains a theoretical possibility, each claim for a vaccine damage payment is carefully considered, taking into account the facts and evidence in the individual case.
The suggestion of a link between MMR and inflammatory bowel disease—particularly Crohn's disease—and autism, has been carefully studied by several independent expert groups. None of the groups has found any evidence to support such a link. Indeed, it is often forgotten in the coverage given to the issue that the original paper by researchers at the Royal Free hospital, published earlier this year in The Lancet, clearly stated:
"We did not prove an association between MMR vaccine and the syndrome described".
The World Health Organisation has also written to stress the safety of the MMR vaccine and to support the United Kingdom's immunisation programme.
The United States Institute of Medicine pointed out that the background rate of encephalopathy—which is a general term used by doctors to describe a disturbance in brain function—in children under two is about five to 10 cases per 100,000 population.
Whatever the prevalence of vaccine damage, at the very least, parents of vaccine-damaged children face the same challenges as parents of other severely disabled children. The vaccine damage payment is not, of course, the only response that the Government make to meet the needs of those and other disabled people.
As a Government, we have a broader challenge: to ensure adequate support to all disabled people. Hon. Members will be aware of the significant improvements in provision for the severely disabled, of extra support for the most severely disabled three and four-year-olds and those disabled before the age of 20, and of our recent proposal in the House of a disability income guarantee, on which we are consulting organisations of and for disabled people.
The vaccine damage payment scheme provides substantial preference for children who are severely disabled as a result of vaccination over children who have been equally severely disabled from some other source. The payment does not preclude payment of other disability benefits and non-means tested benefits such as disability living allowance and severe disablement allowance. If it is held in a trust fund, the vaccine damage payment will be ignored for the purposes of income
816
support, income-based job seeker's allowance, family credit, disability working allowance, council tax benefit and housing benefit.
Recipients, like other severely disabled people, may also be able to get help from the independent living fund and local authority social services. Perhaps the most significant recent development was the announcement, on Monday, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on important action to modernise social services. Specifically, the "quality protects" programme will target an extra £375 million to transform all of children's social services.
There has been a sustained campaign to improve the vaccine damage payment system. Today's debate, secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles, is part of that campaign, as have been the early-day motions and the meetings with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security. I am pleased that, in July 1998, the Government were able to increase the payment from £30,000 to £40,000.
Some specific points were raised in the debate, such as that on the 80 per cent. disability criterion. I think that Parliament's view in passing the 1979 Act was that the scheme should be straightforward and aimed at those who are severely disabled. The Act defines severe disablement as disablement to 80 per cent. or more, as assessed for the purposes of determining the rate of disablement pension under the industrial injuries scheme.
In making the assessment, regard is paid to the scale provided in social security regulations. Blindness and deafness, for example, are each described as 100 per cent. disablement, although they clearly do not represent the greatest possible extent of disablement. Therefore, 80 per cent. is regarded as the lower end of the defined severe disablement spectrum.
Occasionally, people have asked about the possibility of a sliding scale of disability. I think that extension of a scheme providing significant preference for one group of people with disabilities over another would run counter to the objective of building a coherent benefits system for all disabled people, regardless of the cause of disability. A scale of disability payments would also run counter to the scheme's principle of providing a straightforward single payment for those who are clearly severely disabled because of vaccination.
Questions were asked in the debate also about time limits. Time limits in the scheme are quite generous. There is a limit of six years after vaccination or the second birthday, whichever is later, for new claims. There is no limit on the time in which a claimant may request a review by an independent tribunal of a medical disallowance of that initial claim. The claimant may request an indefinite adjournment during a tribunal hearing.
Marginal changes in the time limit would not assist in the overwhelming majority of cases. The substantial length of the process would make obtaining medical and other relevant evidence after long periods increasingly difficult, and make the scheme unsatisfactory or even unworkable. However—with the wide range of views about the incidence of vaccine damage, the adequacy of the payment scheme, the position of early recipients and

817
the extent to which those who suffered vaccine damage should receive preferential treatment because they were responding to a publicly promoted health programme—we announced, on 19 May, that the scheme would be considered as part of the welfare review.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security has said that he hopes to conclude our review early in the new year. I am sure that the House will accept that finding the right answer is more important than hitting any specific date. The campaign has made a presentation on disability benefits—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. We must move to the next debate.

Seaside Towns
11 am
Mr. Adrian Sanders: Having begun life as watering holes for the wealthy, many of our seaside towns first developed with the coming of the railways. Their greatest expansion came when workers won rights to annual holidays. Seaside resorts were the perfect destinations for a week of rest and relaxation. They have depended on tourism ever since.
Over the past 30 years, the type and number of holidays taken has changed. In the mid-1960s, the majority of people took one holiday a year in the summer months, when factories and other large employers closed for a week or two. Most people had a week's holiday at the seaside, because foreign holidays were beyond their purse. Many holidaymakers would travel by train, although increasing numbers arrived by car, often exhausted after a long journey on congested roads. The activities available to holidaymakers were more limited than they are today. Sitting on the beach, walking along the prom and taking in a show were the normal holiday activities.
The number of days of paid leave has steadily increased and the disposable income of many families has risen. A massive overseas package tour holiday industry has put foreign holidays within the reach of most of the population. Fortunately, many people take more than one holiday a year. Their main holiday may be abroad, but second and third holidays are usually taken in Britain. The number of second holidays taken as short breaks has grown by 50 per cent. in the past five years.
With the development of the motorway network, the car is often the easiest way to travel to a destination in Britain. People can now travel further for day breaks or short stay breaks. They can also return home more quickly, which has reduced the number of overnight stays, particularly when the weather turns nasty.
The seaside towns of Britain can be found all around the coast. Despite being miles apart, in most cases, they share similar characteristics and face similar problems. They fall into three broad groups: heritage coast areas, traditional seaside towns and smaller seaside towns. Heritage coast areas are highly valued for their amenities and have developed seasonal leisure industries and various alternative life style enterprises, together with holiday homes. Traditional seaside towns dominate their area and date from the 19th century or earlier. They are characterised by a large elderly population and higher than average deprivation. Smaller seaside towns are similar to traditional seaside towns, but the main resorts are less dominant in the area and there is a larger rural hinterland.
There are many measures of deprivation, including unemployment, children in poverty, housing, amenities, overcrowding, educational participation and attainment, benefit dependency and crime rate. The traditional seaside towns have some of the worst figures in the country, but the smaller seaside towns have some of the lowest levels of deprivation.
The difficulty in trying to assess the problems of seaside towns is that the areas are often characterised by a mix of deprived and affluent areas. The districts of Brighton, Bournemouth, Great Yarmouth, Hove, Thanet and Torbay are all among the 20 per cent. most unequal

819
in England. In such cases, it is clear that pockets of deprivation are being concealed by their proximity to areas of affluence. My constituency contains five of the 12 local authority wards in the south-west that have been classified as deprived. I shall concentrate on the large, traditional seaside towns, such as my constituency, because they are the areas with the problems that the Government have overlooked.
The typical seaside town is a high retirement area, with the majority of its inhabitants being economically inactive. There will be above average levels of unemployment and below average levels of income. Poor housing and crumbling assets typify most, but not all, seaside towns. However, all have to cope with the consequences of global warming and are on the front line in the battle to prevent coastal erosion.
Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Many of the seaside resorts with cliffs and beaches suffer from coastal erosion, but the Government give nothing through the standard spending assessment to cover that. My constituency has 12 miles of sand and sandhills, most of which is a site of special scientific interest. The lack of Government funding to help cope with that is another nail in the coffin of seaside resorts.
Mr. Sanders: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The standard spending assessment does not take into account the year-on-year work of local authorities in protecting their coastline. Only when there is a major natural disaster does the Bellwin scheme come into effect. All local authorities in seaside areas have to dig ever deeper into their budget to cope with such problems. The Government do not give the necessary support for that.
Seaside towns are end-of-the-line towns—places that people go to for what they offer rather than to get somewhere else. The exceptions are some, but not all, ferry ports and some south coast towns on major east-west road routes. However, even those towns share the characteristics of the others and suffer from the same problems, although less severely.
Seaside towns could be described as 180 degree local economies, whereas inland communities are 360 degree local economies. They have hinterland on only one side, while the sea faces them on the other. Those with the most severe economic difficulties are, inevitably, a long way from the main centres of economic activity and are geographically on the periphery.
Many seaside towns are a mixture of urban and rural, deprived and affluent, residents and visitors. Their main industry is tourism, which is one of the fastest-growing economic activities in the world—but not, sadly, in our coastal tourist resorts.
Some 38 per cent. of British residents opting to take their main holiday in Britain choose a traditional seaside destination. The market is worth an impressive £4.2 billion. In 1996, more than 110 million day visits were made to the UK coast. The number of visitors has declined, but figures for their expenditure show a real-terms rise over the past 10 years.
However, that is only part of the story. The figures do not separate tourism spending in seaside resorts from the growing number of inland attractions and markets across
820
England. They do not recognise the fact that local tourist spending does not stay in the local economy because of the growth of nationally owned entertainment centres, pubs, hotels, retailers and superstores, where once locally owned businesses rang up the tills.
Meanwhile, overseas tourism has grown and grown. Although there is little that we can do about the British weather, we should look again at the other problems that go against the seaside holiday as opposed to a foreign holiday. Many of our larger resorts are doing that—bringing in investment to new or renewed attractions, investing in improved bathing water standards, raising standards of service and accommodation, finding and winning niche markets. Most of all, they are diversifying their local economies—or perhaps I should say that they are trying to diversify them.
Diversification has become crucial. Little more than one third of holiday expenditure by the British stays in Britain. Since 1980, the figure has fallen by 50 per cent. At least one foreign holiday a year is the norm. Official figures show that, of 46 million people from Britain travelling abroad in 1997, 29.1 million said that their reason for travel was for a holiday. Most people live closer to their regional airport than to a seaside coastal resort.
The market that remains brings problems, particularly in the 1990s, when tourism is seasonal and changing. The seasonal nature of tourism affects many of the employment problems in seaside towns. Casual labour and part-time jobs are available during the short, and shortening, summer season. During the rest of the year, unemployment is widespread. Those seaside towns that have managed to get into the world of business travel have enjoyed one of the biggest growth areas in the British tourism market. However, even those towns holding conferences, exhibitions and trade fairs have bridged only a small gap between the summer and winter months and remain over-reliant on tourism.
Mr. Paul Tyler: On the extensive market in business tourism, is my hon. Friend aware of the considerable discrepancy in Government grant aid to Wales, Scotland and England? Government grant aid per head of population is 25p for England—the figure shows no sign of increasing—whereas it is £4.81 for Scotland and £6.36 for Wales. That discrepancy, which is likely to increase after devolution, will make it extremely difficult for seaside resorts such as Newquay in my constituency to market new facilities.
Mr. Sanders: My hon. Friend's figures speak for themselves. The West Country tourist board is today holding a reception in the House to re-emphasise the fact that there is a disparity between England and the other parts of the United Kingdom in the amount of money that can be spent on promoting tourism.
Tourist accommodation has also changed. The market has moved from guest houses and small hotels, which used to be locally owned—and so were re-investors in the local economy—to caravans, camping and holiday homes; the bulk of visitors' spending money now ends up in the tills of superstores, whose profits do not necessarily find their way back to the local economy.
The traditional bucket-and-spade seaside holiday is not in decline, but people can now travel by air to resorts in Europe, in Florida and further afield, which, given our

821
climate, has led to a decline in the number of people who holiday in our coastal resorts. Although the number of visitors continues to be impressive, their lengths of stay and real spend—the amount of money that stays in the local economy—is in decline, which has been as devastating to the economies of seaside towns as the closures of large factories or plants are to inland local economies. The difference is that, for seaside towns, the decline has been occurring over 25 years rather than in one hard blow. The implications are the same; the difference is that there is no specific Government help or support.
Most of the larger seaside towns have to deal with a market that is in decline. There is an over-capacity in tourist accommodation, but owners of hotels and guest houses cannot obtain planning permission to change the use of their properties. To satisfy their lenders, they are forced into a tariff war with their competitors, charging rates that minimise profit margins. Some turn to longer-term occupants on housing benefit, which changes the nature not only of their business but increasingly of the streets in which they are based.
The number of housing benefit claimants increased nationally by 27 per cent. between 1988 and 1995, yet that figure is dwarfed by the increase of between 80 and 100 per cent. in seaside towns such as Torbay, Blackpool and Scarborough—I notice that the hon. Members for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) and for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) are in the Chamber. That increase is the result of an inadequate housing system and a decline in the number of bed-and-breakfast customers.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a wholly new dimension to that problem in my constituency, particularly in Teignmouth? People are applying for change of planning use on their properties so that they can attract the refugees from Europe. Are not the implications for the social and financial structures of the area so great that the problem cannot be left in a vacuum? The Government must make a public policy decision to determine how to cope with those pressures in constituencies such as mine and his.
Mr. Sanders: I agree. The problem confronts a number of constituencies such as Thanet and others on the south coast, although it is beginning to affect the south-west.
Housing can be a huge problem in seaside towns. My local newspaper recently published a report headed "Low pay, high home prices", which described the
"terraced cottages with damp streaming down the walls, the impossible-to-heat bedsit under the eaves of draughty Victorian villas, the three-bed semis with rotten window frames hanging by a thread".
A survey into the state of Torbay's housing stock found that almost 3,600 dwellings were unfit for human habitation and 8,300 households were in need of essential repairs. Too many grotty bedsits and flats are hiding behind the affluent image of the Victorian seaside hotels and villas. Exactly the same picture can be found in Brighton, Margate, Hastings and any number of similar resorts. That is a consequence of changes in the tourism market and the Government's failure to recognise our special problems.
The housing that has been built is out of the reach of the two thirds of would-be movers who earn less than £12,500 a year, which is not enough to get a
822
first-time buyer's mortgage on a terraced house in my constituency. We must consider giving local authorities more powers to require developers to build properties that match local needs. Money for the most deprived areas of seaside towns could be raised through charging second home owners the full council tax.
Mr. Roger Gale: The hon. Gentleman has referred twice to Thanet and once to Margate, which I represent. He will understand that those towns have a particular problem with asylum seekers, which my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) mentioned, and with dole-on-sea claimants. One of the reasons for the problem is that, as the hon. Gentleman said, not enough money has been spent on refurbishing property. Does he agree that there is a case for a strong policy to enable small guest house owners and hoteliers properly to refurbish their properties and to turn them back either into single homes or into flats? That would mean that they did not have to let them to economic migrants but could let them as good, affordable housing.
Mr. Sanders: I agree. Part of the problem lies in the fact that VAT is levied on renovations but not on new build. Planning law needs major reform; local authorities must have greater powers in determining what can occur. As the hon. Gentleman may know, grants for renovation are available in Scotland and Wales but not in England.
Mr. Anthony Steen: I share Torbay with the hon. Gentleman and represent half of it—
Mr. Sanders: Twenty-five per cent.
Mr. Steen: The best 25 per cent., if I may say so. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned second homes, but less than 3 per cent. of homes in the area are second or holiday homes. Is not the problem the 90,000 new houses that will be built in Devon, which the Liberal Democrat county council and the Liberal Democrat unitary authority are supporting? That development will bring 30,000 further households into Devon, but the hon. Gentleman has not mentioned it.
Mr. Sanders: I am not sure that that has anything to do with the problems of seaside resorts. The figure approved by Devon county council is substantially less than the figure that is being imposed by the Secretary of State, so the hon. Gentleman's complaint should be addressed to central Government, not to the local authorities. Perhaps he will join the Liberal Democrat campaign for numbers to be locally derived rather than imposed from the centre, as happened under the previous Government, too.
Unemployment in seaside resorts remains higher than the national average. The United Kingdom average was 4.7 per cent. in October, yet the rate is well above that in many seaside towns—8.7 per cent. in Grimsby and Brighton, Pavilion, 7.9 per cent. in Great Yarmouth, 7.2 per cent. in St. Ives, 5.7 per cent. in Cleethorpes, Scarborough and Whitby and 6.6 per cent. in my constituency of Torbay. Those figures are only slightly lower than those for the inner cities; in some cases, they are higher.
Seaside resorts have a large elderly population, which is in many ways an asset—elderly people contribute to voluntary organisations, clubs and societies that would

823
collapse without them. However, the numbers have effects for which local authorities, businesses and health and social services cannot compensate. A large proportion of the elderly population are on fixed incomes—which, in real terms, are declining incomes—so the amount of money circulating in the local economy is suppressed. The extra pressures on local health and social services are not fully compensated for in Government grants and the jobs associated with caring for the elderly are poorly paid. As the number of retired people is expected to increase over the next decade, the Government need to deal with those issues.
Fundamentally, the seaside towns' problem has been that although they have had to promote tourist attractions in the most positive manner to win their annual influx of visitors, it has been a veneer. In economic terms, the truth is that all large seaside towns hide severe problems behind a facade of palm trees, flower beds and smiling, happy holidaymakers. The Government must realise that resorts have specific problems that must be addressed.
In the past, Governments in Europe have recognised declining and restructuring traditional industries, and have funded inner cities and rural areas to assist their economic regeneration. However, new tourism markets have developed which, in most cases, have won some of the business that traditionally came to resorts. We have had a double whammy. Our economies have been in decline because of overseas competition while Europe and the UK Government have funded other areas and made them into our competitors.
My local authority is organising a conference next week, backed by the British Resorts Association, titled "Resorts—Sunset or Sunrise?" It will be tourism-related, but local authority representatives from across the country will be discussing the common problems faced by resorts, what they can do collectively to improve matters and what the Government and Europe could do to assist. This is a timely conference because, in a recently published UK nomenclature of units of territorial statistics—NUTS III—gross domestic product rankings list, with which the Minister will be familiar, four of the worst 11 districts were traditional large seaside resorts. I have no doubt that the conference will call for our special problems to be recognised by the Government, and for tangible support to help the economic regeneration of coastal resorts.
We do like to be beside the seaside, we do like to be beside the sea. Our resorts are still wonderful places to visit and holiday in. In fact, they have more to offer the visitor today than ever before. However, for people who live in resorts all year round, there is a sense that economic prosperity has passed them by, that other areas with similar problems receive assistance and that we must be thankful that we live on the coast—as if that were compensation for the poorer and declining quality of life faced by my constituents, and those of many other hon. Members. It should not be this way, and I urge the Government to give us the recognition and the support that we deserve.
11.22 am
Mr. Gordon Marsden: I congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders), not only on securing the debate—which is, as he said,
824
timely—but on the incisive and comprehensive way in which he presented an analysis of the problems of seaside towns.
The crucial point on which to start is that such problems are, to a large extent, problems in common. Since becoming a Member of Parliament, I have met local government representatives from other seaside towns—as well as from my own—and I have found that many of the problems, such as those caused by high mobility and a transient population, are shared. In future, local authorities in seaside and coastal areas may find it more fruitful to network with authorities that are geographically more disparate than their closer counterparts inland but which have broadly similar problems.
We are discussing a long-standing problem. I have referred on another occasion to Dean Acheson's comment about Britain having lost an empire but not yet found a role. That comment dates from the era of Suez, when many of the problems of seaside towns that the hon. Member for Torbay articulated began. We are not looking at a problem that suddenly appeared, but one which is rather like the veneers on the seaside fronts which have cracked and peeled after years of exposure to adverse elements.
The problems include towns with an aging infrastructure. At the turn of the 20th century, Blackpool invested ambitiously in large building projects. Now, we are paying the price of maintaining them. Other areas with regency or 19th century frontages have similar problems. We have a problem also with the imbalance of accommodation, and the enormous demands in recent years on small guest house and bed-and-breakfast owners to install en-suite and other facilities—mostly without Government support.
We have heard about changing holiday patterns. It is worth saying that seaside and coastal economies are complex, and that many of the employers and activities along the coast which supported and endorsed seaside economies, such as fishing, have also had their problems. They have added to the difficulties faced by seaside towns. As the hon. Member for Torbay and others have said, that has resulted in problems such as the maintenance of holiday accommodation and the growth of unlicensed houses in multiple occupation. In turn, that poses a threat to the attractiveness of the resorts and to the ability of hoteliers to maintain their properties.
The impact on public health has not been appreciated fully. In a town such as Blackpool—this can be replicated in many other places—the combination of an elderly population with young, transient, larger-than-average people coming to look for part-time work, often with young children, adds to the pressures and strains on local health authorities. Another problem may be particular to Blackpool—due to the large number of visitors we get—but may be shared by other resorts. It is, simply, the number of holidaymakers who have accidents—mostly minor, but some major—and who then become a strain on the local hospital and health services. No account is taken of that when budgets are allocated.
I have referred to the need to recognise the problems created by high mobility and a transient population in seaside towns. Those should be reflected more positively when standard spending assessments are considered—particularly the pressures placed on social services and education. One must consider how we define such

825
problems, and the hon. Member for Torbay put his finger on it when he said that those of many seaside towns are a complex mixture. The way in which current statistics are compiled is not always helpful to seaside towns when pressing their case.
One specific example is the impact of the travel-to-work area. My constituency has a number of people employed by British Aerospace at Warton. That expands my local travel-to-work area to take in parts of Lancashire and parts of the Fylde area which have low unemployment. As a consequence, the statistics for the Blackpool travel-to-work area are not indicative of the levels of deprivation and the problems in the town centre. I hope that the Office for National Statistics will take that into account in future.
During the off-season, the central wards of Blackpool can have male unemployment levels of between 12 per cent. and 15 per cent. Female unemployment is lower, but the figures are much less reliable because many women who take on part-time work during the season do not register when the season ends. Many people who live in seaside towns, are particularly badly off in terms of car ownership, and therefore depend on public transport. Blackpool, for example, has the lowest level of car ownership in the north-west.
I am describing a combination of problems of decay and neglect, but there is one common theme; to use the cliché of the moment, we require joined-up thinking from the Government. The problems of seaside towns must not be seen as merely problems for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but as problems that must be addressed by all Departments. That is one of the reasons why I was particularly pleased to get the social exclusion unit from No. 10 to visit Blackpool recently to look at a range of problems.
No matter how much money, effort and enthusiasm are put into the promotion of tourism in our seaside towns, it will be as nothing unless we get the basic infrastructure into a shape that is satisfactory to residents as well as attractive to visitors.
Mr. Simon Burns: As a Blackpool Member, would the hon. Gentleman agree that his plea for the Government to consider fully the town's problems has been more than adequately dealt with by his party, which has kicked Blackpool in the teeth by no longer holding its conference there?
Mr. Marsden: It is a shame that the generally high tone of our debate has now been lowered to a partisan level. We have every confidence that our conference will return to Blackpool in the near future. The reason why we could not go to Blackpool goes to the heart of some of the difficulties that we are talking about: there is a problem with the infrastructure of the Winter Gardens; many seaside towns suffer from decaying infrastructure. It ill behoves the hon. Gentleman to make such partisan points, when his party slashed the English tourist board's budget by about £8 million, introduced crippling interest rates in the early 1990s and produced the recession that put many small hotels and bed-and-breakfast accommodation out of business.
The Government are making progress; they must produce a stable economic framework and infrastructure for seaside towns. Most important, over the past
826
18 months, they have taken tourism seriously and have recognised that there is a problem. The tourism strategy will be produced towards the end of the year.
There are difficulties with seasonal employment, and the Department for Education and Employment has addressed them, but I believe that seaside towns will benefit economically from many of the Government's measures, and especially the new deal, which the British hospitality industry estimated could create between 7,000 and 10,000 jobs in the leisure and tourism market. If that can be achieved, along with the increase in quality that I believe the national minimum wage will help to ensure, we will begin to make some progress.
Much remains to be done. Hon. Members will be well aware that coastal pollution must be tackled. The problem is complex, involving not only the discharge of untreated sewage. Consumers must not be hit by water companies with the full increased costs that will be incurred. We must also improve public transport links to seaside towns—as the hon. Member for Torbay said, we are out on the periphery—and it is important to revitalise the hotel and business stock.
The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) referred to some of the problems with asylum seekers and refugees, and I hope that the matter will be taken up with the Home Office as part of an overall strategy. It would certainly help if the Government considered sympathetically the possibility of abolishing the single room rent for under-25s, which has a serious effect on small businesses and hotels employing young people during the season on relatively low pay, because when the season ends their income drops considerably and the hoteliers and guest house owners are faced with a terrible choice: to take an enormous drop in income from rent or to put the young people out on the streets.
The Government should consider revising business rates in the light of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions consultation paper. Many small businesses in seaside towns feel that they suffer disproportionately under the present regime, and a system whereby a tranche of turnover was exempted, or with a low band, would undoubtedly be beneficial.
The new opportunities fund offers possibilities. If it can help to renew green-field areas, perhaps it can do the same for sandy ones. One of the problems with seaside towns is that they have a great mass of infrastructure which is essentially aesthetic, designed to attract visitors. Piers, arcades and other such structures do not get the funding that they deserve.
It is good that from 1999 the European Union structural funding will take on board the possibility of helping seaside towns. We in Blackpool have been fortunate enough to benefit from single regeneration budget funding, and I recently opened a high-quality foyer house in multiple occupation in the centre of the town. That is precisely the sort of project for which SRB funding should be used but, as the secretary of the British Resorts Association said in his excellent paper on coastal resort regeneration,
"Regrettably, access to SRB funding is severely limited. Few resorts currently qualify for assistance and where they do, tourism related issues often fail to be recognised as meeting the socio-economic criteria necessary to access funding."
Mr. Alan Campbell: Is my hon. Friend aware that, according to House of Commons Library

827
figures, less than 5 per cent. of the money allocated by the previous Government in SRB rounds 1 to 3 went into coastal towns, and less than 3 per cent. in round 4? Does he agree that that says a great deal about the previous Government's lack of support for coastal towns, and that it would be helpful if the Government were to consider including coastal towns specifically in future SRB guidelines?
Mr. Marsden: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that information into the public arena. It is extremely important for those criteria to be taken on board in SRB bids. The new regional development agencies could take on board not only the particular problems of seaside towns but the contributions that they make to rejuvenating wider areas and acting as a magnet for employment. For example, Blackpool undoubtedly acts as a catchment area, bringing people in from the wider area of Fylde; Brighton and Hove perform the same function for east Sussex; and there is a similar effect in north Wales.
The RDAs must take on board the strategic need and consider the whole question of structural funding. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Torbay gave a plug for the conference that will address some of the issues next week.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Clearly, some of the hypothecated funding can be useful, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that seaside towns such as Worthing and many others depend mainly on the funding available to their local authorities and county councils? Is he as apprehensive as I am that the rate support grant to be announced later today will draw money away from seaside towns and put it into inner cities? Will not that be more damaging than the possibilities offered by the single regeneration budget?
Mr. Marsden: I do not have a crystal ball, so I cannot say what the announcement on the standard spending assessments will contain. Whatever the outcome, it is important that we all recognise that many of the problems that seaside towns face, the hon. Gentleman's constituency among them, are replicated in inner cities.
Mr. Ian Bruce: The hon. Gentleman should examine the record. He suggests help for the south-west in places such as Weymouth and Portland, but he should ask the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) about that. The hon. Gentleman was the only Labour Member in the south-west when the previous Government gave help to those areas, and he was embarrassed when the Labour party voted against it.
Mr. Marsden: I can only speak for myself, but I would never be embarrassed by any help given to Blackpool, provided it came from a legitimate quarter. It is clear from the debate that seaside towns face complex problems, and we need a holistic response. The Government have made a useful start, and I praise the work of Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, especially the new Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, who has taken an energetic approach to the issue. I urge the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning and his colleagues to carry through that joined-up thinking
828
into the various initiatives that we need to consider. Most seaside towns made their mark at the end of the 19th century by a combination of enlightened municipal government working with dynamic local entrepreneurs. That buzz and excitement can be recaptured, but that requires the support, backing and understanding of central Government.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I remind the House that this is a relatively short debate and a number of hon. Members wish to catch my eye. Unless contributions are brief, several hon. Members will be disappointed.
11.43 am
Sir Teddy Taylor: I congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) on raising an important issue and doing so in a non-political way. I had hoped that that was how we would approach the matter, but we heard a silly comment from the hon. Gentleman who is wearing a red tie and sitting beside the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden)—[Interruption.] I am told that I mean the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell), but I have never seen him before. He said that, under the Conservatives, the amount of money given to seaside towns was low, but that was because of the rules on travel-to-work areas, not the nasty Conservative Government.
My constituency of Southend-on-Sea is a lovely place to live. The Government put the borough forward for assisted area status, which was unfortunately turned down by Commissioner van Miert, who cut 10 per cent. off the Government's applications, because our unemployment rate was based on travel-to-work areas. The Government then advanced parts of Southend for what are called objective 2 grants, but that application was turned down by Commissioner Millan on the basis that Southend was not an industrial town. If the hon. Member for Tynemouth considered the issues instead of trying to make silly, critical points, we might be better able to help the seaside towns.
We must consider carefully five points that are common to seaside towns. The first is that of jobs. In Southend, where I have lived with my family for 18 years, we have high unemployment. In one ward, Milton, in the centre of town, the unemployment rate is 25 per cent., compared with the national average of 4.7 per cent. In my constituency as a whole, unemployment for men is more than 10 per cent. Other seaside towns also have high levels of unemployment, whether under Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat Governments. However, the crucial point is that almost all seaside towns are part of larger inland areas in which unemployment levels are much lower. The seaside towns are denied benefits and grants because they are in travel-to-work areas and thus eliminated from consideration. I hope that this Government, and future Governments, will consider the possibility of making grants available to areas smaller than travel-to-work areas. It is scandalous, and contrary to common sense, that areas with high unemployment cannot be considered for help because of the rule on travel-to-work areas.
I am sure that most people in Southend-on-Sea, which is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and myself—we always

829
agree on everything—would be glad if all subsidies could be stopped tomorrow, but we object when massive amounts of cash go to areas with far lower rates of unemployment and fewer problems. In Southend, we often debate the Hertfordshire problem, and the boss of the local further education institution has terrible rows with me on that issue. He says that we must live in the real world and employ consultants to try to get money from every source possible. He points out that Hertfordshire people are very clever and get massive grants for deprivation and unemployment although there is hardly any in the area. He says that we should learn from that and start making our case properly. However, my point is that—if we are to have grants, subsidies and such things—we should reorganise the system so that seaside towns with areas of high unemployment can be considered.
The second common point is social problems. The Minister of State will be aware that Southend-on-Sea has a happy council. The Labour party and the Liberal Democrats have a majority of one over the Conservative party, so the situation is tight. A few weeks ago, the majority parties had to close three of our old folks' homes—not because they wanted to or because they are nasty socialists or nasty liberals but because we do not have enough cash to keep them going. In the local hospital, the use of many beds is blocked, because the council cannot afford to provide accommodation in retirement homes. Seaside towns face a concentration of social problems that are not taken into account in the financing of local government. As the Minister of State will be aware, other areas dump their social problems in seaside towns such as Southend, because we have a lot of bed-and-breakfast accommodation and houses in multiple occupation. That means that we have more than our share of social problems. Our local director of social services has told me that we are still short of £2.5 million for our budget this year. That is not because the council is stupid or corrupt, but because we have a larger concentration of social problems. I hope that the Minister will bear that point in mind.
The third problem is transport. Because seaside towns tend to be at the end of the line, they also tend to be left out of road programmes. If the Minister of State visited Southend, he would see that we have horrendous traffic congestion. One large area at one end of the town, Shoeburyness, has many employment problems. Two major sites are being made available by the Ministry of Defence for development, but it is difficult to arouse interest in the properties because it is very difficult to get out of Southend from Shoeburyness. In the rush hour, it takes 40 minutes to do so and at other times it takes 25 minutes. I hope that the Government will realise that a bypass, for example, would make a dramatic difference to towns at the end of the line, such as Southend. Governments of all parties tend to concentrate on the centre of England, and of Scotland, and they do not bear it in mind that seaside towns have particular problems.
Fourthly, I want to refer to regional government. Southend has had the pleasure of escaping from Essex county council because we felt that Chelmsford was too far away. Although Chelmsford has a superb Member of Parliament, we felt that the council did not take our interests fully into account. We were happy to establish an independent republic of Southend-on-Sea, although, sadly, it is not outside the Common Market.
830
Having escaped, however, we resent the fact that, without people noticing it—which is the saddest fact of all—a new regional government system is being established. Our regional centre will be based in Cambridge, with a massive, costly structure. I constantly receive lots of paper—invitations to dinners, lunches, meetings, conferences—listing lots of things that regional government will be interested in doing. I believe, however, that regional government is being imposed simply because the European Union wants it throughout its whole area. That is sad and costly nonsense. I hope that the Government will carefully consider what good regional government can possibly do, not only for seaside towns but for other areas.
Finally—I have taken just over six minutes, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the Government are having a wee think about the lottery. We are distressed about the lottery. Southend has the longest pier in the world, of which we are very proud. It has a superb train, and it is very exciting to look at it. Yet the ridiculous lottery keeps giving lots of money to clapped-out piers on the basis that they are of historical interest. I am sure that there are some exceptions to that, but Southend objects strongly that although our pier is a sound, going concern, nothing seems to be done for it.
Southend is a great place to live, and if the Minister doubts that, he can read the figures published by the Department for Education and Employment yesterday, which show that our education results were 2.5 per cent. above the English average, despite our serious unemployment and deprivation. We are proud of that, and of many things in Southend. If the Government must keep establishing new organisations and giving out subsidies, they should let us have our share, although we should be happier if there were no such subsidies at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I can assure Labour Members that that would be good for us.
Southend has achieved a great deal of which the town is proud. I hope that the Government will bear in mind that it, like other seaside towns, has high unemployment, a concentration of social problems and serious transport problems that are not being taken fully into account. I hope that the Government will approach those problems not by blaming the previous Government, or by saying how wonderful they are themselves, but by taking serious, urgent and sensible action, as proposed by the hon. Member for Torbay in his excellent speech.
11.53 am
Shona McIsaac: I shall start with an advert for Cleethorpes. Everyone else has been advertising their resorts, so I should advertise mine. Cleethorpes is a wonderful place with many amenities. We have a great theme park and one of the largest caravan parks in Europe. The Greenwich meridian runs through the town, although we are not putting up any dome. There is a pier, a steam light railway, a prom, amusements, a wonderful discovery centre, sands, waters that have been given a clean bill of health, and Grimsby Town football club. We also have the best fish and chips in Britain. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] They are absolutely the best.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting visited the town over the summer to see our facilities, and to learn of the problems facing Cleethorpes. She met owners of guest houses and people who provide the amusements in order to find out what the Government

831
can do to assist them. I can echo what other hon. Members have said by saying that as people come to Cleethorpes—mainly from South Yorkshire—they often do not see what lies behind the fun, the amusements and the prom. There are severe pockets of deprivation in the area.
Cleethorpes is part of the same urban area as Grimsby, which has one of the highest structural unemployment levels in the United Kingdom. In the North East Lincolnshire council area, deprivation is severe, and is worse than in some of the former mining communities of south Yorkshire, which provide most of our visitors. However, the size of the area, and the fact that there are affluent areas on the fringes of Cleethorpes, mean that the deprivation is largely masked. It is concentrated in only a few wards, but, as other hon. Members have said, that hidden deprivation must be addressed.
We must reconsider both standard spending assessments and all the employment problems that impact on seaside resorts. Cleethorpes is part of the same urban area as Grimsby, and the decline in the fishing industry there has had a severe impact on the area. However, the problems are more complex than that. North of Grimsby, and within the constituency of Cleethorpes, though not the town, there is a booming industrial area on the banks of the Humber where there are chemical firms, power stations and oil refineries. That, too, has an impact on our travel-to-work area, and on our unemployment statistics, so that our severe problems are not recognised.
I recently came across another quirk in my area's funding. As far as the Home Office is concerned, Cleethorpes is not a resort. There is a pier, there is water and there is sand, but we are not a resort, and we cannot, therefore, have funding to cope with the big influx of visitors who come weekend in and weekend out, and throughout the summer. That must be reconsidered. I have been given no adequate explanation of why Cleethorpes is not regarded as a seaside resort, although it is, by some quirk, considered to be on the Humber, and to be an estuary resort because there is a bit of fresh water coming into it. That is a pretty tenuous explanation. We still host the same number of visitors, and that problem ought to be addressed.
Most of the resorts that have been mentioned so far are much bigger than Cleethorpes, and they have the benefits of larger hotels and conference facilities. Cleethorpes has none of that. We cannot rely on conference trade to boost the town, and we have had to be somewhat more imaginative in promoting the resort. Things are not all that bad because we are using money from the Government, from Europe, from the council and from business. We have turned round the decline previously experienced in Cleethorpes. For about five years, there has been a lot of investment in the town.
I pay tribute to North East Lincolnshire council for its innovative work with industry on the Humber bank to create and to fund new attractions, such as the discovery centre, which has an observatory overlooking the Humber from where one can study wintering birds on the estuary. That new attraction has taken off, echoing developments in the Victorian era when councils and entrepreneurs joined forces, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) said earlier.
832
I would like to see much more, however. Lottery funding has been mentioned, and, although Cleethorpes and Grimsby—with four recent winners—seem able to be home to people who win the lottery, the picture the other way round is different. Can we get any money out of the lottery for the town? No, we cannot. We have put in bids to regenerate the marketplace in Cleethorpes, but they have been slapped down time and again. We do not have regency terraces, and the resort is both small and more working class than others, but the marketplace still has architectural merit. We seem to be overlooked repeatedly. Awards to our part of Lincolnshire are among the lowest in the country. I shall be approaching the Minister to find out whether a lottery development worker could come to the area to see our problems, instead of simply refusing our bids out of hand.
I should like to see a change in the way in which we promote our resorts. When I go abroad I can purchase an integrated ticket which provides me with accommodation and travel, and sometimes includes entry to museums or vouchers for meals. It is very difficult for somebody coming to Britain from abroad to purchase such a ticket. That is a disincentive to people from this country as well as to overseas visitors. As I have said, Cleethorpes attracts many people from south Yorkshire so we should be trying to promote Lincolnshire resorts in the cities of that county in an integrated way.
The ferry from the Netherlands docks in Hull, just on the other side of the river from Cleethorpes, but it is rare for any people from the Netherlands to come into the resort. When I visited Thorpe park recently, which is one of the attractions in Cleethorpes, it boasted that this year it has had its first Dutch visitor. As I have said, hundreds of people from the Netherlands come off those ferries daily, but they simply bypass our seaside resorts.
12.1 pm
Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge): As time is short, I shall restrict myself to one substantive point. I commend the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) for choosing the subject and for the way in which he introduced it. I also commend him for his professionalism in avoiding the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen). It was an excellent speech.
Throughout the debate we have heard a great deal about the changing holiday patterns at seaside resorts and the fact that, behind the facade, there can be areas of real commercial and private deprivation. As a result, in Teignbridge, to my certain knowledge, there has been at least one application in recent days—I suspect that there will be others shortly—from those who have owned hotels, care homes or the like and who are now seeking planning permission to make them centres for refugees from Kosovo. Anybody who sees what is happening on the television or reads about it in the newspapers cannot help but feel great sympathy for refugees from any country. However, I am here to speak on behalf of the people of Teignmouth, not the people of Kosovo.
The people of Teignmouth are gravely worried that a substantial change in the social patterns of the town are taking place in a way that has not been planned and which, to be fair, was not intended by anyone. I can understand why somebody might see a perfectly legitimate commercial advantage and seek to exploit it, but when refugees are brought in like that, we do not

833
know about their status. We do not know whether they are economic refugees or genuine refugees. Whatever they are, there will be a substantial demand on local resources. It will make a difference to education, social services and housing. That is a whole new subject area that must be considered by the Government.
The problem is that, as in so many things, the Government ape our rhetoric on immigration but, in reality, the Labour party does not find it easy to bear down on immigration. Therefore, it does not find it easy to face up to some of the social consequences. Because of that, I have already written to the Deputy Prime Minister. I did not criticise the Government for not having anticipated the problem as that would be unfair and unhelpful. However, it is fair to say—I said it to the Deputy Prime Minister and I say it to the Minister today—that, even though it is not the Government's fault that this situation has arisen, it is up to them to find a solution. Even if the Minister cannot respond to me today, I hope that, if he will not adopt my words, he will at least acknowledge that there is a problem and accept that it requires some substantive thought from the Government.
I shall end on that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I said that I would restrict myself in accordance with your strictures. Also, even though you are not the same Deputy Speaker who said that short speeches would be appreciated, I hope that you will feel able to note what I have said and to note in your book that, when I am called, I really do comply with the request for short speeches. I hope that that will be borne in mind for the future.
12.6 pm
Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I made an earlier intervention about beaches and I want to follow that up by relating what happened when I visited Sellafield. I am talking on behalf of resorts in the north-west, stretching from Cumbria to Wilfra power station on the isle of Anglesey. A few years ago I visited Sellafield unannounced and, while standing on top of the old Magnox reactor, I asked how much radioactive material was pumped into the Irish sea. A member of the management told me that it was a very small amount compared with about 40 years ago. That radioactive material is still in the Irish sea. All the beaches along the coast from Cumbria down to Wales are washed by the Irish sea.
Our council in Sefton, which covers Southport, asked the Government at that time for some money to monitor the beaches to find out whether there was any radioactivity. The answer from the Government was no. However, councils should monitor their beaches throughout the year. Some councils did that and I believe that our council managed to do it with about £8,000. That figure has now been slashed under the standard spending assessment. Perhaps today we will hear more about the SSA and be able to get that money back.
I hope that the Government will consider the fact that, in the north-west, and probably on the Welsh beaches, there is a problem from 40 or 50 years ago that needs to be dealt with. Some councils are aware of it and many have information on it. It is very serious. Since that earlier visit to Sellafield I have been back on other occasions and, although I have asked similar questions, I have not received the same answers.
I want just one more plug. My town of Southport has diversified. We have many conferences and a great shopping area. In Lord street there are many individual
834
shops. The shopping areas that have grown up around Southport are beginning to pull away some of the strands from the private shopping area. I ask the Government, as did the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden), to look at the business rates, especially those in seaside resorts and in areas with individual shops.
12.8 pm
Mr. David Amess: I congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) on initiating the debate. As the Liberal Democrats support the Labour Government, I hope that they will listen to his words.
I was a little apprehensive about speaking in the debate because I do not want Southend to become known as an economic blackspot. Many Londoners regard Southend as the finest seaside resort in the country. I have only represented part of the town since 1 May 1997. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) has represented the other half for a great length of time. Coming to the town new, I was somewhat surprised at the seriousness of some of the social problems. That is why the local authority, which is a combination of Labour and Liberal Democrats, has produced a nine-point plan, all of which I support. We feel that we should make Southend's voice heard.
If tourism is seen to be a serious matter, it is disappointing that, during the first 18 months of the new Government, there has been no debate on it. It is appalling that the Labour party is no longer holding its conference in Blackpool. If Blackpool is good enough for the Conservative party, it is surprising that it is not posh enough for the Labour party. That is very damaging for seaside resorts.
As I have said, we feel that Southend's voice should be heard. We want the social problems to be addressed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East has said, we have much higher unemployment than other parts of the country. We feel that the town should be supported as a family destination. It is very close to London and we are blessed with beautiful coastal views, which have inspired so many artists in our town.
We need more support to deal with the skills shortage in Southend. We want to promote the town as a sub-regional shopping centre, and we ask for the Government's support in that. We want to promote inward investment and the development of sites that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East mentioned earlier. We want to improve transport links for the borough. There is not enough imaginative use of the River Thames.
We want to promote partnership working and attract national and European funds. Earlier this year I met the commissioner who has responsibility for those matters. Whatever questions I asked, I was told to work with the Government in promoting grant aid to the country, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East has said, for many reasons we do not qualify.
Southend is a wonderful seaside resort. I am delighted to say that Southend parks department is now in the international finals of a gardening competition, and I hope that the UK, represented by Southend, will win. On Friday in my constituency, thousands of people attended the switching on of the lights in Leigh-on-Sea, and that is a very attractive part of the town. I do not want to disagree with the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac),

835
but Southend and Leigh-on-Sea have the finest fish and chips in the world. We undoubtedly have the finest ice cream in the world. That comes from a company that is run by a Rossi.
Southend-on-Sea has a great deal going for it, but in the past 18 months the Government have not taken seriously enough the many social problems articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East. I do not want to be churlish, but I hope that when the Minister replies, he will consider favourably the calls from my hon. Friend and myself to support Southend.
12.12 pm
Mr. Simon Burns: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) on initiating the debate and giving us the opportunity to discuss the important issue of serious, significant problems for the seaside holiday sector of the tourist industry.
We have heard speeches by hon. Members on both sides of the House who all have the distinction of representing seaside holiday towns. I suspect that only the Minister and I do not share the honour of having a seaside town in our constituencies, although I am told that maps and reports reveal that if global warming continues at its current rate, it is only a matter of time before we have Chelmsford sur la mer, rather than in the middle of Essex.
It is fortunate that my county has, as demonstrated by the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), a number of popular holiday resorts, including not only Southend and Westcliff but Frinton and Clacton. I see that the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Henderson) is in his place.
There are problems in such towns throughout the country. It is interesting to place in context the events of the past quarter of a century which have accentuated the problems that are now so acute in many of those towns, as highlighted in hon. Members' speeches.
There has been a significant increase in the business of package holidays abroad. Packaging the cost of flights and accommodation abroad allows many more people to leave this country for warmer climes to go on holiday. I suspect that one of the major incentives that caused those numbers to rise to today's levels was the abolition of exchange controls in 1979. That not only meant that more people could afford to go away because the increase in volume brought down prices through economies of scale, but enabled people more easily to spend more money abroad.
As the hon. Member for Torbay said in his opening remarks, just under four out of 10 holidays in this country are taken at seaside holiday resorts, although that is worth a significant £4.2 billion. The figures also reveal that 18.5 million holiday trips are taken to the seaside in England in a year, generating the not inconsiderable sum of £3.2 billion. However, seaside towns and the domestic tourist business are becoming more and more dependent on the home market. Less than 5 per cent. of people who come to the UK for a holiday go to a seaside town. Those towns are sustained and supported by a narrow base of visitors compared with the potential maximum.
The rosy, picture postcard idea of holiday resorts is in many cases, sadly, no longer the reality. Hon. Members have spoken of many problems, including those of
836
housing stock and infrastructure vis-a-vis transport. Those towns are unable to compete, through no one's fault, because the UK's climate is not always conducive to people spending their holidays and their money here. If one wants two weeks of almost guaranteed sunshine and warmth, one does not choose Britain every year. If this summer was anything to go by, I am fearful of what will happen next year because many people do not want to sit on a windy promenade in drizzle or pouring rain when they could be using their bucket and spade on the Costa del Sol or in other parts of the world.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Would it not be a good idea for the Prime Minister to spend a week of his holiday in a British resort? Perhaps he could draw by lot if he does not want to come to Worthing. For him to take his holidays in other countries is a slap in the face to our seaside towns.
Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend makes an extremely cool intervention. I hope that the Prime Minister pays attention to that point. Although my hon. Friend has plugged his own constituency, Conservative Members believe that the Prime Minister is free to choose to spend his time with his family in one of the many holiday resorts in this country.
The issue of asylum seekers was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) and for North Thanet (Mr. Gale). Asylum seekers and social security claimants are increasingly moving to seaside holiday towns, using their accommodation and causing ensuing problems. As my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge said in his excellent speech, nobody blames the Government for that, but it is important that the Government treat it as an urgent matter and come up with constructive ways to alleviate the problems experienced by my hon. Friends' constituents.
I want to raise two economic matters that adversely affect many seaside towns and which were not mentioned by Labour Members. The first is the impact of the high pound on the tourist industry in this country, including holiday seaside towns. People who might otherwise choose to spend their holidays in this country are discouraged by the disproportionate cost compared with earlier times when exchange rates were not so high. The second point is the minimum wage, which will adversely affect many hoteliers and businesses.
Mr. Lawrie Quinn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Burns: No, because I want to leave the Minister enough time to reply.
The minimum wage will adversely affect the tourism industry in particular. I wonder whether the Government fully appreciate what the impact will be, not only on the industry, but on employment levels.
Mr. Quinn: And disposable incomes.
Mr. Burns: The hon. Gentleman mentions disposable incomes. When the minimum wage is introduced and we witness its impact on the tourism industry in the form of job losses, it will not be warmly welcomed. The hon. Gentleman's remarks may not be as popular then as they are now.

837
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East mentioned the problem of higher unemployment rates, especially in the winter months—because, of course, the tourism industry is largely seasonal—for people living in those towns, and the strains and problems that it imposes on communities.
I could say much more, but I should allow the Minister to answer—as I hope he will—the points that all hon. Members have made in this important debate.
12.21 pm
The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): It has been an interesting debate, to say the least. I remind the slightly more right-wing Conservative Members who represent Southend that, before the past 18 months, their party was in government for 18 years. In the debate, they probably asked for more handouts for Southend than were asked for by all my hon. Friends put together—and the Conservatives are the ones who do not want subsidies. When the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) reads Hansard tomorrow and reflects on his speech, he will see that he has gone against everything that he has preached in the House for the past 20-odd years.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) on securing the debate. I know that the issue of economic problems facing seaside holiday towns is close to his heart. I was extremely grateful to have the opportunity on 8 October 1998 to visit his constituency, where I saw at first hand the problems confronting Torbay, and discussed with a wide range of stakeholders in the area possible pathways out of those problems. The hon. Gentleman might have mentioned the fact that I visited Torbay that day, as I believe that I did so at certain people's invitation.
I know from my visit that Torbay council is very concerned about European structural funds, and has a keen interest in assisted area status. When I visited Torbay, I heard the unfortunate announcement of the partial closure of Nortel's plant, which, obviously, will have a considerable impact on unemployment in the area. We should remember that changes in the structures surrounding seaside resorts may have devastating consequences.
The speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) showed that the Government are trying to deal not only with the symptoms, but with the deep-rooted causes of problems. We believe that it is important that town centres are vibrant and active. That is why, in our planning regime, on PPG6, we have taken a tough line on the application of the previous Government's planning guidance. We want to ensure that town centres return to life, and we believe that retailing is one of the driving forces of that process.
I assure the House that, on PPG6, I shall take a very tough line on applications outside towns and cities. That imperative was brought clearly to my mind in relation to Torquay, and Torbay generally. Unless that issue is addressed correctly, it will be difficult to achieve the other structural changes that the hon. Member for Torbay mentioned.
We want competition in town centres, and we shall take into consideration some of the arguments that have been made about rating regimes and grant regimes, to ensure
838
that we achieve what we call the "urban renaissance". That applies as much to seaside resorts and town centres where tourism is important as it does to other town centres.
We have embarked on root-and-branch reform of the land use planning and transport planning of this country. On 14 January 1998, I issued a document on the modernisation of planning. We are systematically considering every part of the land use planning structure in England. Part of that document, on which we have widely consulted, is on regional planning guidance. It is important that we achieve the overview that is necessary to link spatial, land use and transport planning, and we are doing so by strengthening regional planning guidance. It will not be a top-down process; it will be very much bottom-up.
At this moment, in the south-west, those issues are being discussed with local authorities; they will then be discussed by the south-west regional planning conference. A strategy will be developed, which, I hope, will be submitted to public examination later in the year—probably, in the autumn. That will give the opportunity for people to factor in their concerns on transport, spatial or land use planning issues. I hope that the results will be positive.
Questions have been asked on household growth. To hear them, one would suppose that the Government were bringing about increases in population or making social changes; they are not. As has been said many times from this Dispatch Box, solutions must be found to the problem of household growth. We want to plan and manage, not "predict and provide". The regional planning conferences will address those major issues when they hold public hearings in their regions.
In September, I launched the bidding guidance for round 5 of the single regeneration budget. We believe that to be an important instrument for tackling social exclusion and promoting equality. I changed the guidance and, I hope, steered it towards need and away from the fairly crude competition that had prevailed. I also instituted a division in the SRB. Eighty per cent. of it will go to the major deprived areas—about 65 local authority areas, identified using the four deprivation measures of the 1998 index of local deprivation.
In September, we also said that we would tackle pockets of deprivation in other areas, especially in coastal towns. Twenty per cent. of the SRB—a spend of about £3.8 billion over the next three years—has been made available for that purpose. Local SRB partnerships were invited to submit by last Friday initial bids for funding—known as expressions of interest—to Government offices for the regions. I am pleased to say that 44 of those bids include proposals for regeneration of seaside towns. I understand that one of those bids is for regeneration in Torbay—an area that the Government office for the south west highlighted in the SRB round 5 regional framework.
Mr. Nicholls: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Caborn: I shall not give way; I have only two minutes to go.
Mr. Nicholls: On asylum seekers.
Mr. Caborn: I believe that the question on asylum seekers was answered by my right hon. Friend the Home

839
Secretary when he made a statement to the House, either last week or earlier this week. Unfortunately, I was not in the House at the time. If hon. Members want to take that matter up, it would be far better for them to take it up with the Home Office.
Round 5 of the SRB has been restructured, and we want to ensure that it is targeted on the areas that have been highlighted in the debate.
Scathing remarks were made about the regional structure that the present Administration will introduce. I remind the House that we are introducing the regional development agencies because not one region in England outside London is performing, in wealth creation terms—in gross domestic product per capita terms—to the level of the average of the European regions. If wealth is not created, it cannot be recycled—in a seaside town or elsewhere.
Business-led boards of 12 people will consider structural weaknesses, in terms of wealth creation, in our English regions, including seaside towns. The boards will consider the underlying problems of the United Kingdom, and England in particular. That regional structure will at least fill the policy vacuum, ensuring that we can create wealth much more effectively than hitherto. That is the legacy of the past 18 years. We have tried to rectify it in 18 months.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order.

Aid (Burundi)
12.30 pm
Mr. Hilton Dawson: I am delighted to be joined in the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King). Together with the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), who cannot be present today, and the estimable Victoria Scott of the United Nations Children's Fund, we visited Burundi in July and early August this year.
The children of Burundi need help. Anyone who can read and reflect would know that. Burundi is the most densely populated country in the poorest continent on earth. The country is riven with civil war: 200,000 people have been killed since 1993, and there are 294,000 refugees living in neighbouring countries and 500,000 in displaced persons camps within the country. On top of all that, sanctions have been in force since 1996, making the price of food and the transport of medicines more expensive and threatening the cold chain for vital medicines and health supplies.
In that country, 40 per cent. of children under three suffer chronic malnutrition, and 20 per cent. of children die before the age of five. There are 400,000 children in acute distress, many of them homeless, without access to basic health services or education, and there are 20,000 unaccompanied children.
We know that the children of Burundi need help because we saw that with our own eyes earlier this year. "Unaccompanied" is such an inadequate description of the raped and robbed, malnourished, shoeless, scarred, traumatised children whom we met. We met some of the 20,000 children who will sleep out on the streets of the capital, Bujumbura, tonight.
I have children of my own and have worked with children in this country for decades. I have never seen anyone so avid for learning as some of the girls crowded into a tiny classroom at the street children project which finally, after a very long week, made me weep.
In the midst of abject poverty, malnutrition and the horrendous circumstances of those uprooted from their homes and land—we heard of teachers who had been killed for being teachers, and of schools and hospitals targeted for destruction—we met extraordinary courage and resilience. We were greeted everywhere with drums, singing and dancing, and we occasionally joined in.
In Cibitoke, along a road where aid workers had been murdered only a week before, and where a group of women from Great Britain and Ireland steadfastly got on with the job of feeding starving children, I met a young man who introduced himself to me as Jean Jacques Rousseau.
Burundi is a beautiful country, and I believe that there is hope for it. That hope is reflected in the spirit of the people, who before the crisis in 1990 had vaccinated 96 per cent. of the populace; in recent increases in primary school enrolment; in the numbers of people who have returned to the country to get on with their lives; in the work of UNICEF, which was our host, and of the aid agencies which, even since our visit, have improved tracing systems and developed a new shelter in Bujumbura for the homeless children whom we met; and in the work of so many Burundian people, who want to make progress with peace and reconciliation.

841
I know that there is hope, too, in the enormous good will and commitment of people in Britain. That hope is well expressed in the £39 million made available from this country to Burundi since 1994, but Burundi needs more. The children of Burundi need peace to emerge from the Arusha talks. They need the sanctions to be lifted, and the artificial distinctions between humanitarian and development aid to be erased. They need more help. The word "need" is cast around recklessly in this place, but not in this debate. The children of Burundi need more help, and they might feel more comfortable if it came with no strings attached, from a country that was not part of their colonial history.
Next year Burundi and the United Kingdom, separately, are due to report to the United Nations on their implementation of the United Nations convention on children's rights. Two days ago our extremely wealthy country did something magnificent for our most dispossessed and vulnerable children, with the creation of regional children's rights commissioners for children living away from their homes in this country. It would be a great and fine thing to do even more for Jean Jacques Rousseau and all his mates in Burundi.
12.36 pm
Ms Oona King: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) for applying for the debate, which is desperately needed. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Herculean efforts that have been made to raise awareness of the issues facing children not just in Burundi, but in the entire great lakes region. Burundi's past and future are inextricably linked to the continuing crisis in that region.
Children in Burundi are at the sharp end of the conflict. Forty per cent. of children under three suffer from malnutrition. There is a crisis of huge proportions, which my hon. Friend and I witnessed when we visited the country as guests of the United Nations Children's Fund.
I shall give one example of what I saw there, to illustrate how women and children in Burundi are being affected by the crisis. We visited a prison, where I spoke to some women prisoners. One of them was a young woman called Elaine. She was 28 years old and had two children—a three-year-old daughter and a seven-year-old son. When her area was attacked following rebel activity, Elaine was eight months pregnant. She fled with her husband to an internally displaced persons camp. There she was arrested for taking part in the activities of a religious order—perhaps a sect or even a cult. After I had been in Burundi a while and seen the deprivation there, I thought that even I might end up in a religious sect or cult, if there were no other way out of the prevailing misery.
Elaine was subsequently put in gaol, because the Government in Burundi were not happy that the religious sect would not take orders from them about where it should be resettled. When I spoke to Elaine, I asked her which was worse—the IDP camp or prison. She looked at me and said, "They are both the same; it makes no difference." She was correct. For someone in her situation, it makes no difference. There is no future for her or her child unless we work at an international level to put pressure on the regional Governments so that sanctions are lifted, some measure of peace can be brought to the region and people can be resettled in homes
842
of their own, rather than having to drag their children from pillar to post, or from an IDP camp to gaol. Only the younger child was put in gaol. When Elaine's husband visited her with the elder child, now aged seven, she asked whether he could stay with her in gaol, because she felt that he would have a greater chance there of securing one meal a day.
What I discovered after a week in Burundi was that imprisonment has many forms. Gaol is just one of them. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set herself perhaps the most difficult task faced by any politician in government: to eradicate poverty. Targets are set, but only when we visit countries such as Burundi do such targets spring to life and really mean something. People can find ladders to take them out of poverty, if they are given the opportunities that they are currently denied.
I was struck by another stark truth. We tend to imagine that we are embarked on an onward march in historical terms. Only recently—between 1990 and 1997—poverty in Burundi's rural areas has increased from 35 per cent. to 58 per cent., and in urban areas it has increased from 32 per cent. to 66 per cent. That is not progress.
How can we make progress? It will require political will. I understand that the Department is considered to be at the forefront of the battle to generate the political will that has been sadly lacking in the international community thus far. The lack of political will was most strongly demonstrated during the genocide in Rwanda: no one was willing to lift a finger to stop it. We saw the effects in Burundi, for the whole region is interrelated. Many of the people who were displaced from their homes in Rwanda following the genocide were people whom we met in Burundi—and vice versa: I found the same when I visited Rwanda.
We need a regional solution to the crisis. The Department must be able to use the political will that it is already generating. During the recent visit of the Select Committee on International Development to the United Nations headquarters in New York, many people told us that the fact that someone of ministerial rank was pushing the necessary policies—not just in Britain, but throughout the world—had, for the first time, made a real difference. We need more of that. I think that we have cross-party support in the House, but we need to secure the same support in the country. People must understand that poverty is a real prospect for children in Burundi. During our visit, we saw children who were not allowed into feeding centres because they did not weigh less than 70 per cent. of what was required in terms of their body:height ratio. Children had to be on the verge of death to get what they needed.
That brings me to the difficult issue of humanitarian aid versus development aid. We should consider what it means for children, and how we can promote sustainable development. When we examine the regional problems caused by sanctions, it is instructive to note what they mean on the ground.
We visited a feeding centre where vaccinations were given. Burundi used to have one of the best vaccination rates for children in Africa; now, although the vaccinations themselves can continue, because of the sanctions it is not possible to have refrigerators in which to keep the vaccines. We need to consider the practical ramifications of sanctions, and the way in which they are damaging children in Burundi. Many young

843
adults who were children when the crisis began have fought in the continuing conflict. They desperately need this country, and other countries with power, to take account of children's problems.
I thank the Department for giving a lead and galvanising the international community. The good will that Britain has built up is, as I have said, desperately needed. I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for all her efforts, but more practical efforts are needed to help those like Elaine and her two children, who currently remain in Bujumbura gaol with not a hope in hell of escaping poverty—even if they escape the gaol itself.
12.46 pm
The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) for raising this important issue, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) for what she said.
It is appropriate that we should discuss such an issue within a few days of our commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights. We should pause to think about how far we must go before we have honoured the commitment that we made when we signed that universal declaration—to secure, through our efforts, all human rights for all. That includes rights to education and a decent livelihood. In fact, we have a long way to go. I hope that the next 50 years will see a real commitment to the delivery of all human rights for all, and that we will do rather better than we have in the past.
It is clear from what both my hon. Friends said that they were deeply moved by the plight of the children whom they met when they visited Burundi. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre was particularly moved by his meeting with Jean Jacques Rousseau. My hon. Friends graphically described the suffering and bravery of the children; it is terrible that so many lives are being destroyed and traumatised by the conflict. But—as my hon. Friends know, and as the House knows—many more children are in the same position. The delegation could have visited 50 countries that were either engaged in or emerging from armed conflicts, and seen children suffering in the same way.
The sad truth is that an important change has taken place in the world which has not been fully appreciated by those who discuss defence matters. In the post-cold war world—apart from the tragedy of the Balkans—war is overwhelmingly a feature of the poorest countries, and is breaking out within countries rather than between them. The bulk of the victims are women and children, and massive refugee movements are resulting. There are more refugees in the world than ever before. The vulnerable people whom my hon. Friends met in Burundi—particularly women and children—are, in the post-cold war world, the principal victims of war.
The figures are terrible. It is estimated that 2 million children have been killed in armed conflicts since 1987, and that three times that number have been seriously injured or permanently disabled. As many as 200,000 children currently serve as child soldiers in wars around the world. More than half the world's 50 million
844
refugees and internally displaced people are children. Millions of children have lost their parents, their education and their childhood to war; millions have been psychologically damaged and socially scarred.
We believe—and international conventions entrench the principle—that children should have no role in warfare, and should not be its victims. These basic norms must be accepted by all countries, and we must all do better to secure the commitments to which we are signed up in theory in the international system, but are not so good at delivering.
To that end, in June—during our presidency of the European Union—we hosted a symposium on children affected by armed conflict, to generate high-level support for the rights, protection and welfare of such children and to identify concrete steps that Governments could take to help Mr. Olara Otunna, the United Nations Secretary-General's special representative for children in armed conflict, to translate Graca Machel's report for the UN on this issue into an agenda for action so that we get better at protecting children from the effects of warfare and restore to them the normal life of children.
My Department has been working on that since the symposium, and UNICEF—the United Nations Children's Fund, which hosted the visit of my hon. Friends to Burundi—obviously has a key role to play. Both my hon. Friends saw its work during their visit. We have helped to fund work there and elsewhere in the great lakes region, but we also want to support the organisation strategically, to strengthen its capacity at central, regional and field level to speak out on behalf of children in conflict and to implement better-targeted programmes for protecting children and mitigating their involvement in conflict.
These issues have been at the heart of discussions that my officials have had recently with UNICEF about how we can work together to strengthen that work in the organisation worldwide. I met Carol Bellamy last week in London, and she said how much she values that work.
As my hon. Friends have said, the plight of Burundi's children is particularly shocking. UNICEF estimates that about 400,000 live in acute distress; they are often homeless and without access to basic health services or education. More than 20,000 children have no one to care for them, and, in respect of Africa's traditions of the extended family, that is a signal of how many people have lost their lives.
The situation of children in Burundi is deeply influenced by the on-going civil war. Above all, Burundi's children need peace. Without peace and greater security, they will not be able to rebuild their lives, go to school and have something of a normal childhood. That is essential, if they are not to live out their lives raising another generation that is bound up in the ethnic hatred, genocide and warfare that have scarred that region of the world since independence, if it can be called that.
We hope that some progress is in sight, and we have been working for that. As my hon. Friends know, former President Nyerere of Tanzania and the regional leaders have been working hard to promote political dialogue in Burundi. The Arusha peace talks, which are scheduled to end in mid-1999, are committed to addressing peace, democracy and governance issues.
Conflict prevention and resolution was a theme of the EU Development Council, which I attended on Monday. On Sunday evening, Mwalimu Nyerere joined the EU

845
Development Ministers for dinner. He told us that work is continuing in preparation for Arusha IV, which will take place in January. More so than in the past, he is positive about progress at Arusha. We talked about economic sanctions—one of the issues that both my hon. Friends raised—which, as they know, the regional leaders imposed on Burundi in July 1996. As they also know, we are trying, across the world, to strengthen regional capacity to bring peace, because it is obviously impossible for any set of countries to do that worldwide.
There is no doubt that the sanctions have produced genuine hardship for the poor, including children. Despite efforts to exempt humanitarian aid items, Burundi's health and education systems have been badly disrupted. Mwalimu Nyerere firmly believes that sanctions have encouraged President Buyoya to approach the Arusha talks seriously and he told us—this is the good news—that he is ready to recommend to regional leaders the suspension of sanctions.
At last, we can look forward to the suspension of sanctions. They might be restored if things deteriorate, but if things improve, they will be gone. That is the proposal.
Mr. Dawson: Is there any time scale for the proposal to suspend sanctions?
Clare Short: As I understand it, the Arusha talks are due to begin in January and will be completed by the end of the year. I understand from former President Nyerere that he is willing to make such a recommendation, I think in the early part of the talks. The time scale will be fairly brief, provided that all goes well and the Government of Burundi come to Arusha, which we have every reason to expect. At last and thank heavens, we are looking at imminent progress.
Movement on sanctions will enable Burundi to begin to discuss the resumption of development support from the international community. There has been lots of support, and we played a part, but the tragedy is that, although emergency humanitarian assistance is absolutely essential in war, it simply props people up as the war goes on, their livelihoods are destroyed and their families killed. Whenever we can, we want to get to development assistance and beyond emergency humanitarian assistance.
846
At a meeting in Ottawa in August hosted by the Canadians, donors discussed the possibility of implementing an expanded programme of humanitarian assistance for Burundi, but that would limit assistance—this is all part of the regional leadership's efforts to achieve peace through the talks—to support for non-governmental organisations and UN agencies. We believe that that is a welcome step forward, but it is a second-best option. The Government of Burundi need support to help them to develop economic and social frameworks which can start a process of equitable economic and social development.
To prepare for that, we have encouraged the World bank to help to draw up a transitional strategy, and we are keen to get behind that. Since 1993, Britain has provided more than £38 million of humanitarian assistance in Burundi, but we are keen to move to the next stage—reconstruction, peace and getting the country moving. Historically, we are not a big donor or contributor to Burundi, and it is impossible for us as one country to work effectively everywhere. We are trying to get an international system that can work effectively everywhere.
We are willing to play our part in the reconstruction effort, but we will put particular emphasis on working with the multilateral agencies—the World bank and the EU—and the UN agencies to get a reconstruction programme that is as effective as possible so that those children, and Jean Jacques Rousseau, can look forward to a return to childhood and an education, and to growing up and having their own children without ethnic hatred and war savaging their futures.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow said, the situation in the great lakes is particularly tragic. We in Europe, scarred as we were at the end of the second world war by the experience of genocide, have seen it replayed in the great lakes and, to the shame of the world, failed to intervene to prevent another genocide. We have special historical responsibilities to try to secure an improvement of life for the children and people of the great lakes. We are doing all that we can to try to make sure that things improve, and the report from former President Nyerere in Brussels on Sunday night suggested that, at last, we can look forward to considerable progress.

Audiology Services
12.58 pm
Dr. Jenny Tonge: Many people in the House may know that I am totally deaf in one ear. I make no secret of that; I have always found it quite useful to be able to turn a deaf ear to three teenage children and their music at 2 o'clock in the morning; to aircraft noise, which plagues my constituency; and—dare I say U?—to the House of Commons, on occasion.
I also share a few of the problems faced by people who are deaf in both ears, and they are getting worse. Three out of 10 people aged over 55 have this problem. Ten years ago, the Medical Research Council institute of hearing research revealed that there are 8.7 million deaf and hard of hearing people in the United Kingdom. Given our aging population, that figure is probably much higher now. The MRC reckoned that 5 million of those deaf people would benefit from a hearing aid, yet two thirds of them have never tried one.
Every Member of Parliament represents an average of 4,500 constituents who are missing out because they cannot hear very well. They are missing out on enjoying and making the most of life. Hearing problems can affect work, family and social life. They reduce confidence and create stress. People may struggle on with their lives, but they become increasingly isolated.
In a recent report, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People gave several examples, one of whom was a 58-year-old man, Maurice Strong, who lives in my borough. Before he had a hearing aid, he went out of his way to avoid conversations, but now he will talk to any one. He highlighted how hearing loss affected his marriage. When chatting with his wife, he found it increasingly hard to hear what she was saying. We all have that problem. He said:
"I was forever getting the wrong end of the stick which she thought was deliberate."
Sometimes it may be, but in his case it was not.
"I'd accuse her of mumbling and we'd end up arguing."
That would ruin their weekend. He also faced stress in the workplace. As a security operator, he was worried that he would not hear sounds. He said
"I got so tired trying to compensate for my hearing problems. I'd come home in the evening, have my dinner and just fall asleep."
That is also a common problem, whether people are deaf or not, but the deaf suffer more stress during the day than the rest of us.
There is no need for these problems to occur. The RNID is having a publicity campaign to highlight the seriousness of deafness. For a start, we must take hearing tests as seriously as eye tests. A MORI poll carried out for the RNID revealed that only 22 per cent. of people over 55 have had a hearing test in the past 10 years, whereas 87 per cent. have had their eyes tested. That is in spite of the fact that almost half the over-55s have a hearing loss. Like sight defects, hearing problems often herald a more serious disease.
People do not get their hearing tested as a matter of course as they get older, as they do their eyes. We must overcome that fundamental problem. Wearing a hearing aid should be as acceptable as wearing glasses. Perhaps we should also stop making fun of people who are deaf. It is easy to do that: it is the Cinderella of afflictions.
848
People with many other afflictions receive sympathy, but the deaf are laughed at, so we must try to change public attitudes.
If change is to occur, it must start with what is said—or often not said—in general practitioner surgeries. A significant number of people who consult their GP about a hearing problem are not referred for a hearing assessment. When I was a GP, I may not have heard what my patients said, and should perhaps have been referred at the same time. If people are not referred for a hearing assessment, they do not get a hearing aid. GPs play a crucial role in finding the one in five adult patients who are hard of hearing.
In the past year, the RNID has taken steps actively to support and inform GPs in carrying out this task. In June, it mailed 39,000 GPs in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to give them warning of the possible increase in the number of patients requesting a hearing test. GPs were sent leaflets explaining the campaign to get them to ask all patients over 60 whether they are experiencing problems with their hearing. The aim is to persuade GPs to introduce the topic, and to refer patients for hearing assessments sooner rather than later. That is plain common sense, because the sooner people get a hearing aid, the more likely they are to get the best out of it.
GPs were also given a guide—a scratch pad—so that they would know what questions to ask if they were unclear. So far, more than 2,000 GPs have requested further information. That shows the widespread support for the campaign among GPs, and the lack of advice and information that they have so far been given by the national health service.
There is a limit to what the RNID can do. Indeed, the charity has already achieved more than the Department of Health. The Department must ensure that changes occur in audiological services. At present, the quality of service in an area is too dependent on the resources and priority that a local NHS trust gives to audiology. Waiting times, staffing levels, the range of aids available and the standard and quality of follow-up and rehabilitation are too variable and inconsistent. As in other areas of the NHS, it is diagnosis and treatment by postcode.
The time a patient has to wait for a hearing test varies. In some places there are hardly any waiting lists, whereas in others people may wait months. In London, people wait 15 weeks on average for a hearing test at the Central Middlesex hospital, but only 14 days at the Edgware and Hillingdon hospitals and the West Middlesex university hospital. Across the United Kingdom, the minimum wait for a hearing test is three days, and the maximum wait is a staggering 78 weeks.
It must be stressed that obtaining a hearing test is only the first hurdle that people must overcome. People are frequently embarrassed about their hearing loss, and more often than not they deny that there is a problem. The last thing they need is a lengthy wait to obtain a hearing test. There are too many psychological barriers to obtaining a test, without the NHS creating even more.
We construct barriers—in some cases, at every stage of the process of obtaining a hearing aid. Even after the long wait, many patients face a further long wait to obtain the appliance. In some places, the waiting time for a hearing aid is only a month or so; in others, the wait may be almost a year. In London, waiting times vary from a

849
same-day service at the Royal London hospital—why it can achieve that and no other hospital can, I do not know—to a 364-day wait in other hospitals. A further difficulty may face patients. Following a hearing test, they may be offered only one hearing aid when they need two. Hearing aids are rationed.
The level of undetected hearing loss is immense, and in many areas there are serious problems with NHS audiology services. In considering those two basic facts, surely we cannot escape the conclusion that some initiative is required from the Government. I would welcome an announcement from the Minister that the NHS will rise to the challenge of working hard to reduce the number of people who are not benefiting from hearing aids. That figure is 3 million, and nothing helps concentrate the mind more than the setting of a target. I agree with the RNID that we should aim to reduce the figure to 2 million in the next five years. That is a modest target. What is the Minister's view? Will he consider a target being set by his Department?
It is reasonable that, once people have been referred by their GP, they should not have to wait more than a month for a hearing test or more than two months for their NHS hearing aid. A further target which should be considered by the NHS is the provision of a greater range of hearing aids. Digital technology is developing rapidly, but digital aids are rarely available on the NHS. In other areas of medicine and surgery, modern technology has almost taken over from the surgeons and physicians. How long will it be before national health service patients benefit from the new technology of digital hearing aids?
I look to the Minister to recognise publicly the serious problem that is faced by people who are deaf. It is no exaggeration to say that deafness can wreck marriages, stall careers and make people socially isolated. It needs to be remembered that, although the problems that are caused by unrecognised deafness can be immense, the average cost of fitting the present NHS hearing aid is only £90. Few NHS treatments come as cheap as that.
I understand that there are ever-increasing demands on the NHS—indeed, that is why my party consistently asks for a debate on national priorities in the NHS—but quality rather than the length of someone's life is the most important factor; quality of life is what we should look at. Increasing deafness destroys quality of life. I beg the Minister to improve our services for those.
1.11 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on securing time for this important debate and on her constructive and thoughtful comments. She is right to point out that hearing impairment is the second most common disability, next to mobility problems, in the United Kingdom, and that it is estimated that there are 8.7 million deaf or hard-of-hearing people in the UK. That means one person in seven has a hearing impairment. As she was right to stress, hearing impairment is not a feature just of old age. In the UK, 1,000 children are newly diagnosed annually as having a permanent hearing impairment.
Audiology services are, in some ways, a unique part of the NHS—they span all ages from children to older people; they support patients through diagnostic tests, rehabilitative care, and treatment through equipment,
850
rather than medication; and staff often maintain links with patients throughout their lives. Audiology services provide a continuing health care service.
Like all services, audiology services should not stand still. Having recently started some work on hearing aid services, we are aware that some aspects of audiology services are not managed as well as perhaps they should be. To explore that, we established a working group to take a closer look at hearing aid services. The group's initial findings show that we need to take a broader look at audiology services, particularly their role in the community and the part that they play in a modernised NHS.
Our commitment to the new NHS includes fair access to consistently high-quality, prompt and accessible services throughout the country. That applies to audiology services in exactly the same way it does to other NHS services, but it is important that the NHS does not do that in isolation from other services. Partnership is the key to developments where services, such as those for hearing-impaired people, are provided by health departments, social services and, for children, education departments.
As the hon. Member for Richmond Park will be aware, the Government are committed to developing a new agenda, encouraging closer co-operation between social services and the NHS. It is one way in which we will be able to develop a much more effective service for patients and service users.
On social care provision, in September 1997, the social services inspectorate published a report entitled "A Service On The Edge". I do not know whether the hon. Lady has read the report, but its findings were not encouraging. The needs of deaf and hard-of-hearing people were often not properly assessed, consultation with users was spasmodic, and senior managers and councillors sometimes gave insufficient emphasis to that aspect of services. In some areas, the links between audiology units in hospitals and social services were not well developed.
Although that picture was depressing, the Department of Health was also made aware that there were examples of good practice in some parts of the country. As a follow-up to the inspector's report, the Department has decided to produce material to help social services departments and others to improve their services to that user group.
It is vital that NHS audiology services do not work in isolation from other parts of the community. To underline our commitment to partnerships between health and social services, in September we issued a joint publication, entitled "National Priorities Guidance", to both health and social services authorities. Links between audiology departments and social services departments, such as "one-stop shops", and making patients aware of the benefits of environmental aids such as loop systems can help to make such partnerships work to the benefit of patients.
In the NHS, patients are likely to encounter staff in audiology services who have a broad range of audiological skills. There are audiological physicians who diagnose, investigate and treat patients; audiological scientists who investigate and diagnose hearing impairment; hearing therapists who assess and provide rehabilitative needs; and audiology technicians who assess, fit and advise on hearing aids. A wide variety of expertise contributes to a quality service.

851
I know, too, that the audiology professions are working together to look at different ways in which to develop common career pathways. That is important because it will help to enhance opportunities for education and development for audiologists, and career development for those wanting to pursue a career in audiology.
The hon. Lady referred to the RNID's awareness campaign. She may also be aware that, in June, the Secretary of State for Health helped to launch the RNID's campaign to encourage people to seek the advice of their GP as soon as they become aware of problems with their hearing.
To help with that campaign, the RNID, as the hon. Lady said, wrote to nearly 40,000 GPs about hearing loss, and it followed that up in the autumn with a campaign to persuade people who were experiencing hearing loss to speak to their GP. I was pleased that the campaign was supported in some parts of the country by local audiology services.
I have already mentioned one way in which audiology services differ from others in the NHS—patients' needs are met through fitting a hearing aid, rather than medication. Nor do people need hearing aids for a short period. More often than not, once a hearing aid has been fitted, people will need it for the rest of their lives.
NHS Supplies provides 550,000-plus hearing aids per annum for use in the NHS, at a cost of approximately £16 million. There are more than 20 products within that range; they cover a wide range of hearing impairment, from mild to profound loss. They cater for the paediatric market, too.
The hon. Lady referred to the advances of technology. She is right to say that, recently, there have been great strides in developing hearing aids in both the NHS and the independent sector. In particular, digital hearing aids are available from the commercial sector. There are requests—she made the request again today—for those to be available from the NHS, too.
As with other forms of digital technology, we need to evaluate those new technological advances, in terms of both cost and clinical effectiveness, for the many people who need hearing aids from the NHS. At present, those aids are very expensive.
Evaluation and examination of the specifications of the aids, and determination of the practical problems as well as trials are required to find out what software and hardware developments are still required for those new aids to hold any advantage over existing advanced programmable analogue aids for a large number of users. Obviously, certain individuals have found them useful, but we are talking about widespread benefit and a wide range of impairments.
The NHS does not just supply hearing aids; it also offers support to deaf and hard-of-hearing people by providing rehabilitation services—an important part of the overall treatment—hearing therapy to support them in using their hearing aids and treatment for any associated problems.
Through advances in hearing aid technology, the NHS has helped to initiate a much broader approach to hearing solutions. For some time, NHS hearing aids have had an adaptation that enables deaf people to use loop systems.
852
Other developments are in train that will help to enhance services for children, adults of working age and older people. The results of those initiatives will help to pave the way for modern audiology services.
Children's services provide an important component of audiology services because children grow and their needs may change quickly—they will often return to have their hearing reassessed and hearing aids modified. Also, temporary hearing loss due to glue ear is the most prevalent audiological condition in children, requiring treatment that can be in the form of myringotomy, with or without grommets, and hearing aids. The Medical Research Council is conducting a trial of alternative regimes in glue ear treatment, which is expected to finish towards the end of 2000.
For many years, children have routinely been screened for hearing problems by health visitors, at around seven to eight months, using a distraction test, as the hon. Lady knows. In 1997, a review commissioned by the health technology assessment programme of the role of neonatal hearing screening suggested that the national screening committee should consider whether there should be a national screening programme for congenital hearing impairment. The review suggested considering a system of universal neonatal screening, followed at seven months by targeted screening using an infant distraction test. Through its sub-committee on child health screening, the committee is considering those suggestions for implementation across the NHS.
Any proposed changes to screening arrangements must be considered carefully to find whether they are feasible, and clinically and cost effective. The impact of any changes on children with hearing impairment, and on associated professional groups such as health visitors, also needs to be carefully assessed. We do not expect the committee to make rushed decisions on those important issues.
The health technology assessment reinforced the point, with which we whole-heartedly agree, that treatment should be initiated early and provided within a seamless service from health and education services. Links between health and education are crucial. We have consistently emphasised the importance of partnership working across services. For children, it is important that speech and language therapy, as well as audiological care, are provided, and that we do not overlook the important links with their education and longer-term needs.
On services for adults, we have recently funded another health technology assessment review covering the acceptability, benefit and costs of early screening for hearing disability. The Medical Research Council institute of hearing research will examine the role of early screening for people aged between 55 and 74 to find a cost-effective screening method for the ability to benefit from early hearing aid fitting. Many adults' hearing starts to deteriorate as they get older, and the project aims to consider the benefits of earlier interventions for people with hearing problems.
Hearing loss for older people is often regarded as a normal part of aging, so older people may not be getting the services that they need. Such loss is often accompanied by sight problems. Promoting independence is one of our key priorities in the "National Priorities Guidance". This priority stresses that the partnership of timely health and social services in the community can

853
make a crucial difference to the ability of older people to maintain or achieve independence and a healthy life style. In addition, we announced last month that the next national service framework would be on services for older people. We are still considering the arrangements for taking forward work on that framework, but I would be surprised if it did not include hearing impairment for older people.
Although hearing loss is common in older people, it should not prevent them from seeking advice from their general practitioners. In 1994, my Department issued guidance, again based on research evidence, to the effect that there were clear benefits when GPs refer patients directly to audiology services, rather than first to an ear, nose and throat consultant.
More generally on disability, the Government set up the disability rights task force in December 1997 to consider how best to secure comprehensive, enforceable civil rights for disabled people within the context of our wider society, and to make recommendations on the role and functions of a disability rights commission. We announced in the Queen's Speech that we will legislate to create such a commission.
There is another important role for audiology departments in helping to raise awareness of hearing impairment. Earlier this year, the Government announced the timetable for implementing the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. From October 1999, service providers will have to take reasonable steps to change practices, policies or procedures that make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to use a service. They will need to provide auxiliary aids or services that would enable disabled people to use a service and overcome physical barriers by providing a service by a reasonable alternative method. From 2004, service providers will have to take reasonable steps to remove, alter or provide reasonable means of avoiding physical features that make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to use a service.
854
We wrote to the NHS earlier this year about section 21 of the Disability Discrimination Act and announced that we would develop an action programme to support its implementation across the NHS. Without prejudging the results of the work, it is becoming apparent that one of the key responses for service providers must be to raise staff awareness of disability. However, the NHS will have some important resources to help it tackle that challenging agenda. By that I mean the expertise that staff in NHS trusts have developed over many years. Staff in audiology departments are a perfect example of my point—throughout the day, they are already helping people who are deaf or hard of hearing, and they can help to raise awareness of hearing impairment among other staff in their hospitals and in the wider health community.
As part of the need to raise awareness of hearing impairment issues, the NHS executive recently commissioned a video from a group of deaf film makers to highlight problems encountered by deaf people using hospital and GP services. The video will draw on the personal experiences of a number of deaf people, and will include their reactions to people speaking about them or shouting at them, and the difficulties that some health service practitioners have in understanding them. We expect that it will be used as a training aid for NHS staff who may encounter patients who are deaf or hard of hearing, or colleagues who may be doubly disabled in their day-to-day work.
The NHS executive has also been developing a good practice guide entitled "Doubly Disabled: equality for disabled people in the new NHS". It is aimed primarily at NHS managers and will consider disability in the NHS and the steps that managers might take to provide a more equitable service for disabled people. Voluntary organisations have contributed to the guide, which has already been shared with a wide range of people from all walks of life.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving us an opportunity to discuss these important issues. I assure her that we are absolutely committed to ensuring that people who need audiology services from the NHS get a first-class service. Nothing else will do.

Territorial Army (Chorley)
1.27 pm
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I would sooner not have had to have this debate, but unfortunately the strategic defence review meant that a debate on the Territorial Army centre at Chorley was necessary.
The centre was established in 1895 and is occupied by the headquarters of 101 Battalion, the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers. More important, if anything is more important, there are also the cadets, about whom I feel strongly. Both have a strong case to remain. On 17 November, my right hon. Friend George Robertson announced that the battalion headquarters would move to north Wales. Study of the map showed that it would move to Queensferry.
I was disappointed because that decision was unnecessary, unjustified and certainly not thought out. Two reviews in the past few months had said that Chorley TA centre should remain. It was in the right position and was the ideal location for 101 Battalion REME's HQ. What has changed? I can think of nothing. The M6 is still in the same place and the HQ is in the good repair that it always has been. All the people are still there. Suddenly, at the last minute, things changed.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: I can help the hon. Gentleman, who almost certainly is not aware of the evidence taken by the Defence Committee this morning from Colonel Mike Taylor, chairman of the north-west Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Association. He told us that he and his colleagues did not understand the decision on Chorley, except as a deliberate political move to shift a perfectly fine TA centre from Chorley across a boundary into Wales for the sake of the footprint.
Mr. Hoyle: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that welcome information, of which I was unaware. It certainly concurs with my thinking on the matter and answers some of my questions. I am sure that the Minister will want to deal with that information in his reply. I could not work out the reasons for the decision; the evidence given today has revealed that it was reached for political ones. I am very worried about that, and hope that a correct decision will be made.
Everyone in Chorley was shocked by the decision to transfer the TA centre, which supports our community at sporting, charitable and ceremonial events. Those at the centre have always been there, on hand as a part of Chorley—that role represents an important aspect of the centre, and it is why I have asked for the debate.
The centre is such a key player in the local community that it gives every young person the opportunity to participate in disciplines and events out of school and to plan for the future. The cadet centre attracts young people and provides them with a golden opportunity. If we take away that opportunity, there may not be another one. I hope that the Minister will deal with our concerns. Regardless of how we study the Ministry's plan, it will result in the closure of the centre. Not only will the battalion headquarters go, but a fundamental part of society in Chorley—the cadet force—will go.
Mr. David Borrow: Is my hon. Friend aware that I held a public consultation on the defence
856
review in my constituency, at the Royal British Legion Lostock hall, which was attended by many TA and cadet group representatives? A common theme was the concern that, after any changes in the TA configuration, the position of cadet forces should be maintained. There was, and is, very real concern in Lancashire that changes to the TA could cause serious damage to the area's cadet forces. I seek reassurance from my hon. Friend the Minister—as does, I am sure, my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle)—that cadet forces, and certainly those in Chorley, will be maintained.
Mr. Hoyle: I know that my hon. Friend had a most successful meeting which was attended by many people. Although people were happy to attend a meeting to have a public discussion, they discovered that Chorley's cadet force, which they thought was safe, and its headquarters, which they believed would not be moved, would unfortunately not be the subject of good news from George Robertson
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but that was the second occasion on which he referred to the right hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Robertson) by his surname. He should refer to him by his constituency.
Mr. Hoyle: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Our concern is so great that 50 hon. Members from the north-west have sent a letter to the Minister—which he should have received, as it was put on the Letter Board last night—to support the retention of Chorley's centre. We have the backing of parish councils. Last night, Chorley borough council discussed the issue and Lancashire county council, which is concerned about the issue, will also debate it soon. There is a wave of support across the north-west for maintaining the TA centre. We should not lose what we have or play around with it simply to appease north Wales. I am worried about that danger.
It is difficult to justify the Ministry's decision. I have tried to imagine every possible reason for it but have been unable to find one. The decision was not taken for financial or logistical reasons. It does not add up, so what is the reason for it?
The new south Lancashire catchment area, which covers three constituencies, is home to much engineering and 300,000 people. We will not, however, have one TA centre or cadet centre. That news is unacceptable and is not good. The north-west is an important area and the region's population is bigger than that of north Wales, which already has five TA centres. Why on earth are we making the change? It does not make sense.
When I was mayor, I went along to the 101 Battalion REME headquarters, with which I have always had good links, where I was told that the TA has always had problems in recruiting officers for its establishments in north Wales. Now, we are told that the battalion headquarters will be moved to north Wales—but from where will the people come to man it? What will be the cost? It does not add up.
The Chorley centre has eight full-time civil servants. They will not be transferred to Queensferry because it is simply not possible to do so—they will go on to the unemployment register. Eight people's jobs will be

857
thrown away at a whim, but it will cost us—not only in redundancy money but in recruitment in north Wales. The decision does not add up.
Mr. David Drew: Although I do not want to comment specifically on Chorley, there is a wider point to consider—whether the defence review took into consideration an area's recruitment potential. Such considerations certainly seem to have been ignored in my constituency, which is the best recruiting area in Gloucestershire. Would my hon. Friend care to comment on that?
Mr. Hoyle: I do not think that the matter has been considered. I can honestly say that the decision on Chorley was taken so late that nothing could have been properly considered. I am not as familiar with the situation in Stroud, but I presume that the same questions may be asked about the decisions that affect it. I hope that the Minister will also consider the circumstances there. Why change a fine recruitment area, staffed by local people, unless there are genuine reasons for doing so?
The decision on Chorley's centre was not taken because we do not need that centre—it would be different if that were the reason for that decision. Someone has, however, decided to move it to north Wales. Let us not lose sight of that fact. The civil servants at our centre are not the same as the people who go out on the TA weekends, or the Regulars who might expect to be moved. They are people with real jobs and livelihoods who will suddenly lose them.
What will happen when the centre is moved to Queensferry? Last weekend, I decided to take a little trip to north Wales, and just happened to go past the TA centre. Has someone examined and measured the facilities at Chorley and at Queensferry to see what will fit? Nothing will fit at Queensferry as well as it has done at Chorley. North Wales will also be home to two other units and an Army cadet force detachment, all of which will have to be based in one building which was built to house one infantry company. It does not seem possible to make that work.
Unless the building in north Wales is the Tardis—it did not seem to be when I saw it—or we spend money to extend it, where will the headquarters go once we discover that the building is too small to house it? It could go back to Chorley. That would make sense, although it would have been more sensible for it simply to remain there. We could consider Wrexham, but the argument for moving to Queensferry has therefore been weakened.
I should think that by now we have enough evidence to say that the move should not be made, and that the decision should be reviewed by Land Command, which made it. I have been assured that the decision was made by Land Command and not by the Minister, and that it was not reached in the final throes of the review. I am worried, however, that that was when the decision was made; that the centre will not fit in north Wales and that it will cost a great deal to relocate it again.
We must consider also other factors. The Chorley centre houses the computer bank, wiring and transport facilities, all of which will have to be moved. Why are we making the move? There will be no gain in it; it will only cost more money. I thought that the idea of the strategic defence review was to make savings and increase efficiency. We cannot become more efficient in north Wales.
858
The problem with the 101 Battalion REME is that it covers the area between Coventry and Scotland. We should realise that there is no better place for its centre than in the centre of the country. The midpoint between Coventry and Scotland is Chorley, just up the M6.
Mr. Julian Brazier: The hon. Gentleman is making a compelling case. However, the facts that he describes have been a feature of the cuts and reorganisation in the TA. Last night, the Defence Committee visited 10 Para, which is now to be combined with 4 Para. That will create a unit which will stretch from Scotland to London. How can it possibly be managed as a single unit?
Mr. Hoyle: I do not know whether it is manageable, but if that is the stretch of the Paras, surely they should consider Chorley. We have a spare barracks and headquarters for them. I can think of no more compelling case that I have heard today. It would make sense to look for a central location that was good for logistics. In all fairness to north Wales, that is not the case in Queensferry.
The barracks at Chorley has been well maintained. It is a good facility that we should not lose. It was a gift from the people of Chorley by public subscription. What right have the Government to sell it? People are careful about what they buy. It is a listed building, so it does not lend itself to many other uses anyway. The land is also tied up with Chorley borough council. There is a lease on it, which muddies the waters even further.
The facility has been valued at just over £200,000. We have to find accommodation for a cadet force, because the Minister has said that they will not travel more than five miles from where they are. That means that we have to buy a brown-field site and put a building on it. After moving everything in and ensuring that it is up and running, the cost will be near to £100,000. If the existing building is sold, we shall not get much more than £200,000. It would make more sense to leave the cadet force in the TA centre, but the centre is too big, so we need something else there as well.
What is the cost of moving the 101 Battalion REME to Queensferry? Nobody has given me the figures. What will the redundancy costs be? It all stacks up to suggest that the move is not sensible. There is not a single genuine reason for it.
I have studied the map. If the battalion ends up in north Wales, and given that it will not fit at Queensferry, the only place that it can go is Wrexham. That is a bit further away and off the main routes. That would be a mistake. I do not know how my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) would feel about that. He hopes that Wrexham might end up with a Welsh battalion or one coming back from Germany full time. If Wrexham is used—that is the only logical conclusion that I can come up with—101 Battalion REME will be thrown out again and will be looking for a new home. That is not acceptable.
Why are we moving the battalion? The issues have not been thought through. There is a danger that it is nothing more than a political decision. I do not want to think that politics have overtaken common sense on this. I like to think that Land Command had to come up with a quick fix without thinking it through, costing it or realising what it was doing. I hope that we have enough evidence for the issue to be send back to Land Command for a rethink.

859
If we have to appease north Wales, there are alternatives. It could be represented by moving a battalion headquarters from south Wales, where there are four or five. Would it not make more sense to transfer a battalion whose history is already in Wales? Some regiments in south Wales have 50 per cent. of their sub-units in the midlands—two thirds in one case. The 157 Transport Regiment has one detachment at Stoke-on-Trent, which is closer to Queensferry than to Cardiff, where the headquarters is currently located. I am sure that that would make more sense to the people of Wales. Common sense is what we are here for.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not just give the usual sympathy. We have had a good, open discussion. I hope that the issue will be taken on board and given more serious consideration than has been the case so far. The decision was made at the last minute. The two earlier reviews conducted three months ago pointed to Chorley. Chorley is in the right place. Everything cannot be changed in the last throes of the review. All the reasons why Chorley was right did not disappear overnight. There have to be other reasons behind the decision.
I sympathise with Wales. I do not want to say "Wales should not have this and should not have the other." However, what we do should make sense. Overall, Parliament supported the strategic defence review. The armed forces backed it because a lot of it made sense, although there were parts with which some of us disagreed. The decline came when the strategic defence review reached the Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Association. That is when everybody became emotional. My hon. Friend the Minister has said that we must take a realistic view, based on common sense. I accept that what is left must have a use.
If the Chorley centre was to close because there was no need for it, because it was outdated or because it was not relevant, I would not be standing here today. However, that is not the issue. The battalion headquarters is to be moved from Chorley to north Wales purely for appeasement. That is not how we should do business. That is not the way forward.
I hope that the Minister will take on board what I have said and look at the genuine problems that have been created. He should think about those who will lose their jobs. It is not long since we suffered under a defence review by losing jobs at Royal Ordnance. There was a genuine reason for that, but in this case there is no need for redundancies. The jobs can remain at Chorley. It would even save money. I ask the Minister to send the issue back to Land Command to be reconsidered. The cadet force must remain in the Chorley centre. I hope that the 101 Battalion REME will also remain in its rightful home at Chorley, which is in the centre of its operating area, not out on a limb. It should not have to report to south Wales from north Wales. It should continue to report from Chorley to Preston. I implore my hon. Friend to take on board what I have said.
1.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on securing
860
this debate on the future location, of the headquarters of 101 Battalion of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers. We have had interventions from my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) and from the hon. Members for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley clearly feels strongly on the issue, as his remarks today and after the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 17 November show.
I fully understand my hon. Friend's concern that his constituency has lost the opportunity that the presence of the headquarters of 101 Battalion REME affords to those who want to volunteer their services to the Territorial Army. However, the issue must be viewed against the wider background of the restructuring of the Territorial Army and the Government's aims in their review.
It may be helpful if I briefly remind hon. Members of the background to the review and the extensive consultation exercise that was conducted before my right hon. Friend announced the results on 17 November.
Mr. Brazier: If that was the case, why, as late as 26 September, did almost all the senior serving officers in the Territorial Army meet and pass a message up the chain of command that they felt that they still had not been consulted?
Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman does himself and the Territorial Army no good by fighting old battles. He no longer represents the view of the Territorial Army. Since the announcement of 17 November, I have had several discussions with those involved: some are pleased and some are disappointed. The outcome has been described as better than they had feared and worse than they had hoped for. There is a feeling that the TA must get on and implement the decisions that have been made and look to the future to create a more operationally valid and useable force. The hon. Gentleman is fighting an old battle in which he is not carrying the majority of the TA or its senior members.
Mr. Brazier rose—
Mr. Spellar: I am mindful of the fact that I do not have much time to cover all the issues and that it is unusual to accept interventions during a half-hour Adjournment debate, so I want to press on.
It has been our intention to give effect not only to a reduction in the TA but to a substantial restructuring to reflect the changes that have taken place in the international environment. We have achieved that on the basis of a thorough analysis of the operational requirement for each arm and service as part of a modern, deployable Army, taking into account the scale of a likely deployment and the readiness of forces that would be required for it.
Those calculations led us to believe in the summer that a TA of about 40,000 was required. The House will know that, in our subsequent work and consultation, we refined that figure to 41,200. As part of that work, we defined the organisation of the arms and services that can best deliver the results that we want and need.
In the case of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, the decision was to retain four of the five battalions. Those judgments have been essentially

861
military. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley knows, the bulk of the work to devise the new structure within the parameters set out in the strategic defence review has been undertaken by the Commander-in-Chief Land Command and his planning staff.
The method that they have chosen to adopt for the review—it has the whole-hearted approval of Ministers—has been to consult widely on an initial set of proposals which was issued for that purpose in July, shortly after the announcement of the outcome of the strategic defence review. The purpose of the consultation was to bring together the professional judgment of three sets of people with differing responsibilities for the Territorial Army.
The first set was the directors of arms and services. All arms and services have such directors, and the fact that they have serving members of the TA on their staff has enabled them to give advice on the best organisation and structure for the reformed TA in their particular arm.
The second set of people who were consulted were the divisional and brigade commanders who command both the Territorials and Regulars in their respective areas. In the case of 101 Battalion REME, divisional command is provided by headquarters, 5th Division, in Shrewsbury. Two brigade headquarters are involved: 160 Brigade based in Brecon in Wales and 42 Brigade in Preston. I re-emphasise the fact that both headquarters have TA staff and so can make both chain-of-command and local decisions about the arrangements that will best suit the Army's purposes.
The third set of people whom the Commander-in-Chief Land Command consulted was the Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Association, whose role in these matters is, I think, well understood by hon. Members.
I outline the consultative arrangements in some detail to illustrate the fact that, even within the military staffing process, the consultation exercise has sought to bring together a number of different aspects: the interests of the individual arm or service; the interests of the chain of command, which brings together a range of different arms; and important local or regional factors. We have put even greater stress on regional factors than would have been expected to emerge from the military staffing process to emphasise the fact that the TA has a wider role as part of the Army's public face in the community.
I was slightly surprised by the intervention of the hon. Member for Reigate, who dismissed the argument in favour of maintaining a footprint. We emphasised many times—indeed, it was said by hon. Members from both sides of the House and from all parts of the country—that it was important to maintain the footprint. I find it strange that that should now be used as a criticism of the process. The footprint was not only an inherent part of the process but widely demanded.
Mr. Blunt: My point—it was made to the Defence Committee this morning and I was passing on the information to the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle)—was that the headquarters was being moved 25 miles for the sole purpose of crossing a border. I am not sure that that has an enormous amount to do with a national footprint.
Mr. Spellar: I noted down at the time that the hon. Gentleman used the term footprint; he said that the move was being made to maintain a footprint and that the
862
decision was political. I believe that it is important to maintain the footprint. If that has been deemed to be one of the considerations, we will acknowledge it.
It was no surprise that my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley observed that he had believed that his constituency was not among those affected in the initial proposals. We stressed to the large numbers of those who made representations about the effects of TA restructuring in their areas that the consultation was genuine; its purpose was to ensure that a proper balance could be reflected in the proposals that were finally put to Ministers.
Of course I am personally sorry that my hon. Friend and his constituency should have had, as he sees it, the rough end of the deal, but I hope that he will accept that the objectives of the exercise have required us to have regard not only to the particular circumstances of the headquarters but to the region as a whole.
Lancashire has not done badly in the restructuring exercise. It currently contains six Territorial Army centres; there are centres in Blackpool, Lancaster, Preston and Chorley, with two centres in Blackburn. After the reform, there will be five TA centres in Lancashire. The TA centre in my hon. Friend's constituency will be the only one to close.
The remaining centres will be base to the best part of three infantry companies and an infantry battalion headquarters, a signal squadron, three Army medical service squadrons and the Lancaster University officer training corps. That is not much less than there is now—Lancashire has lost an infantry company, an engineer troop, and the 22-man headquarters of 101 Battalion REME. The county remains well represented by the TA. Moreover, it could be argued that the review has been kinder to Lancashire than to some other counties.
The intention is that the headquarters of 101 Battalion REME will move to Queensferry in north Wales. As we expect the company of infantry that is currently based in the TA centre in Queensferry to be reduced to a detachment, it makes sense to use the available space to accommodate other units. In addition to the infantry detachment, there will be a surgical squadron and 101 Battalion REME headquarters. There is ample space for those units.
The changes will give north Wales a share in the expansion of the TA element of the Army medical service from which Lancashire has benefited. They will place the REME battalion headquarters closer to the REME unit at Prestatyn, which is some 15 miles away on the A548.
Mr. Hoyle: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Spellar: Yes, but I remind my hon. Friend of the time.
Mr. Hoyle: Chorley is right next door to Clifton, where most of the Army presence is; if the REME battalion moves, it will be even further away.
Mr. Spellar: The battalion will move closer to one centre and further from another—that is always the difficulty in making those judgments. I am describing the process by which we tried to ensure a balance across the country. Furthermore, there is no question that we will not be able to recruit the 22 individual volunteers that we need for the headquarters.

863
North Wales has not done badly in the review, but it has not done as well as Lancashire. Like Lancashire, north Wales contains six TA centres, but two of them are to close. Like Lancashire, north Wales contains four infantry companies; after the reforms, there will be the best part of three. Wales currently has only one battalion headquarters whereas Lancashire has three. If the REME battalion headquarters was not moving, Wales would have none after the changes.
The judgment has been that it makes sense to move the headquarters of 101 Battalion REME to Wales. That makes operational sense because of the presence of the REME unit in Prestatyn. It makes practical sense because of the need to make best use of the facilities in Queensferry after the reduction of the infantry presence there. It makes regional sense because it accords with our attempts to ensure reasonable equity in the distribution of the future TA.
864
There will be opportunities for those in Chorley to continue to serve in the TA if they want, although I accept that, for some, it will not be as convenient as it is now. The centre at Kimberley barracks, Preston, however, is not more than seven or eight miles from Chorley and there are other centres in Lancashire and Greater Manchester. Arrangements will be made where possible to enable those who want to transfer to do so.
I understand the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley. It is hard that Chorley should be almost alone in being able to supply what was needed to ensure fair play regionally. The decision involved a matter of judgment; we had to take into account the wider interests of the TA in the region as a whole—
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Decommissioning
    Mr. Shaun Woodward: If she will make a statement on the decommissioning of weapons from terrorist organisations. [61198]
    Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire): What progress has been made on the decommissioning of illegally held arms; and if she will make a statement. [61199]
    Mr. Philip Hammond: What progress has been made on the decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives. [61200]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): The independent International Commission on Decommissioning has been holding discussions about the means of decommissioning with representatives from a number of parties associated with paramilitary organisations.
    Although actual decommissioning has yet to start, the Government are determined to see the Good Friday agreement implemented in full. It is time for all paramilitary groups to play their part in the implementation of the agreement and start decommissioning now.
    Mr. Woodward: Although nobody in the House would in any way wish to undermine the achievements of the peace process—and I am sure that everybody in the House would continue to support fully the Secretary of State in the work that she is doing—we must bear it in mind that a great deal of understanding is required by those who have seen more than 200 paramilitary prisoners released since 11 September without a single weapon having been decommissioned. The understanding that is required by the families of the victims of the most brutal killings by some of those who have now been released is perhaps being tested to breaking point. Does the Secretary of State believe that the process of releasing paramilitary prisoners should continue while not a single weapon is collected? When does she believe the first of those weapons should be handed in?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern at the pain felt by victims' families. I have talked to many of those families in the past weeks and months, and I understand that completely. However, even though their pain is difficult, many say that if it means that other families do not have to go through what they have gone through, the Good Friday agreement is worth having and worth trying to implement. It is difficult and it takes a great deal of understanding, but the people voted for the agreement. We are implementing it—that is our role. The agreement must be implemented in all its dimensions, and that is what we are working to achieve.
    Mr. Luff: I certainly wish to associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Witney
    866
    (Mr. Woodward) about the Secretary of State's achievements. However, does she understand that there is a real risk of her losing the support of mainstream English opinion for the peace process unless decommissioning begins almost immediately? Had she come with me to my constituency at the weekend, she would have heard many people express to me their anger and puzzlement at the fact that terrorists can walk free from prison while the organisations that support them are not giving up a single ounce of Semtex or a single bullet. Does she understand the urgency of the feeling that decommissioning should begin immediately?
    Marjorie Mowlam: The agreement was put in place for all the people of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Republic and elsewhere. It was put in place not by us, but by the party leaders. We will do all that we can following the votes of the people to make sure that the agreement is implemented. Of course understanding is needed, but moving from violence to peace is not easy. We are implementing the Good Friday agreement. Some dimensions are moving more quickly than others, but we must implement the agreement for it to work. The best way to get decommissioning and to find peace is to implement the agreement—as we are trying to do.
    Mr. Hammond: In a letter to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the Prime Minister made a commitment which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition quoted on 22 April. My right hon. Friend quoted that letter as follows:
    "no Member of the new Assembly will be appointed a Minister until any paramilitary associates that he may have had have engaged in substantial decommissioning."—[Official Report, 22 April 1998; Vol. 310, c. 811.]
    Will the Secretary of State reaffirm that pledge in precisely those terms today?
    Marjorie Mowlam: Those are roughly the words that the Prime Minister used on 10 April. We will make the decision when we have people in the Executive. We are a long way off that yet.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Is there not a road to decommissioning? At least 14 bodies of the disappeared have not been returned; masses of mutilations still take place; and a host of people are in exile. I understand that 458 terrorist incidents this year have been attributed to paramilitary groups involved in the Assembly. If those groups could deliver progress on the bodies and on the mutilations, would not that open the road to full decommissioning?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend and agree whole-heartedly.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: When the odd job lot opposite were in power, many prisoners were released early. How many weapons were decommissioned then? Everyone knew that decommissioning would be the most difficult element in the agreement and, as my right hon. Friend says, we have to consider it as a whole.
    Marjorie Mowlam: My hon. Friend will be well aware that the Good Friday agreement contains clear

    867
    commitments on the decommissioning of all paramilitary weapons within two years. We want the process to start straight away. I agree that the previous Government did not achieve a single piece of decommissioning but released 240 prisoners as a result of the Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Act 1995.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: That was to bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the country.
    Marjorie Mowlam: I do not want to dwell on the past, because we are building for the future, but—[Interruption.] I do not want to get into a slanging match about the past. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I do not welcome comments from a sedentary position, and certainly not on such an important issue.
    Marjorie Mowlam: It is sometimes a little difficult when hon. Members say that they support me in my position, but do not support the detail that comes out of my mouth. I wish that they would decide which way their support stands.
    Ms Margaret Moran: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the preconditions that Conservative Members want to write into the agreement do not exist in it at the moment, and that it is incumbent on all of us who have the welfare of Northern Ireland at heart to ensure that our constituents understand the real terms of the agreement and not those that others would seek to insert? Is it not wrong to attempt to rewrite an agreement to which all parties signed up?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend. Let me make our position absolutely clear: decommissioning is an integral part of the agreement; it is not a precondition but an obligation. I would like it to happen as soon as possible, but I agree completely that it would be wrong to rewrite the agreement, as those who want movement on the accelerated release of prisoners, and not the other dimensions, are trying to do.
    Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: The Secretary of State will be aware of the obligations placed on her by the House under section 3(9)(d) of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 to review the conduct of terrorist organisations whose prisoners are being released. At the moment, many of those organisations continue to engage in violence and regularly breach their ceasefires; some of them have not even set up a liaison with the International Commission on Decommissioning. Does the Secretary of State believe that all the organisations benefiting from prisoner releases are committed to exclusively peaceful means, when violence continues daily?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I take constant cognisance of the piece of the Act to which the hon. Gentleman refers—section 3—and, as I have said in the House before, I review on a continuous basis the question whether the groups that are part of the accelerated scheme for releases are maintaining an unequivocal ceasefire. I have to say that they are, on the firm evidence with which I am
    868
    provided. I make the commitment again to the House that if that changes, I will of course make a judgment and act, but up to now that firm evidence is not there.
    Mr. David Winnick: Should we not put it on record that no Member of Parliament does not want to see decommissioning happen as quickly as possible, and that that is not the monopoly of some Conservative Members? Is it not a fact that what has happened since the Good Friday agreement has been what was agreed at the time, and that no action has been taken by the British Government that was not in the agreement, which was endorsed by a huge majority in this House? Some people did not want the agreement and are doing their best to destabilise it.
    Marjorie Mowlam: No Government want to see decommissioning of all paramilitary weapons more than this Government. We have worked hard to do everything that we can to get paramilitary weapons decommissioned. It is an essential part of the agreement. Progress with the Good Friday agreement is crucial to making progress on all the dimensions necessary. It is about confidence, and the bipartisanship in the House has been crucial in helping that confidence along. I hope that that is reinforced today.
    Mr. Lembit Öpik: The Secretary of State will no doubt agree that decommissioning must extend to the weapons used in the mutilation incidents that take place. Does she agree that the official statistics hide higher levels of intimidation occurring at the moment in Northern Ireland? What words of encouragement can she give to those involved in the organisations Families Against Intimidation and Terror and Families Acting for Innocent Relatives, who courageously work hard to reduce the levels of violence with which many people in Northern Ireland sadly still have to live?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I share the hon. Gentleman's hatred of those events and I use this opportunity to call again on the individuals who commit those barbaric acts to stop. Groups and individuals who campaign on the matter should rightly be commended. They work very hard to bring it into the public domain, sometimes at great personal risk to themselves. I say to the hon. Gentleman and others that I cannot act on the basis of speculation and allegations: I have to act on firm evidence. A number of allegations have appeared in the press recently, including one a couple of days ago that claimed that ex-prisoners were involved. I saw the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary yesterday and asked whether any firm evidence existed on which I should act. I was reassured that it did not. If there is firm evidence, I will act, as the agreement requires me to do.
    Mr. Phil Hope: I congratulate my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister on their personal commitment and the work that they are doing to ensure that all the provisions of the Good Friday agreement are implemented. Like every other right hon. and hon. Member, I condemn gang sterism on the streets of Belfast, or anywhere else in the United Kingdom. What effect does my right hon. Friend think the apparent breakdown in the bipartisan approach is having on the

    869
    confidence that people in Northern Ireland have in the Good Friday agreement, because it is that confidence that will secure longer lasting peace in the future?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend. I hope that the breakdown is apparent and not real, and I look for reassurance from my opposite number, the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay). The bipartisan approach has been a plus. I have been assured that the support we gave the previous Government was a help and I hope that the understanding continues. It helps confidence in Northern Ireland and worldwide, which feeds back into Northern Ireland.
    Progress is being made on many other dimensions, despite many of the questions that pick on the negative parts. It is slow, but we have only been at it for six months. The momentum is still there on the Human Rights Commission, the Equality Commission, the Assembly and the cross-border bodies. My deputy, my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), sends his apologies to the House, because he is at present in talks with parties on aspects of the agreement. That momentum must not be forgotten.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: In attempting to support a bipartisan approach to Northern Ireland, may I strongly endorse what the Secretary of State said at the Dispatch Box at her last Question Time, which was that decommissioning and the early release of terrorist prisoners must go in parallel as part of the agreement that we both support? Does she agree that any reasonable person would say that the early release of many more than 200 terrorist prisoners, without a single ounce of Semtex or one gun having been handed in by the paramilitaries, does not in any shape or form match up to the agreement or the promises that have been made?
    Marjorie Mowlam: If the right hon. Gentleman is attempting to support us, he ought to read the agreement, which is clear on the point that he has just made. Yes, there must be parallel movement, and on all dimensions. That is how the difficult issue of decommissioning will be addressed. If the agreement is implemented, decommissioning will happen as part of the process. lf, as I said earlier, I receive evidence that one or more groups are not maintaining a completely unequivocal ceasefire, I shall use my powers, under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, to prevent further releases.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked why I am allowing releases to go ahead without decommissioning. If he reads the agreement, he will find that it states that if there is a breakdown of the ceasefire, and if I have evidence to that effect, I may—as I have said to the House on numerous occasions—act accordingly. There is no such evidence. If the right hon. Gentleman is asking me to do something else, that is not implementing the agreement.
    Mr. MacKay: May I tell the Secretary of State that the text that I have taken is that given by the Prime Minister, both at the Dispatch Box in reply to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition during several exchanges in May, and in his clear pledges to the people of Northern Ireland during the referendum campaign. The Secretary of State and I know that those pledges have not been kept. We are told that the Prime Minister will join the Taoiseach, Mr. Ahern, in Belfast later today. Can the right
    870
    hon. Lady assure us that he will say to all the paramilitaries, "I am drawing a line in the sand. Not a single extra terrorist prisoner will be released until there is substantial and verifiable decommissioning. I am thus keeping my promise to the people of Northern Ireland."?
    Marjorie Mowlam: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has kept his pledges. If the right hon. Gentleman reads the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 and the Northern Ireland Act 1998, he will find that his points are in them.

    Security Situation
    Mr. Owen Paterson: If she will make a statement on the current security situation. [61201]
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: If she will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland. [61205]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): The security situation at present remains relatively calm and the main ceasefires continue to hold. Unfortunately, there are still groups that have refused to call ceasefires and which continue to use violence, or the threat of violence, to promote their own narrow agendas. The security forces remain alert to counter that threat.
    Mr. Paterson: The Belfast human rights group, Families Against Intimidation and Terror, reports that there were 400 violent terrorist incidents in the first 10 months of 1998. That has accelerated, with 157 in November, and 37 families have had to be rehoused. In contradiction of the Secretary of State, Mr. Vincent McKenna, the development officer of FAIT, says that 12 released prisoners have been directly implicated in incidents. Given the deteriorating situation, does it not defy common sense to continue to release violent men?
    Mr. Ingram: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has extensively answered most of those points. Let me deal with the allegations made by FAIT, an organisation with which I have had contact, and whose previous office bearers and their work I respect. To anyone who has information and evidence, I can say only this: do not make allegations in the press; give the evidence to the police. A judicial process is required to take people to justice, not the Government.
    Mr. Grieve: Again, on the question of security, I am sure that the Minister is aware that there has been a growing number of incidents involving attacks on RUC patrols, particularly in South Armagh. Is he also aware that there is a widespread view in Northern Ireland that those attacks have been carefully orchestrated by Sinn Fein and the IRA and have been designed specifically to influence the way in which the Patten commission considers the reform of the RUC in the future? How does he view the progress of the ceasefire and the security situation in the light of those attacks?
    Mr. Ingram: I know that the hon. Gentleman is a respected banister, but I make the same points as

    871
    I made to his hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson). If he has any evidence for those allegations, he should pass it on to the police and the RUC so that they can investigate it. Clearly, as I said earlier, there are still incidents of unrest throughout Northern Ireland. The RUC has to address that, and all members of society in Northern Ireland—it is to be hoped with the support of Opposition Members—must work together to implement the Good Friday agreement.
    Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the Minister agree that people are being shot and mutilated daily in Northern Ireland and that that is taking place in areas under the complete control of paramilitary organisations represented in the Assembly? Does the Minister agree that those widespread and, in many instances, murderous offences are being committed in areas where the police acknowledge that either the Provisional IRA or the Ulster Volunteer Force have complete control?
    Mr. Ingram: I must say again that the hon. and learned Gentleman is making allegations. He is a respected lawyer in Northern Ireland and he should not respond to allegations. He should seek evidence and pass it to the RUC. The RUC is assiduous in trying to track down every wrongdoing, but it needs evidence. It needs people to come forward. It needs those who have been victimised, harassed or intimidated to stand up and say what has happened to them and it needs witnesses to back them up. Anybody who has been involved will then be taken through the judicial process.
    Mr. Steve McCabe: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should commend the efforts of former prisoner organisations which are trying to work with the probation service, the police and other authorities in Northern Ireland to create proper community alternatives in areas where there are high levels of crime and problems for communities? Should we not commend those efforts and make it clear that, across the House, we condemn the activities of drug barons and gangsters who are using the political situation for their own ends?
    Mr. Ingram: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments, with which I agree whole-heartedly. I met a group yesterday called Proj-ex 2000, which is involved in the reintegration of released prisoners. It made the point that many ex-prisoners return to a normal life. They want to reintegrate into society and it behoves all of us to find the means and provide the resources for them to achieve that. There are many people working to heal Northern Ireland society and we have to work alongside them to remove for good the men of violence.

    Decommissioning
    Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): What discussions she has held with leaders of political parties represented in the Northern Ireland Assembly about a linkage between decommissioning of terrorist weapons and eligibility for participation in the Northern Ireland Executive. [61202]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): Such proposals have been made by
    872
    more than one of the parties. There is no direct linkage in the agreement, and the Government cannot rewrite it. We are there to help implement it.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Does the right hon. Lady not recognise that the maintenance of an armoury of weapons at a party's disposal constitutes an implicit threat to the population and a potential source of blackmail to the political and democratic process? In that context, may I remind the right hon. Lady of the personal pledge delivered by the Prime Minister to the University of Ulster, Coleraine, on 20 May? He said:
    "Those who use or threaten violence shall be excluded from the Government of Northern Ireland."
    Does that pledge still hold?
    Marjorie Mowlam: The maintenance of an armoury, whether by republicans or loyalists, is clearly counterproductive.
    Mr. Patrick Nicholls: What are you going to do about it?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I shall try to implement the Good Friday agreement because that is the best way to achieve decommissioning. If the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) has an alternative, I look forward to hearing it. On his second point, which questioned the Prime Minister's pledge on 20 May, I say to him, as I said in earlier answers, that the pledge has been honoured. It is in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 and we are following it to the word.
    Mr. Ken Maginnis: I am surprised that the House is so tolerant of the equivocation and evasion that we have heard from the Government today. I wonder why, when the House has found its conscience about General Pinochet and the abuse of human rights, the Secretary of State will not give a clear definition of how people with paramilitary links such as McGuinness, Adams and other members of Sinn Fein can get into government. Will she reassure the House that she is not contemplating contravening the Stormont agreement by saying that we must implement every element of it before there is any decommissioning? That would not be acceptable.
    Marjorie Mowlam: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not for me to make that final decision. I have said that we are trying to implement all the parts together. No one part must be a precondition for another. The issue is one of confidence, and there must be confidence building on both sides. Implementing the agreement is the best way to achieve that.
    Mr. Malcolm Moss: Does not the Secretary of State agree that the Government have made it abundantly clear through the words of the Prime Minister that Sinn Fein members will not
    "qualify to take seats in the government of Northern Ireland"
    unless and until they
    "have given up violence for good"?—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 711.]

    873
    The right hon. Gentleman included progress on decommissioning in that. Is that a matter of principle for the Government, or are they prepared to compromise outside the spirit of the Belfast agreement to cobble together a deal?
    Marjorie Mowlam: The hon. Gentleman did not read out the whole quotation, which referred specifically to the Executive and progress on decommissioning. I am not saying, as was suggested earlier, that decommissioning should wait until last. We want it to happen as soon as possible and it is an essential part of the agreement. It is not a precondition but an obligation. In answer to earlier questions, I made it clear that the only way to achieve decommissioning is to implement the agreement. All parts must be implemented and we all have to work very hard to achieve that.

    Tourism
    Mr. Ian Bruce: If she will make a statement on the latest trends in tourism in Northern Ireland. [61203]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): In 1997, 1.45 million visitors came to Northern Ireland—a 1 per cent. decline on 1996—and contributed £208 million to the local economy. Estimates for the first half of 1998 suggest a marginal growth of 1 per cent. over the same period last year. Tourism performance measures for 1998 will be available early in 1999.
    Mr. Bruce: Will the Minister tell us what is being done in Northern Ireland to develop contacts with the Republic of Ireland to improve tourism, work on matters other than security and, hopefully, build up trust between the two communities?
    Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman refers to one of the important areas in which there is good cross-border co-operation. That is being examined by an implementation body of the new Assembly Members and the Republic of Ireland. Tourism has great potential for the local economy and many jobs will flow from it.
    Mr. Lawrie Quinn: Will my hon. Friend please tell the House what work has been done to market in north America the great tourism potential of Northern Ireland and the rest of the island of Ireland? Has not the confidence that tourists have gained from knowledge of the bipartisan approach that we have previously witnessed in the House encouraged them to return to the island of Ireland, bringing prosperity to parts of the Northern Ireland economy?
    Mr. Ingram: The Northern Ireland tourist board has put in considerable effort. Against a very difficult backcloth, it has energetically tried to bring more tourists to Northern Ireland. Those who visit Northern Ireland return again and again, and I believe that we may all promote Northern Ireland as a great place to visit. It will be even better when the Good Friday agreement is implemented in full.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. William Cash: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 2 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings today.
    Mr. Cash: Does the Prime Minister recall the words of Sir Winston Churchill in 1932—
    "Tell the truth to the British people"?
    Will he guarantee to the House and to the British people that he can and will veto tax harmonisation in Europe, veto the breaking of the unanimity rule and veto the call for a European constitution? The British people have been consistently misled over Europe by successive Governments, but the time has now come for the British people to be told the truth. Will he give the British people a White Paper, setting out the true constitutional position of this country in relation to the European Union?
    The Prime Minister: As always, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the help that he gave us in the last general election campaign. He must be very pleased that his views on Europe are now the views of the Conservative Front-Bench team. As for the particular issue that he raises, no, I cannot promise him a White Paper, but I do promise him that we shall continue to represent the interests of this country properly and faithfully, and will resist any proposals that undermine the essential interests of this country. That is what we have done, and that is what we shall continue to do.
    Mr. Richard Burden: Would my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the announcement of agreement at Rover Group? In particular, is he aware that the agreement that has been reached includes flexibility for employees but a reduction in working hours? Does that not show that, contrary to what Conservative Members seem to think, improvements in working conditions and a reduction in hours can be the friend of productivity, not its enemy?
    The Prime Minister: I very much welcome the announcement that has been made by Rover Group. The building of the new Mini at Longbridge is a great victory for the imagination that has been shown by both management and unions at that plant. If the deal goes through and the extra investment goes in, that is the best guarantee of a healthy future for that plant, and the Government will certainly do all that we can to assist them.
    Mr. William Hague: Can the Prime Minister confirm that he is happy to see nearly 100 hereditary peers continue to sit in the House of Lords after his forthcoming Bill on the Lords has been enacted?
    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to hear the right hon. Gentleman's question. It is an indication that he is

    875
    now prepared to agree to what would remove hereditary peers altogether, in the two stages, from the House of Lords. If he is now prepared to agree that, we are certainly prepared to agree it; and we shall then have the chance of getting a fully reformed second Chamber without any hereditary peers at all.
    Mr. Hague: Will the Prime Minister confirm, because his party may not be aware of what he is talking about on this subject, that for some weeks the Lord Chancellor has been approaching the Conservative party with a proposal to keep a proportion of the hereditary peers, explicitly sitting as hereditary peers, not as life peers, in exchange for my party's acquiescence in the rest of his ill-thought-out change? Although we welcome the huge climbdown on his part, we are not prepared to acquiesce in that change, because we are not prepared to join forces with him on major constitutional change that is based on no comprehensive plan or principle.
    The Prime Minister: That is extremely interesting. Yes, we are certainly prepared to agree to a proposal that would allow us to remove the hereditary peers altogether, in two stages. We are perfectly prepared to agree that in the first stage one in 10 hereditaries stays, and in the second stage they go altogether. It is also entirely true that we were prepared to discuss that with the right hon. Gentleman's party. I thought that we had the agreement of the leader of his party in the House of Lords. Indeed, I believe that we have that agreement. [Interruption.] Will the right hon. Gentleman enlighten us whether we have his agreement?
    Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister has just had the answer to that. He told the House—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House will come to order, so that we can hear what hon. Members are saying.
    Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister said in the Queen's Speech debate last week:
    "We believe … that it is important to deliver on the pledge that we made to end the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords.—[Official Report, 24 November 1998; Vol. 321, c. 33.]
    He said that their existence was a "democratic monstrosity". [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] His party still agrees with that. Now he is proposing to keep hereditary peers in a stage 1 reform—[Interruption.] It is no good Labour Members shaking their heads. What they do not know is that the Prime Minister proposes to keep hereditary peers in a stage 1 reform of the House of Lords. Where does that leave his principles?
    The Prime Minister: I take it from that that the right hon. Gentleman opposes the deal that has been agreed by the leader of the Conservative party in the House of Lords. As a result, we will indeed remove hereditary peers. We will do it by consensus, stage 1 and then stage 2, so that we can ensure that there is room in the legislative programme for other measures as well.
    We are agreed on our side. I believe that the party of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) will agree also. His party in the House of Lords has now agreed. It is clear from this exchange that the right
    876
    hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) no longer speaks for the Conservative party in the House of Lords.
    Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister need be in no doubt who speaks for the Conservative party. Clearly, he is in no doubt that he speaks for the Liberal party and takes its acquiescence for granted. While we believe that his agreement to retain hereditary peers after stage 1 is a huge climbdown on the part of the Government, let me make it clear to him that we believe it is wrong to embark on fundamental change to the Parliament of this country without any idea where that will lead.
    We have said before and we say now: no stage 1 reform without stage 2. Do not the Prime Minister's total lack of principle and his horse-trading confirm that it is common sense to put that reform on hold and await the report of the royal commission?
    The Prime Minister: No. What is common sense is to get the thing done with as little fuss and as easily as possible, which we can now do. It is fascinating that the right hon. Gentleman is disowning the agreement that has been entered into by the leader of the Conservative party in the House of Lords. He may want to be in that position, but I doubt very much whether his party wants to be in that position. When he is provided with the means of getting reform through and agreed, he is more interested in playing games about the House of Lords than getting it done. Does he disown the deal made by the leader in the House of Lords, or does he agree with it? We should be told.
    Mr. Hague: No deal has been made with the Conservative party. The deal to keep hereditary peers that the Prime Minister has tried to negotiate with the Conservative party does not address the fundamental point that the Government should not embark on major constitutional change without knowing where it leads. His proposal does not even satisfy the one principle in which he said that he was always in favour: the removal of hereditary peers.
    Hon. Members on both sides of the House have approached reform of the House of Lords on the basis of a clear principle. Our position was "No reform without knowing where it is going"; until today, theirs was the removal of hereditary peers. Does that not demonstrate that the Prime Minister never had any principle on the matter at all?
    The Prime Minister: In fact, it proves that, even when hereditary Conservative peers are prepared to agree to change, the right hon. Gentleman is not. That is the absurd position to which he has reduced himself. If anything demonstrates the way in which the right hon. Gentleman gets every major strategic judgment wrong, it is this.
    We have the opportunity to reform the House of Lords properly, and to establish a programme that will remove hereditary peers, but will allow us to do that on the broadest possible basis of agreement. It is clear that nowadays, even when we speak to the leader of the Conservative party in the House of Lords, we cannot be sure that the leader of the Conservative party in this House is of the same mind.
    Mr. Hague: What we know is that the Prime Minister intends to turn the House of Lords into a house of cronies,

    877
    and that he is now prepared to engage in any horsetrading that is necessary to achieve that end. It is beyond his comprehension that any politician can stand on a principle, and stand firm in his beliefs. I stand on the principle—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I have heard enough noise this afternoon.
    Mr. Hague rose—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. If this continues, I shall send some Members out of the Chamber.
    Mr. Hague: I stand on the principle that it is not advisable for anyone to blunder in regard to the constitution until they know where they are going. After today, it will be clear that the Prime Minister stands on no principle whatever.
    The Prime Minister: I cannot prevent the right hon. Gentleman from engaging on a kamikaze mission. I can only tell him that even his cronies in the House of Lords agree with me that we should try to get this reform through. If we can manage to get it through with the minimum difficulty, it will be in the interests of the country that demands such action.
    Mr. John Cummings: May I ask an equally important question? Does my right hon. Friend, and good neighbour, share my welcome for the coalfield task force report which was launched yesterday in Peterlee—a town in my constituency—by the Deputy Prime Minister? Does he agree that the report's recommendations signal the need for the overdue repayment of a long debt owed by the nation to those living in former coalfield communities?
    The Prime Minister: I agree. As my hon. Friend will know, many who were present at the launch were from my next-door constituency.
    The existence of a proper programme to regenerate the former coalfield communities, and to bring them jobs and hope, shows that this Government—this Labour Government—take their debt to the miners very seriously.
    Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister claim that the success of his health policy is demonstrated by the fact that, in the last six months, the number of people waiting for operations has been reduced by 100,000 as a result of a 100,000 increase in the number of people waiting to see a consultant?
    The Prime Minister: No, because that is not what has happened. Waiting lists have fallen from their peak by about 120,000 since the Government came to power, as a result of the investment that we have made in the national health service. The reason for the rise in the out-patient list is the massive increase in the number of referrals. It is not the case that fewer people are being treated; in fact, more people are being treated.
    Mr. Ashdown: May I direct the Prime Minister's attention a little more closely to a statistical bulletin which shows that the number of GP referrals over the past six
    878
    months has dropped—not increased—by about 3,000? Is not the truth that the Government have made a political promise that they have funded only partly and that, to deliver it, they are robbing out-patient Peter to pay for in-patient Paul?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that those figures are right, actually. According to the figures that I have, 79,000 more out-patients were seen in the quarter ending September 1998 than in the previous quarter, and the figure is up more than 100,000 over the year since we came to office. We have been committed to reducing waiting lists, and we are reducing them, after years of rising waiting lists under the Conservatives. Those figures also show that we are reducing waiting times as well, because they are just as important. With the extra investment coming into the national health service next year, we will make sure that we not only fulfil our manifesto commitment, but exceed it.
    Ms Tess Kingham: At the request of the people of Gloucester, I have been involved in a long campaign to get Channel 5 to drop its plans to make a mini-series about the West murders, which affected my constituency so greatly. It has refused consistently to meet the surviving victims or the victims' families, even when they came to London last week to deliver a petition. Channel 5 allowed a security guard to meet them on the doorstep.
    This is not the first time that such a thing has happened. Channel 5 also has plans to make a soap opera about the Zeebrugge disaster, and another film company had plans to make a film about the Moors murders. Where will this stop, and is there any way that the Government can help to protect victims' families and surviving victims, so that they can remember their loved ones in peace rather than through the eyes of some soap opera star?
    The Prime Minister: The House will be very sympathetic to the points that my hon. Friend raises, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will note them as well. Any of the companies making such films should be sensitive and responsive to the needs and desires of the victims, who still live with the scars that those crimes inflicted.
    Mr. Richard Spring: Does the Prime Minister not recognise the rich irony of his Chancellor going to Brussels this week to discuss tax havens, when he could have got free, world-beating advice merely by asking the Paymaster General? Does the Prime Minister not appreciate that, inevitably, high taxes lead to high unemployment, as on the continent? That is the universal legacy left behind by every Labour Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister: First, we have cut corporation tax from the levels that we inherited from the Conservatives. Secondly, I do not believe that we will be alone in this argument on taxation in Europe at all. If necessary we will be alone, but I do not believe that we will be. What is more, I believe that there is a debate within Europe about the right way forward for Europe.
    Some people want higher taxes in Europe; other people believe, as we believe, that the root to jobs and competitiveness is through economic reform,

    879
    employability and investment in skills and education. We will get engaged in that argument, and I believe that we will win it. We must not revert to the diplomacy of the Tory years that saw this country reduced to the margins of Europe, without any influence at all. We will stay firm, and we will stay engaged. That is the way to protect this country's national interests.
    Mr. Martin Salter: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the British economy is on course to meet Treasury targets and that attempts by Conservative Members to talk us into a recession are not only wide of the mark, but fatally flawed by the extraordinary comments of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)? In my local paper last week, he said:
    "Why do we need so much expansion instead of being happy with the balance we have? We do not need the economic growth."
    The Prime Minister: I am hardly surprised at eccentric remarks falling from the lips of the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but my hon. Friend is right to point out that the contrast is the Government providing fiscal and monetary stability through Bank of England independence and the new golden rules; the extra investment—£40 billion in health, education and other public services; and the working families tax credit and the new deal, to help low-income families and the unemployed. All are good measures for the British economy; all are opposed by today's Conservative party.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Does the Prime Minister remember all the promises that he made before the last election? Let me remind him of just one, which was made explicitly on his behalf, formally and in writing, by the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe, who said that
    "the next Labour Government will introduce legislation to make age discrimination illegal."
    Does the Prime Minister stand by that commitment?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, we stand by it. Indeed, after years of inertia from the Conservative Government, whom the hon. Gentleman supported, this Government have done more on age discrimination in 18 months than his lot did in 18 years.
    Caroline Flint: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important for Britain to argue in Europe for strong, independent taxation? It is scandalous that we inherited a system whereby the previous Government signed away our rights to zero rating for VAT on domestic fuel and the rights of British holidaymakers to buy duty-free goods.
    The Prime Minister: The problem for the Government in trying to ensure that the provision of duty free goods is not abolished is the agreement made by the Conservative Government. The previous Government agreed all the measures on tax and harmonisation, just as they introduced more qualified majority voting than any Labour Government have ever introduced. Any action that we take will be based on our national interest. Our national interest requires us to be engaged and positive in Europe, and we shall hold to that position.
    Mrs. Theresa May: In May, the Chancellor of the Exchequer welcomed the
    880
    appointment of the Financial Secretary to head the European working group on tax harmonisation as putting the United Kingdom at the heart of the debate. Is it because we are at the heart of the debate that we will be forced to scrap 10 tax incentives for industry in this country?
    The Prime Minister: No. What the Chancellor said is absolutely right. The code of conduct on unfair tax competition was first discussed under the previous Government. We have taken that work forward to remove hidden state subsidies that distort the single European market. It is important that we play a full part in that debate. Is the hon. Lady saying on behalf of the Conservative party that we should opt out of that debate altogether? We have had the opt-out politics of the Tory party for far too long. The country will remember the difference between Conservative and Labour over Europe: the Conservative party fought a beef war and got nowhere, whereas the Labour Government got the beef ban lifted entirely in 18 months. That is the way in which to engage with Europe.
    Mr. Ian Pearson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although the problems are not over, the agreement between unions and management at Rover on flexible working, on which a ballot is currently being held, is a significant step towards securing, not only the long-term future of Longbridge, but many tens of thousands of jobs across the west midlands? Will he continue to campaign and to apply pressure to ensure that BMW's future investment plans include building the Mini and the new R30 model in Birmingham, and measures to strengthen the competitiveness and productivity of our automotive components base?
    The Prime Minister: I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend in raising the issues of concern to his constituents. The only way to secure the future of that plant is by entering into such an agreement, which will raise productivity, improve competitiveness and guarantee that a high-quality product is produced at that plant. The Government shall play any part that they can. The fact that we have managed to get this programme together, agreed between unions and management, and that there is now hope for the future of that plant, is a tribute to that partnership, which offers the right way forward for industrial relations in this country.
    Mr. Michael Mates: Why cannot the Prime Minister bring himself to be as robust and firm with terrorists close to home as he was, rightly, with Saddam Hussein a couple of weeks ago? Is it a matter of pride for him that, even as he was receiving the plaudits of the Irish in Dublin, two grinning murderers were released who had committed possibly the most brutal public crimes of the entire troubles? Is it not time that the Prime Minister said to the IRA and Sinn Fein, "Enough is enough. We are honouring the letter and the spirit of the agreement. No more prisoners out until you do the same."?
    The Prime Minister: It is for precisely that reason that it is important that we do honour the agreement. I understand the concerns of people who see those who have committed appalling murders being released on licence—not being given an amnesty, but being released

    881
    on licence. However, it is important, if we are to ensure that all the elements of the agreement are adhered to, including decommissioning, that we hold to our part of the bargain. We will do that and we have already made it clear that we expect every part of the agreement, including decommissioning, to be adhered to and agreed.
    Mrs. Linda Gilroy: Does the Prime Minister share the respect that I and, I imagine, many hon. Members have for Shelter, the campaign for the homeless, and will he join me in welcoming the innovative new service that it will launch tomorrow: a free 24-hour advice and assistance line for those facing homelessness, to be called Shelterline? Will he also welcome with me the partnership that has made that possible between the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, British Telecom and a range of individuals and organisations through the public, private and voluntary sectors?
    The Prime Minister: I support strongly the launch of Shelterline and welcome it. I also point out, in addition to what my hon. Friend rightly says, that the social exclusion unit and the special unit that will tackle rough sleeping in London will have some £145 million made available to it over the next three years. In addition, of course, it is this Government who are beginning to release some of the money—the £4.45 billion backlog of capital receipts—that will allow us to tackle some of the housing problems in our inner cities and elsewhere.
    My judgment is that, if we proceed with the policies that we have set out now, combined with the new deal, both for communities in the inner city and for the young and the long-term unemployed, we will give many of those who are homeless the best chance and start in life that they have had for many years.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Prime Minister reflect on the fact that, last Thursday, he took part in a two-horse race in the north-east of Scotland and managed to come third? On the same day, he addressed a joint session of the Irish Parliament. Will he explain why, in that speech, he was so positive and complimentary
    882
    about Ireland's success as a small nation in the mainstream of Europe, but, when it comes to Scotland, he is so negative and disparaging about Scotland emulating that example? Could that contrast explain why he received a standing ovation in the Dail, but the bum's rush in the north-east of Scotland?
    The Prime Minister: I look forward to the debate that we will have in the Scottish Parliament election campaign next year, and I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that Scotland will have a straightforward choice. It will have a choice between higher taxes, worse economic prospects, business leaving Scotland, the inability to fund the extra investment in schools and hospitals—all the risks under the Scottish National party—and the chance of economic stability and investment in our public services under the Labour party.
    What I notice about the hon. Gentleman is that the one issue that he never wants to engage in is the economic cost and risk of the policies that he advocates. My judgment is that, when the people of Scotland see that choice, it will be him that gets the bum's rush.
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: Will my right hon. Friend welcome the good news for the people of the west midlands and particularly Coventry that Rover has been saved, but, more important, that Peugeot Talbot will now expand, creating hundreds of jobs? Will he condemn the Opposition Members who talk Britain down and continually jeopardise the jobs of millions of people not only in the west midlands, but throughout the country?
    The Prime Minister: I should also second the praise that Peugeot's managing director has given to the work force at Peugeot for improving productivity and quality. That is great news for Peugeot. It won the new orders in the face of intense competition from the rest of Europe. It is important and excellent news. It underlines also how important it is that we carry on being a constructive part of the European Union. If we can make sure that we drive up productivity and quality in the British work force and in British industry, the future of our country will be secure indeed.

Local Government Finance
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the local authority revenue finance settlement for England for 1999–2000.
The services that local councils provide are vital to economic success and to making Britain a better place to live in. We are working with local councils through our central/local partnership to modernise and support local government.
On this occasion last year, I set out the Government's programme for the renewal of local democracy. It is an ambitious long-term programme, and I have further progress to report. In July, we published our White Paper on modernising local government. Yesterday, we published our Local Government Bill to sweep away the wasteful and unfair system of compulsory competitive tendering and replace it with best value, so that local people can get the quality of service that they expect at a price that they are willing to pay. The Bill abolishes crude and universal capping of council budgets and in its place provides more flexible reserve powers to prevent excessive increases in council tax, as we promised in our manifesto and as I have set out in the House on several occasions. The measures give local authorities greater responsibility for managing their own resources while providing protection for the local community.
Today's announcement on revenue funding should not be seen in isolation. We are tackling problems in a co-ordinated way, with extra resources to help communities tackle deprivation and improve housing and transport. Our spending plans for local government offer the most generous council tax settlement ever. They include: extra spending and extra protection for the taxpayer; a fairer distribution of grant; and three years of funding stability. They are the key elements of our approach to this year's local government settlement.
Total standard spending, as the House is aware, is the total amount of local authority spending to which we are prepared to contribute. Next year, it will be £50.62 billion. That is £2.6 billion more than this year, an increase of 5.4 per cent.
Education and health are our main priorities. Next year, we will invest an extra £1.4 billion in modernising education, an increase of 7.2 per cent. There will be more than £500 million extra for social services, in respect of which the Government's reforms werer set out in Monday's White Paper on social services.
We have announced further increases in the following two years. Over the three-year period, total standard spending assessments will increase by about 7 per cent. more than expected inflation. That new certainty helps councils plan ahead with greater confidence. Better forward planning and greater flexibility mean better standards of service and better value for money.
About half the money to fund total standard spending will continue to be provided by the Government. I propose that the revenue support grant should be £19.9 billion. In addition, some £5.9 billion of specific and special grants will be available to councils. The RSG figure may need to be altered slightly following consultation.
884
The business rate poundage will be increased by the September retail price index to 48.9p in the pound. We will redistribute £13.6 billion to local authorities next year. I am publishing the basis for that distribution today.
We are asking council taxpayers to contribute a fair share—no more, no less—to the cost of providing local services. We shall increase funding from Government grant and the business rate broadly in line with the overall increase in SSAs. If local authorities increase spending in line with the increase in their own SSA, council taxes will rise on average by 4.5 per cent.
As I told the House last December, this is the last year of crude council tax capping. I am therefore the first Secretary of State since the council tax was introduced seven years ago—after the disaster of the poll tax—not to set capping criteria in advance. However, I should make it clear that we expect local authorities to exercise self-restraint.
We are providing substantial real increases in funding, and local authorities should be concentrating on securing greater efficiency in the delivery of services and financial management, to increase further their spending power. There is no justification for excessive council tax increases. If we are faced with such increases, we shall not hesitate to act, as I have made clear to the House before.
We have to protect the country's interests as a whole. We shall not pick up the cost of excessive council tax increases by higher council tax benefit subsidy payments. We announced our intention to tackle that problem in the July White Paper.
We are setting a guideline figure, which will be a 4.5 per cent. increase in council tax, or a higher increase if needed to allow a council to budget in line with the cash increase in its SSA. A council that keeps within that guideline figure will have its council tax benefit subsidy payments reimbursed at the full rate. However, a council that exceeds the guideline will have to make an extra contribution to the cost of paying for the extra benefit. The council's contribution will increase gradually for each half a percentage point that the council tax increase exceeds the guideline.
I should make it absolutely clear that that provision will not impact on people in receipt of benefit, and that councils with a higher than average proportion of income from council tax benefit will be treated as though they had the average proportion. Poorer areas will therefore be treated no worse than the average.
On standard spending assessments, the national totals are important, but what every council wants to know is how much it will get and to be assured that the distribution is a fair one. Last year, I announced a number of changes to the SSA formula to make it fairer. For example, I brought up to date the formula for elderly residential social services, and ended the fundamentally unfair assumption that visitors and commuters were as deprived as deprived local residents.
This year, with the Local Government Association, we considered many possible changes. I should like to mention three matters on which we are proposing change, and a couple on which we have not reached a satisfactory conclusion.
First, after three years of discussion and research on children's social services, we have found a new formula, which I believe is well founded. It is undoubtedly an improvement on the formula that has been used for the past few years.

885
Secondly, I have introduced an allowance for sparsity in the part of SSAs that allows for the extra cost of providing social services for the elderly in their own homes. There will, therefore, be more for rural areas in that part of the SSA.
Thirdly, we are taking account of deprivation in the part of the formula that deals with what are called "county services", such as libraries and probation.
Sometimes, the search for an improvement is unsuccessful. This year, we have done a great deal of work, with local authorities, on two other big issues. The first, of course, was on the additional educational needs of some children. The other was on the area cost adjustment, dealing with the fact that pay costs vary significantly from one region to another.
In both cases, there are some valid objections to the current formula, and, in both cases, we have had many alternative reform proposals from which to choose. We had, for example, 21 detailed options on only the area cost adjustment. However, there was no clear frontrunner, either on merits or on its support within local government. It would not have been right to take decisions on the area cost adjustment and additional education needs now, when it is clear that there are unresolved issues raised by local government that need further work during the period of SSA stability. Maximising consensus is important to this Government—as it was not to the previous Administration.
I recognise that councils need time to adjust to the changes in SSAs. I shall pay a grant to limit the impact on council tax for those authorities whose losses due to changes in the SSA formula go beyond a threshold. I shall go further than the traditional damping arrangements. I guarantee that no local authority, north or south, will receive less government grant support next year than it did this year. It follows that there is no case for steep council tax increases.
The Government understand that the uncertainty created by an annual review of the SSA formula is unhelpful to local authorities who are trying to plan ahead. We now have a three-year period of funding stability for local government, during which we shall seek a long-term solution to the continuing difficult issues in the local government finance system.
We need to look at the scope for reform within the existing SSA system. For example, we are looking for solutions to the area cost adjustment and additional education needs problems. That is not an easy task. We also need to look at the case for more radical reform, to produce a system that is clearer and more robust. We need a system that is more easily understood by the voter and accepted as fair and stable.
Local authorities must use this period of stability in their financing to concentrate on increasing efficiency and improving services, rather than on fighting their corner in the annual battle over their share of grant, but developing best value services for their community.
My Department is today writing with details of the settlement to every local authority in England. That package contains papers setting out how we propose to distribute central government support between authorities, including my proposals on SSAs and phasing in changes. It also includes details of how council tax benefit subsidy will be reduced above the guideline increase in council tax. Copies of that package have been placed in the Vote Office and the Library.
886
The proposals that I have outlined represent a break from the annual ritual that we have witnessed in the past. They represent the best settlement for seven years, they include changes to distribution to give a fairer and more stable system, they will ensure that no council loses grant and they will protect council tax payers from excessive increases in their bills. It is the best deal for years for local people. I commend it to the House.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making available copies of his statement and the supporting documents. He is always scrupulous about that, and I am grateful to him.
Last year, the right hon. Gentleman's settlement for local government delivered a record 8.6 per cent. increase in council tax across the nation and an extraordinary political switch of £50 million away from London and £100 million away from shire areas towards his friends in the north. So much for his party's pre-election promise that new Labour was not about high taxes on ordinary families and so much for his so-called commitment to a fair distribution of Government grant.
The right hon. Gentleman also promised increased clarity and fairness in local government finance last year. It is strange that he should have chosen to make his statement the day after publishing a Bill—one of the few allowed him by the business managers—that, by abolishing compulsory competitive tendering, will certainly put up council taxes. By introducing a new crude and arbitrary form of capping, the criteria of which will be a secret known only to Ministers, the Bill will render local government less accountable, less transparent and less fair.
This year, the right hon. Gentleman had the chance to put right last year's damage, but he has chosen not to do so. Today's settlement is for no change. Taxes for ordinary families will continue to be put up across the board, the funding fiddle for his political friends will be perpetuated and nothing will be done to provide the increased clarity and simplicity in local government that he promised.
We welcome the extra money that the right hon. Gentleman has provided for education. I have two detailed questions on the distribution of the grant. Will he confirm that the settlement does not include any provision to compensate authorities for the £130 million cost of the Government's pension tax? Does he accept that the increase that he has announced for the fire service is not enough even to meet the costs of this year's 5.6 per cent. pay award to firemen? Will he admit that that will mean cuts in the fire service across the country? What does he suppose will be the likely reaction of the fire service unions?
On methodology, will the right hon. Gentleman explain how much of the £100 million that was taken last year from rural areas will be restored to them through the sparsity allowance that he has announced for domiciliary social services for the elderly? Which sparsity indicators will he use? Does his announcement mean that the county councils network was right all along?
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how his proposals for capping will contribute to transparency, accountability and fairness in council finances? How will removing capping criteria from the public domain achieve that? What does he think is an acceptable council tax

887
increase, given that last year's increase was nearly 9 per cent? Perhaps he can tell the House what he means by "self-restraint".
Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that his proposals for council tax benefit will have the same effect as capping? Will they not transfer the cost of social security benefits from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the council tax payer? Will he give a figure to show by how much he expects the change will lead to an increase in council tax? The Deputy Prime Minister has today promised jam tomorrow. Ordinary families, as he describes them, know that the bills will arrive next year.
Mr. Prescott: I thank the right hon. Lady for her opening remarks. Her history and her comparisons between this Government and the previous Administration seem to be at variance with the facts. In her area, Norfolk council will receive from the settlement 6.2 per cent., which is 6.2 per cent. more than it received last year, whereas, in the final year of the Tory Administration, it received an increase of 1.2 per cent. King's Lynn and West Norfolk district council will receive 3.6 per cent. more this year. When she was in the Cabinet, it received 1 per cent. less. The record should be made clear.
The Department of Transport, Environment and the Regions has almost 20 per cent. of the Government's legislative burden. We have at least three Bills on local authorities. Given what is going on, we may have more time in the programme for even more legislation. The Department's heavy legislative burden is about modernising local authorities and making the distribution of resources fairer. My statement has shown that the changes in the SSAs, which make some adjustments in the calculations for individual county areas, will create a fairer means of distribution and fairer criteria for the children's services. The changes has been generally welcomed—
Mrs. Shephard: I welcomed it, too.
Mr. Prescott: I am glad that the right hon. Lady welcomes it; that is a step forward. I readily accept, as I am sure she does, that it is extremely difficult to progress further on education and cost adjustments and to find solutions to those problems. We shall continue to work on those problems; the period of stability under the three-year programme will, I believe, help us in that.
The right hon. Lady mentioned resources in rural areas and the sparsity principle. When her local council recently made representations to me, I was not able to say that we had accepted the principle, but I am glad to confirm today that we have. That has made for fairer adjustment in some of the changes that we have made to last year's settlement. That means that rural areas will get more. I do not know the exact amounts, but I will write to the right hon. Lady to give the figures to her. Some of the details of the consultation paper are in the Library, and I am sure that she will try to make some assessment of them.
The fire service settlement takes account of the pressures facing local government services, including pay and prices, as well as the opportunities to make savings. There is plenty of room for improvement in efficiency, which best value will be able to identify. I am sure that Opposition Members will want to reinforce that point.
888
With regard to pensions and whether the settlement deals with the provision of an estimated £130 million to take into account the Chancellor's changes on pensions, I can tell the right hon. Lady that that figure is included in the settlement.
Mr. Giles Radice: I thank my right hon. Friend for his settlement, and for the sympathetic way in which he has listened to my colleagues and me when we have described the problems of the hardest-hit areas. Will he take it from me that the settlement for Durham is fair and takes account of the level of need?
Mr. Prescott: Yes, that is at the heart of what we are doing—although we have not completed our work—and it is what the SSAs are about. In developing new criteria, there will be many changes from one area to another, and there will be many challenges in this House from those who are affected by those changes. The question from the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) about rural areas and urban areas is a classic example of that. There is an overall increase of 5.1 per cent. for the more sparsely populated areas, compared to 4.8 per cent. for England as a whole.
Clearly, we have a lot to do, and we shall take into account—as promised in our manifesto—fairer ways of dealing with the local government settlement. I must give notice that, although I am quite prepared to look at how we might find a proper solution to the criteria problem—indeed, I am doing so—a reform of local government financing is a far better way of dealing with it.
Mr. Paul Burstow: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and for the opportunity to see it in advance.
Liberal Democrats believe that the current system leaves council tax payers unclear about whom to blame when their council tax bills go up and when their services are cut. Is it not the case that the settlement continues a long tradition of smoke-and-mirror tactics so that local people are, once again, paying more but getting less for it? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a £1.6 billion gap in his plans—as estimated by the Local Government Association—which councils can bridge only by council tax rises and cuts in services?
Last year's settlement left social services struggling to balance their budgets, with two out of three councils increasing charges and restricting access to care services. Does not this settlement mean that children, the elderly and disabled people will face a real-terms cut in care services? Is it not the case that the number of primary school classes with more than 30 pupils rose as a result of last year's settlement? Will class sizes go up or down as a result of the settlement?
Is not the Secretary of State's plan to claw back council tax benefit nothing more than capping by another name, but a cruder form of capping than the crude and universal form of capping that he says that he wishes to replace? Does he accept also that his decision not to pre-signal his capping plans has left councils in a position where they will have to play Russian roulette with people's services?
In our view, this is a bad settlement. It represents a victory for the control-freak tendency in the Government and another defeat for local democracy.
Mr. Prescott: Liberals always amaze me—that is why I never sit down with them. Never mind the smoke and

889
mirrors—let us see what the hon. Gentleman's authority is getting, and people can then make the judgment. Sutton council is getting a 5.5 per cent. increase this year. That is certainly above the average that we have mentioned. Sutton is to get an extra £4.3 million for education—an increase of 5.9 per cent. Even the most inefficient local authority should be able to provide a better education system on that. It is receiving an extra £2.1 million for social services—a real and substantial increase of almost 8 per cent.
The settlement represents the best deal that Sutton has had for at least seven years. That is a matter of fact. To give me all the rubbish that the hon. Gentleman gave me about the settlement may be all right as Liberal propaganda and rhetoric, but it has little to do with the facts and does not address the real problems involved in providing good services.
The hon. Gentleman was concerned about real-terms costs. He should take into account the change from compulsory competitive tendering to best value. We believe—time will tell—that best value will bring increased efficiencies, and many business men have come to the same conclusion in their negotiations with local authorities. The hon. Gentleman has not taken those benefits into account.
Class sizes are falling, and we shall continue with that policy, giving more resources to education than ever before. What is more, that level of resources has been guaranteed for three years—something that no Government have done before.
I have made the distinction before between crude capping and the sophisticated Prescott version. Hon. Members may object to the term "sophisticated". I am trying to make the point that Governments cannot be indifferent to the level of expenditure by local authorities. We have given a fair and generous settlement—the best that local authorities have had for many years—but, if an authority is prepared to ignore that fact and say that it will spend more, we have a system under which it is allowed to raise the money—as was not the case under crude capping—but it will not receive all the public grant that would otherwise have come from Government.
Authorities can make that choice, but if their spending reaches a level that is totally unacceptable, I have a responsibility to intervene to protect the council tax payer. At that point, I can instigate a form of crude capping, but I do not have to limit it to one year. I can review the expenditure in the year that has gone—which I could not do before—and consider the phasing over the next few years. I can take those factors into account, so it is indeed a more sophisticated approach.
Mr. Frank Field: I thank my right hon. Friend for both the command that he shows of an immensely complicated brief and the sensitive way in which he is going about the reform of a major area of our public finances. Is he aware that most local authorities will now be considering in detail how the settlement will affect them individually? If some find that their settlement is way out of line with the generality, will they be able at some stage to come to him, or to my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing, to make a plea for transitional arrangements over and above what he has announced this afternoon?
Mr. Prescott: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. I do not believe that councils should be
890
encouraged in any way to spend more than we have allowed for in the settlement—we think that the 5.5 per cent. is a very good settlement and that the allocations have been fair—but I am always ready to accept that there are sometimes exceptional circumstances, and we must take those into account in the process. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing will hold discussions with the local authorities in the consultation process. I recognise that there may be exceptional—and I mean exceptional—circumstances, and I am taking extra powers to be able to deal with them as I have suggested.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Has the Deputy Prime Minister revisited his decisions of last year about day visitors and tourists in inner London, the consequences of which have already provoked criticisms from the Government office for London?
Mr. Prescott: No, we have not done so at this stage. I am aware of the criticisms that have been made. I would like to reflect on the matter and give the right hon. Gentleman a fuller response in a letter.
Mr. Bill O'Brien: I thank my right hon. Friend for his support for local government. At least we now have Ministers who believe in local government, as the statement shows. The abolition of compulsive competitive tendering is welcome. A great deal of time was spent by local government officers working out the framework for CCT, and in many instances that was a waste of resources. I feel sure that efficiency savings will be made.
Will my right hon. Friend accept that my local authority of Wakefield suffered for many years under the Tories? We were deprived of finance for education, when it cost £1,000 less to teach a child in my constituency than it did to teach a child in some Tory London boroughs. I hope that we will see an adjustment, and the members of the Special Interest Group of Metropolitan Authorities will welcome the statement. We hope that we will have the opportunity in the next three years to build on the relationship that has been developed in the past 18 months between my right hon. Friend and his colleagues to ensure that the progress in local government that he has outlined today is maintained.
Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. On CCT, the evidence is overwhelming that least cost does not necessarily mean best value or the most efficient way to do things, and that is why we are implementing best value. We have been grateful for the support of many local businesses which have also come to that conclusion. Many difficult problems are associated with the education criteria for SSAs and we should not underestimate that. The problem is often seen as a north-south one, but that is not entirely the case. The difficulties faced in some London areas are very real, but people do not always understand that problems faced in the northern areas are also very real. I readily accept that any formula will affect both north and south, and, if anybody has come to a different conclusion, they are wrong. It is a difficult process, but perhaps the best solution is the one that we are working on with the local government associations for a radical reform of local government financing.
Mr. David Curry: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember with what violence his

891
colleagues lambasted the previous Government over the area cost adjustment and what were regarded as the inequalities in the formula? Does he now accept that his failure to address either additional educational needs or the area cost adjustment, which are the two most disfiguring elements of the formula, means that we are stuck with the problem for the next three years, not just the next year? Will he confirm that the additional money for health and education is not hypothecated and, according to the tradition of local government expenditure, it is at the discretion of local authorities how they spend the additional money?
Mr. Prescott: Yes, it is not hypothecated and it is up to the discretion of local authorities. That concern was expressed about the extra education funds announced last year, which were funded by Government and were not an extra burden on the rate support grant. I am glad to say that more than 80 per cent. of local authorities agreed that the money should go to education. Some did not, and I regret that, but most local authorities recognised the priority even though we had no statutory enforcement or hypothecation. That approach was successful.
On area cost adjustments, the right hon. Gentleman's criticisms would have had more conviction if he had attempted to make changes during his period of office in government. He may have been sympathetic to change, but the Government were not. I do not know whether the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk has any further thoughts on the matter, but she nodded her head when the difficulties were mentioned. I do not doubt that the difficulties are real. When people examine the balance between local authorities in the settlement on children's services, they will see changes in the distribution between north and south. Criticisms can be made, but it is not easy to make the distribution and it is not a simple matter of north-south.
As we said in our manifesto, the settlement must be fairer. We have achieved that in one area, but not in the other two. That is not because we have not done anything—my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing has had many discussions on the issue and 21 detailed formulas for the area cost adjustment have been put before us. Many hon. Members have expressed their fears about changes to the area cost adjustment, but we will not funk it. We must have a fairer distribution and Ministers can defend their actions only on the basis that they are fair. What we have at the moment is not fair, but I want to achieve a consensus on the changes and that will take a little longer. I have already told the House that it will take at least three years, not one.
Mr. Eric Illsley: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his generous settlement. He has recognised the needs of coalfield areas, as he showed in his announcement yesterday in Peterlee. Of the 20 authorities originally capped in 1990 under the current system, 30 per cent. were coalfield authorities. Because of the flawed SSA methodology, those areas have always been behind in revenue support grant settlements. May I urge my right hon. Friend to seek greater fairness in distribution, and ask him to apply a degree of flexibility to council tax benefit rebates?
892
The position of the coalfield authorities—particularly Barnsley, my own authority—makes it likely that their council tax increases will be above the guideline figure that my right hon. Friend has announced today, and they will be affected by the loss of rebate. Will my right hon. Friend be flexible in considering areas, such as mine, that will be caught out by that?
Mr. Prescott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks, but the target has been set at 4.5 per cent., and the settlement for his area is 7.2 per cent. As he recognised, that is quite generous, and it will deal with some special problems. In making my announcement about the coalfield settlement at Peterlee yesterday, I tried to establish a new fund to deal with coalfield area problems, and the money announced is extra money, £350 million over and above what we are settling today. The same was the case with the new deal housing programme and with education funding. Local authorities will receive not only the money that I am announcing today; many settlements of huge amounts of resources will be used to meet specific problems. The settlement through the SSA on children has meant that the coalfields have been taken more into account, because that had discriminated against them. My hon. Friend appears to be telling me that his council will be spending more, but I ask him to remind the council that there will still be Prescott's sophisticated capping.
Mr. Eric Pickles: The right hon. Gentleman has described his settlement as the most generous in history. That certainly is not the case for Essex, which falls £28 million short just of standing still. If the settlement is generous for the rest of the country, that generosity is built on the backs of the elderly who are being taken care of in social services in Essex and of our schoolchildren.
Mr. Prescott: I am having considerable difficulty in taking into account the fact that hon. Members are saying the settlement is not fair or generous. Essex county council will receive a 5.7 per cent. increase this year, and I must make the inevitable comparison with what happened during the final year of the previous Administration in 1995–96 when Essex received only 2.7 per cent. However the assessment is measured—by percentage or in absolute terms—it is a fair one, and we have settled not for one year, but for three. Considerable resources will go to the local authorities.
The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) is an expert in local government, and he spent considerable time in it, but I cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, accept his argument that the authorities are not benefiting. Essex alone will receive £27.6 million for education, an increase of 5.6 per cent., although, as I recall, the council did not spend on education all the money it received for education last time round, but chose instead to spend it on roads. I think that that was the wrong priority, but the authority had the right to do so.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: My right hon. Friend went to Peterlee yesterday to announce the £350 million package for the coalfield areas, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) has said, that will intertwine with changes to the SSA. I have

893
listened to some of the figures that my right hon. Friend has trotted out today, and have heard that Norfolk will receive 6 per cent., that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) is getting 5.5 per cent. and that another area represented on the Opposition Benches is also getting 6 per cent. I am beginning to think that Derbyshire might have won the lottery, although probably not.
In order to repair damage to the coalfields, there must be a redistributive element to SSAs, and it must go along with the package that my right hon. Friend announced yesterday in order to ensure—this is the principal thing that he must do—that we do not lose jobs. May I have his assurance that that will be a continuing theme so that we can repair the tremendous damage that the Tories did to the coalfield areas?
Mr. Prescott: I can assure my hon. Friend that many people are employed by local authorities. At a time when the private sector is perhaps thinking of cutting back, thank goodness local authorities still have the resources from the Government to provide local services which, at the same time, provides jobs. That is not an unusual situation between the private and public sectors in the development of a cyclical economy.
My hon. Friend said that some local authorities have received a settlement of 5.5 per cent. I doubt whether he would describe Derbyshire's settlement as a lottery, but it did get 6.1 per cent. It is a good example of the extra resources announced yesterday in our coalfield community policy, which involves an extra £345 million to deal with the damage brought about by the savage attack on those communities by the previous Administration. We are now trying to deal with that by increasing housing and jobs and by improving the environment in those areas, particularly in Derbyshire.
I am aware of the call that Derbyshire's local authority made at the conference yesterday for a connection to the M1 motorway. That is being considered and, as the local authority pointed out, that is important for the development of jobs in Derbyshire. We are happy to do all that we can to help meet the criteria that my hon. Friend has laid out.
Sir Paul Beresford: This year's announcement, together with last year's, hides a large redistribution of funds to crony councils. Some of the councils that are not receiving this shift in funding will have some difficulties. They will be looking at their council tax and at what the Secretary of State calls Prescott's sophisticated capping. Perhaps we could rename that Prescott's subjective capping. What sort of percentage increase would make the Secretary of State think of looking at subjective capping?
Mr. Prescott: It works to a formula. It is not a question of whether or not I like a council. The House would not allow me to exercise such a prejudice. Although that happened under the previous Administration, we would not want to do it because it would not be fair. We must have fair criteria. For every half percentage point over 4.5 per cent., there will be a loss of Government grant for local services, equivalent to about one eighth. One can calculate that, if it went over by 4 per cent., there would be a full penalty and all the grants could be lost. By that
894
stage, I would have intervened because the local authority would have to consult me. I would then exercise a judgment about whether to move to Prescott capping.
There may be a real and justified reason for moving from 4.5 to 5 per cent.—that was mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). From the figure of 4.5 per cent. up to the total cap, we are prepared to let the local authority spend as it wishes, but we are not prepared to give grant for any expenditure over that amount. I think that that is fair. Local authorities can make their own judgment about what to spend—crude capping prevented that, but this system does not—and that can continue until it reaches a stage that I believe is excessive. That is what I have just announced.
Surrey county council has a 4.6 per cent. increase whereas, under the Conservative Government, it received 1.7 per cent. Obviously, I have a little slip of paper for every hon. Member who stands up pointing out what happened to their local authority under the Conservative Government. It is a fair point to make and most criticism from Opposition Members can be judged on that alone. There is a change when one moves from Government to Opposition and from Opposition to Government and it is far better for us to be on the Government Benches.
Mr. Paddy Tipping: My right hon. Friend has been clear and determined in his support for coalfield communities and his aspirations to help coalfield local authorities such as Nottinghamshire. Can he confirm that this is a good settlement for coalfield communities but, at the same time, accept a degree of regret that the big issues such as area cost adjustment and additional educational need have not yet been resolved? If my right hon. Friend waits for consensus on this issue among local authorities, he will be waiting for a long time. I hope that he will take a determined approach to resolve these issues.
Mr. Prescott: I accept that it will be difficult to achieve absolute consensus on any of those problems. The example of agreement that I gave to the House was not agreed by everybody. There is a time when one has to make a judgment. However, it is better to have a formula that does not involve open warfare, which, as my hon. Friend knows, is what we have seen in the House and in other places from time to time.
We can make advances, but we have not had sufficient time to do so. Over the next three years we shall make calculations and further extend discussions to find out how we might achieve that.
As I said—I still feel strongly about this—the solution may well be to try to find a better form of local government financing, but that is never an easy proposition, any more than standard spending assessments are easy—as anyone who observed the development of the poll tax will know. We shall continue to try. We have had some success and we shall continue to work on the more difficult problems.
On the settlement for the coalfield communities, Nottinghamshire got a 5.5 per cent. increase, which it will view as an improvement. The coalfield communities settlement will benefit several areas, but it is very specific to those communities. The settlement was regarded as a welcome contribution in Peterlee. The change in the

895
SSA relating to children's services has also benefited the coalfield areas because the old criteria tended to discriminate against them.
Mrs. Angela Browning: I have a favour to ask of the Deputy Prime Minister—he will gather that I am desperate. Will he receive a delegation from Liberal Democrat-controlled Devon county council between now and February? The council has been lobbying for a meeting and his Department is usually quite generous about that. When he meets council representatives, will the Deputy Prime Minister ask them why the money that they have received from the centre for flood defences—there is a total underspend by the council of £1.3 million—is not being spent?
The Deputy Prime Minister will be aware of the devastation in my constituency in places such as Gittisham, Ottery St. Mary, Cullompton and Whimple. I declare an interest, in that I live there and I too was flooded out. The Deputy Prime Minister would save me having to raise the matter in an Adjournment debate. Devon county council hopes that it can persuade him to increase the money that he intends to give it. He could do my constituents a great favour in return by examining how the council controls the money that it receives and, in particular, how communities are disadvantaged by the way in which the council spends the money that it is allocated for flooding.
Mr. Prescott: The hon. Lady raises an important point, and it is one that we have considered. I do not know how the settlement affects Devon, but money has been put into accounts for several local authorities to deal with flooding. They have been claiming back money on the basis that there are funds in those accounts, but we shall now reimburse only the money that is spent. Several authorities have been burrowing away the money and not using it for flood defences.
Mrs. Browning: Yes, that is what the Liberal Democrat council has been doing.
Mr. Prescott: I take the hon. Lady's point. If that is what the Liberal Democrats have been doing, it is terribly disgusting. We are about to change that system. It is typical of the Liberals to hide the money and then call for more.
Dr. Howard Stoate: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what will be seen as a fair settlement for Kent of 4.7 per cent. I congratulate him particularly on reserving judgment on removing the area cost adjustment, which he will know is a concern to boroughs such as mine in Dartford which stood to lose many of their services. When he gets round to the detailed and complex discussions on the area cost adjustment, will he take into account the great difficulties faced by borough councils that do not have social services and education in their budgets? Will he also recognise the significant pockets of deprivation that exist even in leafy areas such as Kent?
Mr. Prescott: We want to take those matters into account. I mentioned earlier, in regard to proposals made by county councils about using sparsity as a
896
criteria, that we have taken that into account. Whether we are considering the provision of library services or elderly services, we have made an adjustment and it is reflected in the settlement today.
I can tell my hon. Friend that we have been discussing the area cost adjustment ever since we came to power. We have narrowed down proposals to 21 formulae. I am not yet convinced that we have one that I can bring to the House and say with confidence, "This is right and proper and it is the fairest method," so I have not come here today to make further advances on that. My hon. Friend can rest assured that the services provided by local authorities will be taken into account in assessments.
Mr. Tony Baldry: Last year, Oxfordshire county council managed only by moving a substantial chunk of education spending to prop up personal social services spending, and by substantially hiking the council tax bill. What does the Deputy Prime Minister say to those in Oxfordshire who are worried that, this year, the settlement might result in another substantial hike in the council tax bill, and a substantial reduction in social service provision in the county?
Mr. Prescott: I recall people from Oxfordshire making a very similar case to me. It was a reasonable case. We had some disagreements about it, but I understood their problems, which resulted from the fact that the previous Administration gave them a very restricted contribution.
There is a great difference between the latest settlement and that made in the last year of the previous Administration. Oxfordshire county council gets a 3.8 per cent. increase in this year's settlement; in 1994–95, when the Tories were in government, the council got an increase of 0.5 per cent.—half a percentage point. No wonder Oxfordshire had problems providing services. That was the settlement that we inherited from the previous Administration.
This is our settlement—our judgment about fairness—and 3.8 per cent. compares very favourably with 0.5 per cent. under the hon. Gentleman's Administration. It means that Oxfordshire gets an extra £9.5 million for education. That is an increase of 4.6 per cent.—a substantial increase, which fairly represents the best deal that Oxfordshire has had for years.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Although there is still a lot of work to be done on area cost adjustment and educational needs, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the 5.4 per cent. increase overall in the total spending assessment, and on an increase which was said to be 7 per cent. in real terms over three years. I understand that Derbyshire county council will get a 6.1 per cent. increase, and that its police will get a 6.4 per cent. increase. There have been considerable problems in both areas. However, the figures are not great, given those for other district councils.
I understand that education provision is very much to the fore in connection with the county's position, but has the idea of enhancing the population figures been considered? North East Derbyshire district council suffers because it loses a considerable amount of money owing to the fact that people work in Sheffield and Chesterfield. That fact needs to be taken into account by the

897
Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in assessing a fair settlement for the district council.
Mr. Prescott: This is another part of the argument about the criteria for SSAs and the area cost adjustment. Arguments about population will be considered, as will arguments about many other factors. Views differ, and I should like more information and more discussion before I reach a conclusion.
Each settlement takes into account the services that are provided by each authority, and the 6.1 per cent. for Derbyshire county council takes into account police services, which my hon. Friend rightly points out are being given 4.1 per cent. However, he must take into account the fact that the Home Secretary looks to the police for a 2 per cent. improvement in productivity this year. These settlements and accounts are based on efficiencies and productivity.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On the face of it, the settlement for Gloucestershire county council looks generous, but it is based on smoke and mirrors. The education settlement is 1 per cent. below the national average, although Gloucestershire is already among the lowest-spending councils on education in the country. Our police settlement will involve a £1.5 million cut in the police budget. The council tax payers of Gloucestershire will suffer, because the council tax that they pay will increase by considerably more than the average of 4.5 per cent. If that is the case, will it not simply be a distribution from the shire counties of this country to the northern urban counties, paid for by the council tax payers of the shire counties?
Mr. Prescott: Another claim for smoke and mirrors. At least, before giving his analysis, the hon. Gentleman felt obliged to say that the settlement looked generous. It not only looks generous; it is generous, whatever it is compared with. The 5.7 per cent. increase that Gloucestershire is receiving is far better than the awards in many years under the previous Administration, and far better than was given last year.
I know that the hon. Gentleman is not criticising the education settlement, but I am sure that people in Gloucestershire will welcome the fact that there will be £12.1 million more for education—one of our priorities. The hon. Gentleman appears to be arguing that there will be a shortfall in police funding, but he is not taking into account the agreement between police authorities and the Home Secretary on the efficiency and productivity improvements to be expected this year. That, of course, runs right through the local authority settlements. I am not simply giving money to the local authorities and telling them to get on with it.
Local authority modernisation means giving best value. I expect services to be delivered more efficiently and effectively, with greater productivity; otherwise I am wasting money that I could be providing for other services. That is what best value is about and what I intend to bring about. It is not smoke and mirrors, but a real increase and a benefit to the hon. Gentleman's constituents. It is a pity that he did not finish by saying that, on further reflection, it was a good settlement—but we live in hope.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: This is indeed a good settlement. Will my right hon. Friend say a word or two
898
about the other services block, which is important to small district councils like mine in Pendle? In particular, environmental health officers have new responsibilities for monitoring air quality, policing food establishments and so on. I want to be reassured that the settlement will ensure that the money goes where it is needed in those front-line environmental health departments.
Mr. Prescott: We have made clear what the standard spending assessments are, what the services are and what money will be provided for them. The local authority can make a judgment about how the money is spent and what it considers to be its front-line services. We cannot hypothecate or ring-fence, as we said before about education. We sincerely hope that local authorities will use their good judgment to spend on those services, based on the SSAs. If they have any doubt, they can talk to my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing, who will be going through the consultation procedures on the matter. With regard to the extra burdens that will be placed on my hon. Friend's Pendle authority, they will be taken into account, but the judgments will ultimately be made by the local authority.
Mr. Edward Davey: Last year, the Deputy Prime Minister referred to Kingston as a "leafy borough" and went on to announce one of the worst settlements for our borough for many years, resulting in cuts across the board. If this is indeed one of the most generous settlements in the past seven years, does he realise that the others have been really mean? Does he realise that there are pockets of genuine need and deprivation in boroughs such as Kingston and other boroughs in London? Will he confirm that as his SSA changes are phased in over the next few years, London boroughs such as Kingston will lose out?
Mr. Prescott: I still think that the settlement is generous. My reference to leafy Kingston recalls the time when I fought my first election as a candidate in Hull, which was Kingston-upon-Hull, against the representative of Kingston-upon-Thames, who later became the Chancellor and then Lord Lamont. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that compared to Hull, Kingston-upon-Thames looks rather leafy.
We want fair criteria for the distribution of resources. The settlement for Kingston is a 4.8 per cent. increase, with £2.5 million for education. That is not chickenfeed, by any measure. The changes in the SSA, some of which we have already introduced, as I told the House, are required for a fairer distribution, whether to meet educational needs or the area cost adjustment. We are working on that, and I have told the House what I intend to do.
Mr. Andrew Dismore: I welcome my right hon. Friend's decision not to change the additional education needs formula for this year. In London, we recognise that there are anomalies in the formula, but we have special problems—for example, in my local authority, Barnet, a substantial number of children have English as a second language. I assure my right hon. Friend that in London we are committed to working towards a consensus to sort out that difficult issue.
Mr. Prescott: My memory did not serve me well when I was trying to think of all the local authorities and extract the information on Barnet.

899
Educational needs, like area cost adjustments, create difficulties in assessing the differences between various parts of the country, which are often identified as London and the rest, or as north and south. We will take into account the need for a fairer settlement. As my hon. Friend knows, the present settlement is 4.2 per cent. and almost £7 million more for education. I believe that he will welcome that. We must await the final results of the work that we are doing on the new assessments for educational needs.
Mr. James Gray: Salary costs in Chippenham, which is in my constituency and which does not benefit from the area cost adjustment, are precisely the same as salary costs in Newbury, just over the border in Berkshire, which does so benefit. Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that, owing to the very nature of the area cost adjustment, he will never achieve consensus? Those close to London will want to keep it, while those away from London will want to do away with it.
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that a tax is being imposed on areas such as mine? Is not the only clear way to deal with the area cost adjustment to get rid of it once and for all?
Mr. Prescott: That may well be a consideration. I do not necessarily agree with it, but such suggestions have been made by various parties that approach the matter from different angles. They all have solutions that favour them, but do not necessarily favour the other areas affected by the criterion.
Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) made a similar point about the need to recognise the difference between boundaries, and the effects of what is done. It is a real problem, which I cannot ignore, and we shall take it into account. Once we begin to draw lines in relation to different criteria, there is always an interface; but there is always an interface between the rich and the poor. We must make a judgment.
Wiltshire county council is receiving an extra 6 per cent. this year. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman did not criticise that amount, because I need not go on to say that, in the last year of their Administration, the Tories provided only 3 per cent.
Dr. George Turner: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the poker face that he managed to maintain when he came to Norfolk last week to announce the publication of a White Paper on the issue, and on the pleasant and straightforward way in which he and his colleague heard the many representations from the county.
My right hon. Friend has already given the figures for Norfolk. As the former chairman of the education committee who had to implement the last grant settlement under the last Government, I know how much better the present chairman will feel when he sees those figures tonight.
What my right hon. Friend has said is evidence of new Labour's willingness to look afresh at issues that have plagued Norfolk for 18 years. However, although this may be a good settlement for the three years to come, I join those who agree with my right hon. Friend that we need
900
to consider the establishment of a more comprehensive system, which is seen to be fair. I hope that the three years will be used for that purpose.
Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said—especially his reference to Friday's meeting in Norfolk, which involved Members of Parliament on both sides of the House. It was an excellent meeting, attended by members of local authorities and representatives of the agriculture industry. I announced the Government's intention to publish a rural White Paper to examine the problems. As I have said, I thought that the meeting was excellent, and I believe that everyone left it with the same impression.
My hon. Friend has raised an important point, which was borne in on me again in Norfolk. The county made clear its feeling that it had suffered under the previous Administration, because more money went to the shire districts than to the county. To be fair, I must add that more was still going to the county, but it was distributed differently owing to the different formulae used for the districts and the county. The changes that I have announced will reverse that, to the extent that more will go to the county, because of the definition of the services and the sparsity criteria that we have accepted. In any event, whether the money goes to the county or the districts—I know that different services are involved—there will be more and better resources than ever before, however they are distributed.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I did not see the hon. Gentleman in the Chamber at 3.30 pm. Has he been present throughout the statement and the subsequent exchanges?
Mr. Winterton: I am afraid not. I had another engagement in the building. I was going to apologise, if you called me, Madam Speaker, for being absent for part of the statement.
Madam Speaker: I do not call any Member who has been absent for any part of a statement. I have been making that clear for some time.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: I thank my right hon. Friend and his colleagues for the care with which they have listened to representations over the past few months, and in particular, for their response in regard to additional educational needs and the arguments for retaining ethnicity criteria.
As my right hon. Friend knows, in the borough that I represent 106 languages are spoken, and in our schools English is the second language for 61 per cent. of children. That makes my right hon. Friend's proposals particularly welcome. Will he consider the ethnicity criteria changes in personal social services? I believe that they will have an extremely deleterious effect on my borough of Brent, and a number of others. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend and his colleagues agreed to meet representatives from my local authority, and others who are affected, to consider the matter further.
Mr. Prescott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the way in which he raises this matter, because it reminds

901
hon. Members on both sides of the House that different authorities will be affected if the criteria are changed. There is a legitimate complaint and concern here; however fair we have been in finding that formula, there will be legitimate grievances against the conclusions that we have drawn.
Brent is certainly one of those authorities—the SSA increase is 3 per cent., and my hon. Friend has explained the reasons why. I tried to explain them to a number of northern councillors at a recent meeting. They all think that this is a north-south business, but we have to point out that poverty, whether in leafy Kingston or wherever, is in all our areas. We all have areas of poverty and deprivation, which the House will want to try to help.
My hon. Friend has a very good point, and I am well aware of it. Although there will be better settlements in respect of capital receipts—his area will benefit—that does not mitigate his central point. When we make changes in these criteria, we cannot always assume that there will be proper distribution, in the way that we want. The criteria can work effectively against what we intend. I think that that has happened in Brent, and I should be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to talk about the conclusions of this.
Mr. Christopher Leslie: Last but not least, may I also thank my right hon. Friend for the many millions of pounds extra that he has announced in the settlement for the Bradford district? In particular, will he confirm that one of the most significant aspects of his announcement is the three-year planning period, which will encourage efficiency and modernisation of local services? At last we will be able to get that long-term planning into local government finance.
Mr. Prescott: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Our judgment was that a three-year expenditure programme would be a lot easier for local authorities, and I think that they generally feel that they can now plan over three years. Although that is a longer period, it gives considerable time to examine area cost adjustments, educational needs and those other matters that we are concerned with on SSAs.
I recall—I chance my arm on this—that the authority that my hon. Friend represents has shown that, under the new criteria, it will get less in some of these areas, under the formulae on children. There has been argument about north versus south, but a southern authority and a northern authority will both be affected by the criteria—which belies the assumption that this is a simple north-south issue.

Millennium Compliance (Quarterly Review)
4.38 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): Since the previous quarterly review, which I announced on 9 September, we have continued to monitor closely the progress that is being made by Departments and agencies in tackling the millennium bug. We have also taken steps to improve the quality of information about those key parts of the wider public sector which, for the first time, we included in the review last time. I have arranged for all completed questionnaires to be placed in the Library of the House and published on the internet.
The Government are leading by example in making public our plans, and our openness on the issue has been much welcomed by business and other organisations that need to prepare for the bug themselves.
It is important to recognise that the millennium bug is not simply an information technology issue, but has to be approached and managed as a business issue—a threat to every organisation's ability to deliver its core services and carry out its core functions. Failures in external suppliers or partners could have an impact on Departments and agencies, and that needs to be recognised and taken into account in planning for 2000.
Over the past quarter, we have been placing increasing emphasis on business continuity, including supply chain issues and contingency planning. To reinforce the importance of the issue, I have asked all Departments to ensure that they have initial business continuity plans, including contingency plans, in place by January 1999.
Slightly more than a year has passed since the Government first published details of Departments' and agencies' plans for tackling the bug, and this is the fourth quarterly review of those plans. It is clear that steady and determined progress is being made by the Government as a whole in tackling the bug, particularly in respect of business-critical systems. The overall cost estimate remains stable at about £400 million.
Three quarters of Departments and agencies have now completed 50 per cent. or more of the necessary correction work on business-critical IT systems. That figure is up from half the Departments and agencies in the last quarter. Two fifths have completed 90 per cent. or more of the work, which doubles the figure for the last quarter. I am pleased in particular by the quality of the programmes and the progress of the Department of Social Security, the Department for Education and Employment, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. I am encouraged that a number of the smaller agencies are reporting completion of all the necessary correction and testing of their business-critical IT systems.
Despite the generally good progress that is being made across central Government, and the overall quality of Departments' year 2000 programmes, the review has highlighted a few organisations that have individual systems with late completion dates or whose targets have slipped. They are the Medicines Control Agency, the Inland Revenue, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, and the Departments of Finance and Personnel and Health and Social Services within the Northern Ireland Office. I have written to colleagues to raise these concerns.

903
In view of the importance of the armed forces to national security and the wider public interest, their rectification programmes are a particular priority. It is vital that the progress made to date be sustained.
The last review highlighted concern about progress in tackling problems in telecommunications and embedded systems. Considerable progress has been made in those areas over the past quarter, and almost all Departments and agencies have now completed their inventories of these systems. The target completion dates for work on business-critical telecommunications systems are now comparable to those for critical IT systems in most Departments. However, the target completion dates for critical embedded systems are slightly later on average, mainly because of the difficulty in identifying all vulnerable systems, and the reliance of Departments on suppliers to provide solutions. I shall be raising this issue with colleagues.
In most cases, Departments and agencies have also had assessments of their year 2000 programmes carried out by their own internal auditors. Some of the larger Departments—for example, the Department of Social Security and the Ministry of Defence—have also used independent external consultants as a further check.
I am reassured that there is little evidence of a serious, widespread IT skills shortage across central Government. Only nine of the 80 returns reported skills shortages, and those were smaller agencies on the whole. A number of Departments have taken practical steps to retain staff where necessary, in the form of a recruitment and retention allowance.
There has been real progress in tackling supply chain issues. A large majority of Departments have now identified and contacted their key suppliers, and report an improved level of response from their suppliers.
Over the last quarter, we have also been working with organisations within the wider public sector to improve the quality of information in their returns. I am particularly pleased with the returns for the BBC, British Nuclear Fuels, and the police and fire services, which give us a far more accurate picture of preparations in these key areas. The returns for British Nuclear Fuels, the BBC, the Civil Aviation Authority, including National Air Traffic Services, London Transport, the Bank of England, and the Post Office show that all are continuing to make good progress.
The Environment Agency has a key role in flood defence and pollution prevention and control. The agency is particularly dependent on embedded systems, but its current return shows that work on two of its critical systems is not scheduled to be completed until the second half of 1999. This is a cause for concern, and I have written to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to raise this issue.
Reports by police forces in England and Wales show that, on the whole, progress is satisfactory. However, in a number of cases, completion of work on business-critical systems is not expected before the last quarter of 1999. The Home Office will be working with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Police Information Technology Organisation to see to what extent these target dates could be brought forward. In addition to the
904
cumulative report that we are publishing today, each force is also publishing today its response to our questionnaire on the United Kingdom police website. Police forces in Scotland are also making satisfactory progress, and all work on business-critical systems should be completed by the end of the third quarter 1999. ACPO Scotland will be publishing the returns from individual forces on its website.
Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services has set up a task group to lead work in addressing the bug throughout the service and to ensure that brigades take the necessary action. It will urgently address the needs of those brigades that are giving the most cause for concern. Fire brigades in Scotland are well advanced and all compliance work should be completed in good time.
The details of the most recent quarterly monitoring returns from all NHS trusts and health authorities in England are being published on the internet today. The returns show that steady progress continues throughout the NHS as a whole. However, the review also showed that a few trusts and authorities are lagging behind in their preparations for the bug. Again, that causes concern and is being followed up urgently by the NHS Executive regional offices.
The estimated cost of dealing with the year 2000 problem in the NHS now stands at about £320 million, a slight increase on the previous quarter's estimate of £310 million. The NHS in Scotland and Wales is also making satisfactory progress. Quarterly reports of progress throughout the Scottish health service are available on the Scottish Health website.
The results of the latest NHS review are consistent with the Audit Commission's recent analysis of progress throughout the NHS, which was published on 11 November and entitled "Time Marches On." The Audit Commission's report commented that many NHS organisations have made "significant progress" over the past six months, but noted that a small number were lagging behind.
The Audit Commission also reported on the progress of local government throughout England and Wales in "Time Marches On." That is expanded on in analysis that it published today as part of this quarterly report. It shows that, although authorities that were already making steady progress are continuing to catch up on the benchmark, the proportion of authorities that have not completed an inventory of their IT and embedded systems is unchanged from the previous statement.
That is a source of considerable concern. The Local Government Association and Local Government Management Board have increased their efforts to engage local authorities at all levels through regional meetings and guidance. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will discuss with them and the Audit Commission how best to target assistance to areas that are the highest priority and where the greatest difficulties are being experienced, particularly as shown in the report on district councils. The appointment of a full-time year 2000 co-ordinator by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in October is helping to ensure that Scottish local authorities are making consistent progress.
Looking at the overall picture, I believe that good progress continues to be made throughout central government and the wider public sector in tackling the

905
millennium bug. However, I have identified a number of areas where there are key concerns. The Government will pursue progress rigorously in those areas over the coming quarter.
The Government continue to take the millennium bug extremely seriously. Little over a year remains until the century date change and we will maximise our use of the remaining time to ensure that we are in the best possible shape to meet the millennium. We have pursued that objective since we took office; we will continue to do so.
Mr. John Redwood: I thank the right hon. Lady for her statement. In view of the importance of the issue, the Opposition welcome regular quarterly progress reports to the House. It is like old times being able to ask her a few questions about how progress is developing.
Labour politicians think that their job is managing the media, rather than the Government. Nowhere has that been more obvious than in their mismanagement of the millennium bug. [Laughter.] Labour Members should not laugh because this is a serious problem which the Government are not grappling with.
As the executive director of Taskforce 2000 has said:
"The public sector is in trouble. It has been slow to get to grips with this and now is forced to engage in damage limitation."
His report found a lack of money committed to the task, predicted, in his words, death by 1,000 cuts for some public services, and concluded that Departments have left action desperately late, with inadequate testing.
Reading between the lines, I think that today's statement confirms that. The Taskforce 2000 report was endorsed and welcomed by none other than the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who, until recently, was helping the right hon. Lady in government to sort out the problem.
The Government have alternated between panic and complacency. The Prime Minister told us:
"by treating this as an emergency, we can make Britain one of the world's best prepared countries".
Then the public sector under ministerial control went to sleep and fell far behind, as we heard yet again today.
We have been told by the Secretary of State for Scotland in a leaked letter that there could be substantial disruption to public services in a just over a year's time. He warns that the Army should be on standby to sort out the mess. Then the Leader of the House pops up to tell us that the problem has been overstated; chaos has been postponed by a soundbite.
Meanwhile, we learn bit by bit of the depressing reality of a public sector far from ready for the next century. Nine Departments are reported as being way behind in their preparations by Taskforce 2000. What is the use of a Department of State getting ready for the millennium by 2002 or 2003? How can the Department of Trade and Industry spend so much time and effort telling British business to get ready and then spectacularly fail to prepare itself, as the report reveals?
Over at the Foreign Office, the same report states:
"Only 'minimum functionality' will be available … around the turn of the century."
Some would say that under the Foreign Secretary, that would be business as usual—but we expect better and so do the public.
906
The Home Office programme is marked down as "very high risk", and that was before it knew that it had to make the decision on General Pinochet. At the Department of Media, Culture and Sport, we hear that
"a dismayingly flippant approach to the problem"
is being displayed.
Most worrying of all, the Secretary of State for Health refuses to guarantee that no patient will suffer as a result of the millennium bug. Will the right hon. Lady come clean and tell us whether all intensive care beds will work on the due date? Will all casualty departments operate properly? Will the power be on in all our homes and offices? Will flood defences work? Will all telephone and traffic systems function? When will the nine Departments that are so far behind catch up? How many bug busters have been trained and appointed? Will all the 20,000 bug busters that we were promised be in place, and might that be before 2000? Why have the Government spent so little time and energy on sorting out the problems in the public sector while spinning so much to the private sector about the importance of the problem? What financial help will be given to health authorities and councils?
We left this problem in good order. There was plenty of time. People at the time said that we were thinking ahead. This Government have been in office for 18 months—the critical 18 months—and very little has happened. Britain is well behind, thanks to the disappointing performance of the public sector, presided over by the Government.
The Government have shown themselves incapable of managing this big changeover. The right hon. Lady should offer more than a few soundbites and platitudes. She should give a deeper, sober assessment of where the problem lies. She should pledge firm action to ensure that the public services work well in just over a year's time. Above all, she should offer the public a millennium guarantee that everything will work properly on 1 January 2000. If she is not prepared to, it will confirm our fears that the Government are way behind the clock and out of their depth.
Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry to say that although I have moved to a different Department, as far as the right hon. Gentleman is concerned nothing has changed. He talked about our managing the media, not governing, but his comments bore even less relation to reality than they used to when he was opposite me at the Department of Trade and Industry.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the previous Government left the programme in good order. I have assiduously refrained from saying it with quite this bluntness since I have been answering on this matter, but they left it in the hands of Taskforce 2000. Not a little of the venom behind some of the comments made by that organisation comes from the fact that it is no longer in its hands but in those of a different organisation headed by Don Cruickshank, who, in the right hon. Gentleman's day, was director general of the Office of Telecommunications. He commands a great deal of public confidence and support.
I have assiduously refrained from being as rude about Taskforce 2000 as it is about everyone else because we welcome anything that raises awareness and acceptance of the fact that there is a problem that all organisations need to recognise and tackle. However, the

907
right hon. Gentleman would be wrong simply to take at face value what is said by Taskforce 2000, which, in some cases, straightforwardly misunderstands what is said. Moreover, in many other cases, events have very much moved on since its last report.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the Government going to sleep on the matter. Far from doing any such thing, within three weeks of the general election, we commissioned the work that led to our being able to publish—for the very first time—the type of information that I am now updating in the quarterly statement. Moreover, the body that we established—Action 2000, under Don Cruickshank—has undertaken an independent assessment of the problems across the national infrastructure. We are the first country to make such an assessment. Therefore, far from being behind the game, as the right hon. Gentleman seeks to pretend, we are very much ahead of it.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned a leaked letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware—as the letter did leak—my right hon. Friend was writing about issues involving the Territorial Army. He was as well aware as every other Minister that there is a normal procedure of preparedness and contingency planning, during which plans for civil authorities to call on aid are occasionally considered. He was only referring to the existence of such contingency plans, which are in permanent existence. They existed under the Conservative Government, and they are being updated now to deal with a foreseeable contingency—the arrival of the millennium date change.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned comments on the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that come mostly from Taskforce 2000, and demanded a whole string of guarantees. I shall deal with a couple of the points that he made.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the national health service. The NHS has made it plain and public that it is now making satisfactory or good progress. I have already pointed out to him that the Audit Commission—I have much more confidence in it than in Taskforce 2000—described the NHS's work as a well-managed programme and said that, of all the groups that it surveys, the NHS has made the 1best progress since the previous quarter. The fact is that 93 per cent. of NHS organisations are said to be making satisfactory or good progress towards compliance.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the bug busters programme and how many people have been trained. Almost 1,000 people have completed their training, and about 5,500 are now signed up in the programme, which represents a very sharp increase in demand. It took some time to establish the programme because it has to be a quality programme. There are 970-odd such programmes in place. There has been a substantial increase in the number of those signing up, and we hope that that will continue.
The right hon. Gentleman called for a deeper, sober assessment, and tried to pretend that the United Kingdom is falling behind. A few weeks ago, I attended an international conference on the matter that was attended also by people from Taskforce 2000, who I am sure were
908
made aware of the views expressed at the conference. I was gratified—although, given that we are internationally vulnerable, slightly alarmed—to hear someone from the International Chamber of Commerce say that, of the 130 countries whose programmes she had studied, not only was the United Kingdom much the best prepared, but the British Government had done much more than any other Government to prepare.
In answer to the string of issues that the right hon. Gentleman raised, I tell him that every Department and agency has stated that its business-critical system-checking programmes will be completed and that business-critical systems will be rectified, tested and back in service by 31 December 1999.
Mr. Brian White: Having worked in the information technology industry for 20 years, I get very depressed when I hear unfounded comments. Some of the Cassandra-like comments that have been made about impending doom are not helpful, particularly when there is a serious problem. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are other key dates in 1999, starting with 1 January, that are just as critical? I used to programme things that finished on 9 September 1999 as the end of the record; in other words, we could shut down on 9 September 1999 and wake up again on 1 January 2000.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most likely scenario is not a major problem, but such a volume of minor individual problems that the help desk and emergency officers cannot cope? What is my right hon. Friend doing to counter that and give support to help desks? What are local authorities doing to prepare for that scenario?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose comments are more informed than those of others might be. He is right to say that there is more than one critical date in 1999. I take some comfort from that, because it means that those small and medium businesses that continue to ignore the problem as if it will go away, despite everyone's best efforts, should have their minds concentrated as the effects of other dates are reported.
I also share my hon. Friend's view that all that we can be confident of seeking to deliver is an assurance that there will be no material disruption of public services and that the public will be inconvenienced as little as possible. We should have no credibility if we pretended that we could ensure that nothing would go wrong, particularly as Britain is an open economy and a nation that trades internationally.
My hon. Friend may be right in saying that many small matters will go wrong. We are trying to encourage all organisations to identify their areas of greatest vulnerability and to put in place contingency plans for the unforeseen impact of the millennium date change. My hon. Friend is right to identify the fact that the problem is more complex than it sometimes seems, but I hope that it is less sinister.
Mr. Nigel Jones: I thank the right hon. Lady for her statement and for her courtesy in letting me see it beforehand. I compliment her on the vigour with which she is tackling the millennium problem, which many have identified as a serious matter. I thank her for her candour in identifying areas that have worrying delays, particularly in local government and NHS trusts.

909
Does the right hon. Lady recall that the Science and Technology Committee produced a report on the issue about a year ago? We commented that the Government expected local government, the NHS and other public services to find the money to fix the millennium bug from existing budgets and were not giving additional funding. With time running out and some delays having been identified, will she talk to her friends in the Cabinet and impress on her colleagues that emergency extra funding may be necessary, particularly for local government—perhaps through extra capital allowances?
To ensure that vital public services remain running at the start of the millennium, will the right hon. Lady have a word with the electricity generators and distributors and the insurance companies before her next quarterly statement? I have heard reports that some companies have found that their insurers will not insure them for their electricity supply over the relevant period. That was brought to my attention by Bird's Eye Walls, which will have tonnes of ice cream stuck in deep-freezes and will want to keep it cold.
Will the right hon. Lady also try to encourage the media not to pick up on scaremongering stories which are not helpful? The last thing that we want at the millennium is for people to panic and everybody to try to take money out of a hole in the wall or fill up the car with petrol. There may not be enough notes in circulation or refined petrol onshore for everyone to do that.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I am familiar with the report that was published some time ago by the Committee on which he serves. He will appreciate that, since then, taking account of that report and other matters, the Government have completed their comprehensive spending review and allocated substantial extra resources to public services, including the health service and local government.
I welcome informed comment and helpful advice. We also picked up on the most recent Public Accounts Committee report and followed its suggestion that Departments should produce initial contingency plans by January 1999. We are certainly willing to take useful advice on these matters.
We are talking to the electricity generators. More important, we have encouraged suppliers of the key services to talk to one another, although that has taken a great deal of effort from Action 2000 and involved a great deal of time. When we began working on the problem, the main difficulty was that many key organisations and companies, perhaps on the advice of their lawyers, were refusing to reveal their plans, despite being dependent on one another. Through the infrastructure forum, we have finally begun to overcome that major problem.
My understanding is that most insurance companies—although there may be some specialists—will not offer cover on the millennium date change impact itself, which, they reasonably argue, is a foreseeable contingency. However, if one is insured against a freezer going down but that happens as a result of the date change, any loss may still be covered. It is important that people identify and seek to rectify any insurance problems, as I am sure happened in the example that the hon. Gentleman gave.
I whole-heartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman's final remark. We must strike a difficult balance. We want key people in major—or minor—organisations to take
910
seriously their responsibilities for the continuity of the core services and businesses that they supply; they should not think that they can leave to the IT people what is a business continuity and management issue. If people panic, however, that will bring about the dangers that we are trying to avoid. A rather alarming statistic is floating about: if, across the world, about 6 per cent. of people try to take money out of the banks, a financial crisis could be precipitated. There is no need for such a crisis, so that is another important message.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Given her engineering background, my right hon. Friend is better placed than most of us to understand the importance of the issue for the nuclear industry. I refer her to the written answer given on 19 October in column 1015 by my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry on the software reliability unit headed by Professor Bev Littlewood and the proposals that it was to make to the Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee. Has the unit come to any conclusions?
What is being done about the terrible problems in eastern Europe? For example, there are terrible, scary stories that Smolensk in Kozlodoy—which has close relations with our nuclear industry—has a very relaxed attitude. Moreover, has anyone asked any searching questions about what is happening in the Soviet Arctic fleet? We are all going to suffer—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am having some difficulty in relating what the hon. Gentleman says to the matter before us.
Mr. Dalyell: The question whether we have responsibilities—with our technical expertise in terms of the millennium bug—to do something about eastern Europe and developing countries has been raised. I ask a general question: are we looking after our own self-interest by trying to help them?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I do not have the answer to his detailed question, but he may find that someone has that information at DTI questions tomorrow; otherwise, my hon. Friend can ask my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry to write to him.
My hon. Friend's example about the concern in the nuclear industry is a good one in terms of highlighting the fact that we should be sensible and responsible in terms of ensuring proper compliance, but not foolish. The Taskforce 2000 report, to which the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) referred, said that BNFL's programme provided no useful information and no basis for confidence. However, that judgment was made on the first return for the wider public sector bodies, and the company has now provided more substantial information.
The key issue is that BNFL's compliance strategy has been approved by all nuclear safety committees, and has been accepted by the nuclear installations inspector. We are doing everything we can. The Health and Safety Commission considers that the reports reveal a generally satisfactory position, but the HSC is keeping its evidence under review.
My hon. Friend drew attention to the wider impact of this problem across the world—something of which we are very mindful—and we have striven with might and

911
main to raise the issue in international forums. We did so when we held the presidency of the EU, and we have continued to do so in the presidency of the G8. Our embassies and contacts across the world have been urged to raise the matter with the Governments of the countries concerned, and some of the pressure seems to be getting through. In particular, in eastern Europe there seemed to be an initial assumption that, because the countries operated on different dates, they might be unaffected. However, the information technology does not necessarily operate in that way.
Mr. White indicated assent.
Mrs. Beckett: I see that my hon. Friend agrees. The IT does not necessarily operate in terms of different dates, and that has now been brought home to those countries.
We are seeking not only to raise the matter internationally, but to make contributions—and to encourage others to make contributions—towards tackling the problem. On last hearing—a couple of weeks ago—we were, I am sorry to say, the only country in the world to have contributed to a World bank fund geared towards helping developing countries to solve the problem. We put £10 million into the fund, and we are encouraging other states to do the same.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: Some of us understand why the Leader of the House would not want to make a statement that tended to further the growing anxiety about the problem. However, I hope that in future she will strive to sound less complacent than she did this afternoon. Given that she has wisely started to refer to the need for Government Departments and agencies to develop contingency plans against any possible failures, will the right hon. Lady undertake today to gather those contingency plans together and publish them by Easter next year, so that there can be wide consultation on them before decisions have to be made on how to deal with whatever failures occur?
Mrs. Beckett: First, I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's acceptance that we must strike the right note. However, I reject totally his suggestion that the note that I struck was complacent. The many concerns that we have expressed could not in any way be said to support that. As a prominent member of the previous Government, the right hon. Gentleman should be as aware as anybody that we have substantially increased the programme of work that we inherited from them.
The right hon. Gentleman said that we had begun to refer to contingency plans. We have done so for the very good reason that, although we have always understood the need—and warned of that need—for contingency planning, it was right to put more emphasis on tackling problems that could be solved. As we get nearer the changeover date—obviously, we continue to press people to take action to solve problems—we recognise that more effort must be put into contingency planning.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I would publish the plans by Easter. I said earlier that we have told Departments to draw up initial contingency plans. When we have had a chance to assess them, we will
912
discuss whether to publish, and how much of the plans we can publish. Our record of openness in this matter is not matched anywhere in the world, and if he goes to the Library or studies the internet he will see the degree of openness that exists, right across the public sector in the UK.
Mr. Andrew Miller: Does my right hon. Friend share my surprise that, out of the tens of thousands of sources throughout the world, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) could find only one from which to derive his information? Is he a chap with a chip on his shoulder?
On a positive note, may I commend to my right hon. Friend the work of the Government office for the north-west and MERIT, which are working hard to try to raise awareness—particularly among the SMEs in the north-west, where there are difficulties? Perhaps such organisations could be used at a regional level to help solve the problems that my right hon. Friend has identified in terms of local authorities.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is well aware of the importance of the issues. He has good contacts with local authorities and organisations in his area that are seeking to tackle the problem. My hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction and I attended a conference in London this morning to focus attention on planning across London and, in that context and others, we are working with the Local Government Association to increase awareness and to encourage people to seek help.
Mr. David Atkinson: Is the Leader of the House aware that, yesterday, the Assembly of the Western European Union in Paris debated the effect of the millennium bug on European defence and security, and resolved that we could not conclude that the computer systems involved in the defence alliances of the WEU and NATO would be millennium compliant? What discussions are the Government having with our allies to ensure that our collective defence will not be at risk in 395 days' time? Will she confirm that there is no internationally agreed definition of millennium conformity, which seems to be a recipe for disaster when countries and companies do talk to each another on this issue?
Mrs. Beckett: We are continuing to seek to raise awareness internationally of our concerns about the matter and to encourage other Governments to pursue the same proactive stance that we have taken. We are mindful, as are my colleagues in the MOD, of the importance of the issue in terms of operational readiness. We have been encouraging discussion of that matter across international boundaries.
The hon. Gentleman believes that it is alarming that there is no international agreement on what is meant by millennium compliance. I take his point, but all I can say is that that is inevitable. If he took part in the discussion in the WEU, he would be well aware that there is a great disparity of acceptance, understanding and awareness of the issue in the international community. There are those who show all the signs of regarding this as merely something got up by the Anglo-Saxons to embarrass everybody, and they have not been taking it seriously at

913
all. That highlights the reason why we must take all the precautions and make all the contingency plans that we can—because we are vulnerable in respect of our supply chain.
Mr. Ivan Henderson: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Tendring district council in my constituency, which yesterday signed up to the Government's commitment to the year 2000 action pledge? Part of that commitment was a commitment to report to the local community every 100 days to show any progress that it had made. Will my right hon. Friend encourage all other local authorities to follow that example?
Mrs. Beckett: I am doubly grateful to my hon. Friend, because he has reminded me of something that I meant to say in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White). I do indeed congratulate Tendring council on signing Pledge 2000. So many valuable initiatives have been taken by Action 2000 that it is hard to pick one out, but that is certainly one.
I referred earlier to the anxiety that existed some time ago when it was impossible to get companies and organisations to talk to each other because of their nervousness about rendering themselves legally vulnerable. The whole idea of the Pledge 2000 programme is that people will undertake to be open with each other, to share information about their operational readiness, to offer advice and to discuss areas of common concern. I whole-heartedly agree with the call for openness. This morning, my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction and I told London local authorities that one of the most important things that we could all encourage our local authorities to do was to be open about their plans and preparations.
Mr. Redwood indicated assent.
Mrs. Beckett: I am glad that that commands agreement.
If we find that a local authority is not making preparations as we would hope, that in itself will be a useful spur; if we find that it is, that will be a useful reassurance to the local populace. I entirely share the view that openness is key.
Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the Leader of the House will have read with some alarm Cap Gemini's claim that, when the Labour party came to power, Britain was first in the European league table for millennium compliance but that we slipped six months ago to second and are now at eighth. We can all argue about who is to blame, but surely the key problem is that, when people, especially those in the public sector, have checked their systems for compliance, they then need money to put right any problems.
I do not think that a single word was said in the local government settlement about what the fire and police services and all our local councils will have to spend to meet the Government's expectations. Too many organisations have written to their suppliers saying, "We expect your kit to work on 1 January," and then reported to the Government that they have done everything that they need to do for the millennium.
Mrs. Beckett: Of course I am aware of the Cap Gemini survey. I am perfectly happy not to blame anybody,
914
because viewing with hindsight is easy. I am more than well aware that organisations that have spent a huge amount of time, professional effort and money on the matter believe that planning should have started way back in 1994 and 1995; so if the hon. Gentleman wants me to apportion blame, he should not look at the present Government.
In fact, I do not blame the previous Government, because at that stage nobody anticipated that this would take so long; but it is a bit silly to try to turn this into a party political matter, when we have done far more than our predecessors, starting on the day we were elected.
The Government have substantially increased investment in public services. Indeed, we have been called reckless by the Conservative party. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions announced only a few moments ago—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here—the most generous settlement for local authorities for seven years.
Of course we are concerned about the fire and police services. The police and fire inspectorates are working with different organisations, and many detailed arrangements are in place in the police service, for example, involving publication of plans on its website and on that of ACPO.
It is certainly not the case that the Government—or anyone else in this country—will simply accept an assurance that everything will be fine. I cannot say that everything is fine with the Cap Gemini survey. I have no wish to cause any ripples in the Foreign Office pond by naming countries, but we know perfectly well that some of those that are shown on the survey as better prepared than the United Kingdom have done almost nothing to prepare, because they do not believe that there is a problem. That casts some doubt on the reliability of the information in that survey.
Mr. Graham Brady: The Leader of the House has spoken of a greater emphasis on contingency planning. My constituency is close to Manchester airport, so I am well aware that contingency planning is not adequate to deal with air traffic control. Can she give some assurance to my constituents and any others who might be affected that air traffic control procedures will not be tested by aircraft having to experience difficulties in 2000 but will be certified as safe before then?
Mrs. Beckett: As I have said, all Departments and Government agencies have said that they expect to be millennium ready. We are in constant contact with organisations such as the CAA and the national air transport system, and they are sharing their preparations and plans with us. We are continuing to monitor the situation. The organisations' preparations are well regarded, but no one is complacent and we are continuing to put information in the public domain.
Mr. John Swinney: References have already been made to the concerns of the Secretary of State for Scotland about the effect of cuts in the Territorial Army on its ability to deliver emergency services in the event of any disruption. Is it wise to make any reductions in preparedness for civil difficulties caused by the

915
millennium bug, when the Leader of the House is, understandably, not in a position to give us a guarantee that there will be no disruption to public services?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is inviting me to stray into the territory of the strategic defence review and its aftermath. which I fear I am disinclined to do. Of course we will have the normal contingency planning in place. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has had extensive discussions with the contingency planners and intends, heroically, at no little personal sacrifice, to be on standby on the key night; but the whole thrust of our work and programme is to try to ensure that there is so little material disruption to public services that there is no need to call on contingency services.
Mr. John Bercow: In her list of prime culprits, the Leader of the House omitted to mention the Department of Trade and Industry. The Taskforce 2000 report, published on 11 November, said:
"We were critical of this Department's plans in our last analysis and remain so … less than half of the progress to be made on business critical IT by September has in fact been made."
Is that slow progress not attributable to the fact that the present political management of the Department of Trade and Industry is even worse than that of the immediate past?
Mrs. Beckett: I certainly cannot countenance for a second any criticism of my successor, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who is doing an excellent job.
Mr. Eric Forth: What about your predecessors?
Mrs. Beckett: Even less do I criticise them.
Yet again, we are relying on the analysis—if one can call it that—of Taskforce 2000. It is certainly true that the DTI has encountered more work than was initially anticipated, and that is entirely consistent with what is happening elsewhere in the public and private sectors. That has been the forecast for some time, but the Department is still on course to meet its declared deadline of April 1999 for business-critical IT. The estimated completion dates for embedded systems and telecommunications, for example, are deliberately cautious, so they should be well founded.
Mr. Richard Allan: I welcome the sober and systematic approach of the President of the Council in her statement, which contrasts with those who seem to want to predict the coming of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse creating attendant panic. Does she agree that people who make statements suggesting that hard-working IT staff in the public sector have not dealt professionally with the issue are insulting those staff? In a spirit of sober analysis of the problems, may I draw her attention to the new national insurance recording system, which has a potential late delivery date of 31 October 1999, as some of the recent deliveries of systems by the private sector to the Department of Social Security have faced a few small problems in implementation?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks and his understanding of the issues. I am
916
aware of some of the problems that have occurred, but I am sure that he is aware that independent analysis of the work of the Department of Social Security has suggested that it is going well. I suspect that his point is slightly different, because the Department has had problems with its computer systems in the past, but it has done much work on them recently.
Mr. Tim Collins: Given that one company, Unilever, has estimated that the costs to it alone of the millennium bug will be £300 million, is the right hon. Lady satisfied with her estimate that the cost to the entire national health service will be only £320 million
Mrs. Beckett: We are saying that that is the further cost as we see it now. I am familiar with the work of Unilever and impressed by it. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Prime Minister's adviser on the matter is Dr. Anderson, who was in charge of millennium compliance at Unilever. He has brought a wealth of experience and information to the issue, including the basis of the observation which I made earlier that it is now clear that we should all have started work on the matter much earlier. That is partly why I am happy to recognise a general responsibility for the problem: it does not lie in one quarter rather than another. Under Dr. Anderson's overall supervision, we continue to monitor, probe and assess the cost to various Departments, and we hope and believe that we have the measure of it. We may see some small increase, and that has been the experience over time at Unilever, but as we get closer to the date change our confidence in the accuracy of the financial predictions should strengthen.

BILLS PRESENTED
  SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE
  Mr. Secretary Dewar, supported by Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Calum Macdonald, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to the financial limits in section 25(2) of the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 6].
  GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY
  Mr. Secretary Prescott, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. Nick Raynsford and Ms Glenda Jackson, presented a Bill to establish and make provision about the Greater London Authority, the Mayor of London and the London Assembly; to make provision in relation to London borough councils and the Common Council of the City of London with respect to matters consequential on the establishment of the Greater London Authority; to make provision with respect to the functions of other local authorities and statutory bodies exercising functions in Greater London; to make provision about transport and road traffic in and around Greater London; to make provision about policing in Greater London and to make an adjustment of the metropolitan police district; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 7].

European Parliamentary Elections Bill (Allocation of Time)
5.34 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to proceedings on the European Parliamentary Elections Bill:

European Parliamentary Elections Bill (Allocation of Time)
  Timetable
  1. Proceedings on Second Reading. in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed at the sitting this day and shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, four hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

  Questions to be put
  2. When the Bill has been read a second time—

  (a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put,

  (b) proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed while the Question is put, in accordance with Standing Order No. 52(1) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills), on any financial resolution relating to the Bill,

  (c) on the conclusion of proceedings on any financial resolution relating to the Bill, proceedings on the Bill shall be resumed and the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an instruction has been given.

  3. On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if he reports the Bill with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
  4. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Speaker or Chairman shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

  (c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

  (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

  5. On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

  Miscellaneous
  6. Standing Order 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill at the sitting this day; and the proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  7. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after commencement; and the Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.
  8. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to proceedings on the Bill.
  9. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken.
  10. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to the Bill except by a Minister of the Crown.
  11. If at the sitting this day a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over to seven o'clock and proceedings on this Motion have begun before that time, the Motion for the Adjournment shall stand over until the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill.
  12. If the House is adjourned at the sitting this day, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill, no notice shall be required, of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
  The Government remain determined to press ahead with the European Parliamentary Elections Bill in the form that this House has decided by overwhelming majorities. I shall say a little more about why we subscribe to that belief when we come to debate the Bill itself. Let me now explain why the Government believe that the allocation of time motion is appropriate. The answer is simple: the House has already devoted a huge amount of time to discussing the Bill. There may be a little more to say, but we think that the time allocated is adequate in the circumstances.
  The Bill has only six clauses and four schedules. In the Session that ended only 10 days ago, we spent more than 34 hours debating the Bill, which works out at more than three and half hours for each clause or schedule, whether substantive or not. The Bill is a constitutional measure and, for that reason, we have taken it on the Floor of the House. It is worth pointing out that it is not exceptional for Bills of a constitutional nature to be guillotined. Some hon. Members will recall—and some Conservative Members will do so with discomfort—that the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1986, which introduced the single market, had to be guillotined by the previous Administration. The then Lord President of the Council, Mr. John Biffen, said when moving the timetable motion—
  "Since 1966, six constitutional Bills have been timetabled."—
  and he explained why. Earlier in the debate, he sought to justify the Government's decision to guillotine the measure. He said:
  "The Bill received its Second Reading with the clear majority of 319 votes to 160. That is an indication that the Government fully have the authority of the House for wishing to ensure that the passage of the Bill can be concluded."—[Official Report, 1 July 1986; Vol. 100, c. 933–34.]
  If Mr. John Biffen was correct on that occasion, we must be even more correct when we say that this Bill has received the overwhelming authority of the House, because it received a majority of 355 to 160 on Second Reading on 25 November 1997.
  Sir Norman Fowler: Can the Home Secretary give any precedent for a constitutional Bill being guillotined with only four hours for debate, including the three-hour guillotine motion?
  Mr. Straw: The simple answer is that no Opposition since the war have suffered from the madness that infects the current Opposition. This is the first constitutional measure on which a Government have been forced to use the Parliament Act 1911 procedures. Every other constitutional measure, however controversial it may have been and whether it appeared in a manifesto, has eventually been accepted as having received the authority of the elected House and been allowed through by the unelected House. Given that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) has raised the issue, he may wish to learn that the only Bill that has been the subject of the Parliament Act procedure since the war—three started out, but agreement was reached on two—was the War Crimes Act 1991. The guillotine motion on that Act provided for no Committee stage.

  919
  Conservative Members have only themselves to blame for tearing apart fundamental conventions on the constitution, as I will show in a moment. We are having to debate the matter again, despite the fact that the Bill and its principle received the overwhelming endorsement of the British people in the manifestos of not one but two of the major parties. It has also received majorities of more than 150 on every occasion that it has been the subject of debate, not only on its principle but on its detail. It does not lie in the mouth of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield—or any other Conservative Member—to complain that the Bill has not been subject to the most thorough debate. I myself have always sought to answer any question raised with me in the time that is available.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does the Home Secretary accept that one of the clearest pieces of evidence that he does not have overwhelming support for what he is saying is the tiny handful of his parliamentary colleagues who have bothered to take their places in the Chamber this afternoon? Another is the fact that there were so few speeches in our earlier debates in support of what the Government are trying to ram through. In effect, the Bill has no support at all.
  Mr. Straw: As I have explained to the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends before, the best indication of support is not only the substantial majorities that we have enjoyed in this House, but the fact that we have put the principle of the issue to the vote of the British people. Of that, there can be no doubt.
  I am very happy for the available time to be used up principally by Conservative Members. Four hours have been allocated for completion of the measure, and the longer they spend on the guillotine motion, the less time there will be for the detail, even if that detail needs further examination. That is a matter for the Conservatives, not for us.
  Mr. Brian White: Does my right hon. Friend accept that whether or not we started by supporting an open-list system or a closed-list system, many of us on the Labour Benches now firmly hold the view that the Bill should go through as we are arguing about the elected House versus the unelected House? My right hon. Friend has the overwhelming support of Labour Members.
  Mr. Straw: I accept that, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for anticipating my next point. I expect that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield will work himself up into a fury, implying that the motion is an abuse of the procedures of the House. He should, however, be rather cautious given the record of the previous Administration, particularly in the 1980s when they never sought agreement on Bills and used guillotine motions with gay abandon. There has, indeed, been an abuse of Parliament over the Bill, but it did not occur in this Chamber. The abuse was the responsibility of the Conservative party, which relied on its inbuilt three-to-one majority in the other place. It relied on the votes of hereditary peers to frustrate the wishes of the democratically elected House.
  920
  None of us on the Government Benches—and precious few Members on the Conservative Benches, if they were allowed to speak their minds—believe that the hereditary peers have a right to block Bills introduced by the Government. I have never objected to the other place seeking to revise Bills. Far from objecting, I have welcomed revisions, and I have never suggested that a Bill introduced even by my Front Bench colleagues represents a paradigm of perfection that cannot be improved in any way. That would be an arrogant impertinence, and it would plainly be untrue.
  On two major Bills out of the several brought forward by the Home Department during the past session—the Human Rights Bill and the Crime and Disorder Bill—the other place entered serious reservations. We did not say, "Damn them, they are Conservative hereditaries so we should ignore their arguments." We sought, on press freedom and, particularly, on the protection of the churches, to listen to what was said in the other place, and to seek to accommodate it, as I believe we did.
  A number of detailed amendments were made to the Crime and Disorder Bill, such as that made when the Lord Chief Justice expressed reservations about the breadth of what was then clause 40 on the powers of justices' clerks. Many noble Lords backed him, we listened to what he had to say and we changed the Bill. In the particular case of the age of consent, the whole House knows that we accepted the view of the other place that that measure should not come before the House for a free vote without its having alongside it associated offences where people were in a position of trust that they might abuse.
  Mr. William Cash: The Secretary of State has made the accusation that what the House of Lords did was somehow an abuse of procedure. Has he not heard of the Parliament Act 1911? Does he realise that its whole purpose is to deal with situations such as this one? In fact, the House of Lords acted completely within the conventions and within the statutory provisions for matters of this kind.
  Mr. Straw: It would be rum if I had not heard of the Parliament Act since that is precisely what we are using. I heard of the Parliament Act as a schoolboy, and I remember the history of the Budget in 1910—more accurately, the Budget was in 1909—
  Mr. Richard Allan: I did not realise that the right hon. Gentleman was that old.
  Mr. Straw: I have a considerable affection for the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), but I shall lose it if he questions my age. I was not present during the passage of the Budget of 1909, but I learned about it at school. It will be remembered that Mr. Lloyd George moved his Budget, that the Lords blocked it, that not one,

  921
  but two elections were required in 1910, and that the Parliament Act followed in 1911. It is worth bearing in mind, too, that there was then a general agreement that the Act should be the first part of a two-stage process of reform of the House of Lords, but the Conservative party consistently blocked the second stage, a point that Conservative Members should note.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am interested by the reasons adduced by the Secretary of State in relation to the Parliament Act, but I do not understand what he is saying. The House of Lords acted perfectly constitutionally. The Government disagreed, and the Chamber disagreed on a vote. The Bill was returned to the other place, and the Government are now invoking the Parliament Act. Is not that the proper constitutional arrangement? Has not every party acted within the terms of the Parliament Act and the constitution?
  Mr. Straw: The difference, and the central burden of what I must say, is that the Parliament Act has not previously been needed even for the most controversial of proposals. In addition, there has been an expectation of its use only when there has been a Labour Government. It has never been raised against a Tory Government—
  Sir Norman Fowler: The War Crimes Bill.
  Mr. Straw: The only case is the War Crimes Bill, which was not an issue of extreme controversy between the parties.
  Sir Norman Fowler: The Home Secretary just cited it.
  Mr. Straw: I cited the Bill to answer a different point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, which was whether there had been a Committee stage on a guillotine under the Parliament Act. There had not.
  The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) asked whether the action of the House of Lords was not consistent with the Parliament Act, and with the conventions and understandings that amount to an important part of our constitution. It would be tautologous to say that that action was consistent with the Parliament Act, as that is a simple statement of fact. It is wholly wrong, however, to claim that the procedure followed by the Conservative party is in any sense consistent with the conventions of the House of Commons and the other place, or of the understandings between parties that form an essential part of our uncodified and unwritten constitution. I shall explain in considerable detail why that is so.
  The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield was, until recently, the non-executive chairman of Midland Independent Newspapers. He ceased, I believe, to be chairman not so long ago.
  Sir Norman Fowler indicated assent.
  Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman assents to that. If the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to take advice from us, he may wish to think again and to take the advice of The Birmingham Post, which that group owns. The paper is not particularly in favour of closed lists, and it is against proportional representation. Its view is
  922
  straightforward, but a recent editorial said that the Conservative party was making a fool of itself by the way in which it was behaving. The editorial read:
  "The Conservatives cannot muster a decent opposition in the Commons, the party organisation has fallen into disrepair in the country, its ability to communicate any message to the electorate has virtually ceased. Yet it still has a chance to wield its power in the Lords…
  The Labour Government may be wrong in wanting closed-list PR but our democracy is based on the fundamental belief that the will of the majority in the Commons must prevail.
  It is hypocritical nonsense to defend 'democracy' by undemocratic means and shows the Tories' desperation to cling on to the last vestiges of power.
  Throwing out the Government's Bill is a monumental blunder by the Tories".
  It was indeed a monumental blunder. The Conservative party has torn up one of the most essential conventions regulating the balance of power between the elected House and the other place. That convention was articulated, although it had been followed before, by Lord Salisbury, the grandfather of the current Viscount Cranborne. In a speech to the House of Lords in November 1964, Lord Salisbury spelled out what the convention meant.
  Mr. Shepherd: This does not answer my question.
  Mr. Straw: I am seeking to answer the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. He began his speech by talking about relations with the new Labour Government elected in 1964 with a very tiny majority. He said:
  "In 1945 we were faced, in one sense … with an easier problem than now, for the Labour majority in another place … was far larger than it is today, and it was therefore possible for us who belonged to the Opposition to make it our broad guiding rule that what had been on the Labour Party programme at the preceding General Election should be regarded as having been approved by the British people. Therefore, as your Lordships will remember, we passed all the nationalisation Bills, although we cordially disliked them, on the Second Reading and did our best to improve them and make them more workable on Committee stage. Where, however, measures were introduced which had not been in the Labour Party Manifesto at the preceding Election we reserved full liberty of action."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 November 1964; Vol. 261, c. 66.]
  That is a reasonable statement.
  The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has said that closed lists were not specified in our manifesto. Even when our manifesto is clear and categorical, as it is on the two-stage process for the reform of the House of Lords—it could not be clearer about the self-contained stage one—the right hon. Gentleman still says that the Conservative party intends to tear up the basic fundamental conventions of the Salisbury convention—[Interruption.] That is what we all heard him say on Monday. Of course, the Conservative party may have changed its mind since then.
  Let us leave that to one side. In order to justify the Conservative party's actions on this Bill the right hon. Gentleman is saying that, although the basic idea of proportional representation for European elections was in the manifestos of the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, the detail was not. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills that, when Lord Salisbury was making his statement, he did so against the background of the manifestos that had

  923
  been brought before the British people in 1945. Those manifestos were far less detailed in every particular than those of any party at the last election. I happen to have before me the winning Labour party manifesto for 1945. It says that the Labour party intended to submit to the nation an industrial programme which included public ownership of the fuel and power industries. There is then an explanation about why that is to be done, but there is not a word about how. The list continues by saying that the programme will include the public ownership of inland transport. There is a little word about co-ordination and about why it is to be done, but not a word about how. It then talks about public ownership—
  Sir Norman Fowler: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are in substantial difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman has tabled a guillotine motion which allows only four hours of debate in this House. He has now been speaking for 20 minutes on that motion—not the Second Reading—and we are now going back to the 1945 Labour manifesto. With due respect to the Home Secretary, I believe that it would be in the constitution and order of the House for him to make briefer remarks on this important guillotine motion.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Chair cannot be responsible for the content or length of speeches. The Home Secretary will have heard what the right hon. Gentleman said.
  Mr. Straw: I particularly heard the right hon. Gentleman saying that he was in some difficulty, and that is true. I have taken 20 minutes because I have given way to hon. Members. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends would have been the first to complain had I not given way. Let us be clear, the content of the 1945 manifesto is absolutely central to the context of the Salisbury convention and the fact that the Opposition have broken that convention.
  The 1945 manifesto said that the programme would include public ownership of the fuel and power industries, public ownership of inland transport and public ownership of iron and steel. No other detail was given, but Lord Salisbury did not use that fact, even casuistically to argue that they could accept the principle, not just to dissent from the detail, but to block the whole Bill. That is the difference between any previous action taken by the other place and the action being taken now by the Conservative Opposition in the other place with the full support of the Opposition Front Bench.
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Mid-Bedfordshire): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: I am sorry, but I do not have time.
  I was reflecting on why the Salisburys, the Cecils and the Cranbornes—the same family—had been able to survive in power for five centuries or so when others, not including those in the Conservative party, had failed. I came across a quotation not from one of Viscount Cranborne's predecessors but from one of his predecessor's associates in the other place, the Marquess of Winchester, who was heavily involved in Tudor
  924
  politics. He said—I translate from the Latin—that he had survived by being a willow and not an oak. That is how the Conservative party has kept its power in the other place until now. We are now seeing the Conservative party, a once great oak of distinguished lineage, breaking in the wind. Whether it has a future is gravely open to doubt given these tactics.
  The motion is in no sense an abuse of parliamentary procedure. The abuse of parliamentary procedure is the action of the Conservative party which has broken the Salisbury convention in every particular. The Opposition have challenged the democratic will of the House and, above all, the democratic will of the British people.
  5.57 pm
  Sir Norman Fowler: That was an unconvincing speech. It did not even convince the four Labour Back Benchers who are here today. The Home Secretary was keen on quoting precedents. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) wishes me to give way, I will happily give way to him. If he is a Whip, I suggest that he keeps the silence for which he has doubtless been appointed to that office.
  The Home Secretary was keen on quoting precedents. He went back to the 1945 general election. I notice that he did not quote his own article in The Times on 4 February 1985, which was entitled, "Cut the Guillotine Down to Size." In those days, he argued that ill-thought-out legislation should not be forced through without change,
  "brandishing the theory of the detailed mandate in face of the reasoned argument."
  With this legislation, he cannot even claim a detailed mandate.
  Let us get this straight: we all know that the closed list was not, and never has been, a manifesto commitment of the Labour party. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) totally destroyed that argument. In fact, the Home Secretary destroyed his own argument. On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), who is here today, interrupted the Home Secretary when he said that he would look at the Belgian list. The Belgian list is not a closed list so, if it was a manifesto commitment, it was quickly and easily broken by the Home Secretary.
  On the abuse of power, let us go back to the War Crimes Bill and to the comments of the then shadow Home Secretary, Lord Hattersley. He made the point that my hon. Friends have been making. He said:
  "The House of Lords possesses the right under the constitution, to reject legislation, and we possess the right to overrule that rejection. The House of Lords, this House and the Government, if I may say so, have acted with absolute constitutional propriety by bringing the matter forward again."—[Official Report, 18 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 30.]
  That is the point and that is what my hon. Friends were saying.
  Obviously, I recognise that the guillotine procedure has been used before. However, I caution the Government to hesitate before guillotining a constitutional measure. There should be no doubt that the Bill goes to the heart of our constitution. The rules whereby Members of the European Parliament are elected are vastly important, above all to the public.

  925
  Of course there are precedents of the guillotine being used even on constitutional Bills, although the BBC report this morning which suggested that the Maastricht Bill was guillotined is wrong. The whole point about that Bill is that it was not guillotined. It would be nice if the BBC gave parliamentary reporting the priority that it used to have.
  Mr. Straw: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Norman Fowler: I shall give way in a moment. The right hon. Gentleman should listen to my point. He regards this debate as a leisurely Committee stage, but this is a debate on a guillotine motion. He is forcing the House to pass all the Bill's stages in four hours. We do not regard this as a leisurely Committee stage in the way that he would like. There have been precedents, but this is probably the most severe guillotine that has ever been introduced, and I shall tell the House why.
  Under the Government's proposals, the guillotine motion could be debated for three hours, but that would come out of the total of four hours that is allowed for the whole debate. The Government would be content for the debate on the guillotine motion to run its full course. I assume that even they do not believe that we will nod it through without a Division, so they would leave the House 40 minutes to debate the Second Reading, the Committee stage, the Report stage and the Third Reading of the Bill. Even if the guillotine debate could be finished earlier, it is unlikely that we shall have any more than two and a half or three hours to complete all the Bill's stages. One does not have to be a paid-up member of the Conservative party to find that unacceptable.
  Mr. Straw: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Norman Fowler: I shall give way in a moment. The right hon. Gentleman should restrain himself.
  Many hon. Members will regard the Government's proposals as entirely objectionable. One point that is clear about the Bill is that it is highly controversial on both sides of the House. Much of the criticism of the Bill has come from Labour Members. The measures are as disliked by many on the Government Benches as they are by Conservative Members. That is demonstrated this afternoon by the fact that only three Labour Back Benchers are present.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): There are five.
  Sir Norman Fowler: I was not counting the Parliamentary Private Secretaries. If the hon. Gentleman is down to counting them, he really is in difficulty.
  I hope that, on the issue of the guillotine we will, for once, have the support of Liberal Democrat Members. They have taken an extraordinary view throughout the entire debate, and I hope that they will at least have the courage to say that we should be able to debate the Bill for longer than the four hours that the Government have given us.
  The time that has been allocated to the Bill is totally inadequate to do any justice to it. We are once again considering the whole Bill because it has been
  926
  reintroduced. We are considering not only open and closed lists but the abolition, in effect, of European by-elections. We all know why such a proposal might now attract the Labour party. Having been beaten into third place in the by-election in Scotland last Thursday, it may well want to avoid such contests. By-elections, for Europe and Westminster, have been an important part of our political system.
  Mr. Straw: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Norman Fowler: I shall give way in a moment. The right hon. Gentleman need not keep bobbing up and down.
  If the Government think that forcing unpopular legislation through the House without giving us a realistic opportunity to debate it will restore their political fortunes, they are in for a surprise north and south of the border. I shall now give way to the Home Secretary.
  Mr. Straw: Will the right hon. Gentleman name another Bill, including constitutional Bills, of only six clauses which was the subject of more than 34 hours of detailed debate in the House?
  Sir Norman Fowler: There must have been constitutional Bills that were so well debated, but that is not my point. My point—this is the Government's proposition—is that this constitutional Bill has been reintroduced. It is therefore a new Bill and the Government are allowing four hours of debate, including the debate on the guillotine motion. I cannot think of a precedent for that, and if the Home Secretary can think of one, I will gladly, in my generosity, give way to him again.
  Mr. Straw: The simple point is that the Bill has already been the subject of lengthy debate. The four hours allocated to it today must be added to the 34 hours of extraordinarily detailed discussion that have already taken place, and the Bill is exactly the same as it was then.
  Sir Norman Fowler: The right hon. Gentleman's answer is that he cannot think of a precedent, because there is none. The guillotine motion is the most severe since the war and, as far as I can tell from the extent of my research, the most severe that has ever been moved.
  Mr. Shepherd: I do not entirely understand the Home Secretary's point because, although the House has debated the Bill many times, it has done so only on a particular, narrow issue. We want to debate the entire Bill, which is understandable.
  Sir Norman Fowler: That is exactly the point that I was about to make, and I thank my hon. Friend for making it in his usual skilled way.
  The Bill makes a fundamental change in our arrangements for European elections. We are, for example, abandoning the first-past-the-post system. That is a profound mistake, and many people will resent the abolition of the constituency system. They want a Member whom they can call their own and with whom they can take up issues. That will be lost under the Bill.

  927
  It is not merely a case of open and closed lists. That issue has dominated the debate because of the action of the House of Lords, but there are many other issues.
  The Bill raises the issue of the balance between the party and the public, and that is the issue at stake between the two Houses. The Lords rejected not the whole Bill—again, the Home Secretary is wrong—but the closed list system, in which people vote for the party and not the candidate. That stand has been widely applauded, and not only by the Opposition. The Government Benches are not crowded because one Labour Member after another has spoken against closed lists. Let us have no nonsense about closed lists being a manifesto pledge; they are not and never have been.
  Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, as we have rightly endorsed the principle of first past the post, we should gently persuade their Lordships to do the same and return the Bill or at least seek to amend it, including the long title, so that we can debate first past the post rather than the difference between open and closed lists?
  Sir Norman Fowler: On Second Reading, we can debate exactly that point, which is very important. That is why it is false to say that, because we have debated closed and open lists, we have disposed of all the issues in the Bill. We clearly have not.
  For all those reasons, the House needs substantially more time than has been allocated. We should remember that, until the debate had developed, the public did not know about all the issues that were involved and, today, those are better understood. The result is that, even in the past few days, major points have been made, such as the point of conscience. Before some people vote, they want to know the candidates' stance on the major moral issues that we all face. We all know that that is the case, because all hon. Members are elected according to that system, and when we stand for election we must answer questions on our beliefs. One report said:
  "Bishops last night accused Tony Blair of destroying voters' rights to make moral choices on issues such as abortion and the arms trade. They joined ethical campaigners in a fierce assault on plans to adopt a new voting system in Euro-elections next year. In a strongly worded letter to the Prime Minister, they warn that 'closed lists' … will effectively disenfranchise millions of people with strong religious or moral views."
  That argument has developed during debates on the Bill. It is therefore nonsensical to say that opposition to the Bill is confined to the Conservative party and the House of Lords. There is a very wide coalition of opposition to the Bill.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a need to scrutinise a further aspect, concerning the nature of the European Parliament? Unlike the House, it does not have a system in which one party is in power as such, but, if the Government's proposal for the European elections were implemented, the work carried out by individual MEPs might be influenced by whether they were assiduous, and attended and had responsibilities on committees, or whether they chose not to. Obviously, their role in a particular constituency, especially where there was no
  928
  affiliation between the electorate and a specific Member, might mean that some MEPs could spend all their time doing constituency work, building up profiles and so on, while others carried the responsibility of committee work. If that position were mirrored in this House, Members of the party in government could be disadvantaged.
  Sir Norman Fowler: My hon. Friend makes a strong and powerful case. I shall not, if she will forgive me, develop it, because there are such obvious and unsatisfactory time constraints on the debate.
  The Government have unquestionably and undoubtedly lost the argument on the Bill. They have been unable to persuade their own Back Benchers; they have been unable to persuade the press. I was delighted to hear my old newspaper, The Birmingham Post, being set up as an example of the massive press support for the Home Secretary. He said that I used to be chairman of the company; that is true, but he omitted to say that it is now owned by the Daily Mirror. The Government have been unable to persuade the public or the press.
  I say in all seriousness that I believe that it is insulting, not only to the House but to the public, to truncate discussion of the Bill, as is proposed. I hope that, during the debate, we shall not hear from the Government great complaints about the constitution, when they are forcing through a Bill under the severest guillotine measure that any hon. Member can remember. It shows that the Government have lost the argument and the debate. The motion should therefore be rejected.
  6.13 pm
  Mr. Richard Allan: The Liberal Democrats accept the guillotine motion; I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) yet again. The Conservatives' concern for the mortal souls of the Liberal party—as they style us—has been touching throughout the many debates on the Bill, and is greatly appreciated by me and my colleagues.
  We have debated this subject for so many hours that we believe that there are no new arguments to be made—only decisions, which, unfortunately, have been lacking due to the nature of the ping-pong in ermine that we experienced towards the end of the previous Session. We have been asked to back the provision of more time for debate on this subject, so that we can follow the common dictum that the primary tool of opposition is the use of time, but, in my recent time in the House, I have learnt that that dictum often leads to us giving our debate plenty of quantity but little quality. I suspect that we may well again be running into a situation where the Opposition are talking about issues other than the issue on which they have chosen to focus for most of the time, and saying, "These are the issues that we want to debate." In that case, why did they choose to spend so much time on the specific issue of closed and open lists if they are really interested in the other subjects?
  Mr. Sayeed: The Home Secretary described the question of closed lists versus open lists as a detail. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the proposition of closed lists is just a detail?
  Mr. Allan: We are returning to a familiar subject. We have said that we have two primary objectives.

  929
  The first—and key—one is the achievement of proportionality; the second is the extension of voter choice. We believe that the benefits of greater proportionality in the Bill as tabled far exceed any disappointment that we have at not achieving the open lists, and therefore back the Bill as it stands, as the alternative to first past the post. We can make that position clear again in the later stages of consideration of the Bill.
  Mr. Sayeed: Answer the question.
  Mr. Allan: I thought I had said that the issue of greater proportionality is far more significant than the issue of closed or open lists. The voter choice element is secondary to the principal issue of proportionality.
  I have gained a great benefit from these debates. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield and others who have participated for giving me an opportunity to learn about the more arcane elements of parliamentary procedure at a greatly accelerated rate—experience that it often takes hon. Members many years to acquire. My only sadness is that the proposed changes to another place may shortly render that knowledge redundant; I certainly hope so.
  I have discussed this subject with a far wiser head than mine—my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who has great experience of these matters and of parliamentary procedure. We have agreed that, as the Home Secretary outlined, there has been abuse of convention in the debate so far.
  I draw attention to contributions made to the most recent debate on this subject in another place by my noble Friend Lord Russell and by the Conservative Lord Garel-Jones. Both had resisted the change, but, in the final debate, they argued that, in that fifth and final battle, it would be an abuse of convention not to allow the Bill to pass, as the Government had a mandate for it. Both argued that, having made their opposition clear in a perfectly honourable way within the conventions, it now behoved them, if they wanted to stay within the conventions, to allow the Bill to pass. I am disappointed that other Lords on the Conservative Benches were persuaded otherwise, having been given an indication as to their duty. I believe that Lord Garel-Jones and Lord Russell had the entirely correct approach to the conventions.
  We believe that all the key issues that have been mentioned by Conservative Members were debated at length in all the stages that preceded our final charade over the open and closed lists. The suggestion that there was no debate on the principle of proportional representation versus first past the post, or on the size of regions, or on whether we should have regions, is a gross misrepresentation of debates that I sat through in the previous Session, in which all those issues were debated at length.
  We believe that many people outside this place—including many prospective Conservative candidates—are now desperate for us to resolve the issue and pass the Bill. Conservative candidates—including the Conservative, Lord Bethell—have expressed great concern at the tactics employed.
  The Conservative party obviously needs a strategic diary secretary, as at present its opposition is in the wrong place and at the wrong time. It would be appropriate for
  930
  the Bill to proceed with all due speed, as the debate that we need on the subject has been had—as hon. Members present know, however much they argue otherwise.
  6.18 pm
  Miss Melanie Johnson: I believe that this is the sixth time that the subject has been debated in the House. The fifth time that it was debated, on 18 November 1998, there was a massive majority in favour of the Bill.
  The danger—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) wishes to say something, I shall give way to him to allow him to say it.
  Mr. Shepherd: Of course the Bill was not debated six times. It was the Lords amendment that was debated a number of times. That is a narrow point.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Sedentary comments that lead to further interruption of debate are not very helpful in a time-limited situation.
  Miss Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  There is a danger that a Bill about a system to be used for electing MEPs will dominate the main business of the House. The key points have been debated and, as was remarked earlier, 34 hours of debate have taken place. As the Home Secretary commented, three and a half hours on each clause or schedule is a great deal of time. If the Opposition have not advanced their arguments, although they have had ample time in which to do so, many would say that they had wasted their time.
  The vote on the last occasion was Ayes 326 and Noes 133—a clear majority of 193 in favour of the passage of the Bill.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: Does the hon. Lady recall that, at that time, the vote was on the motion to disagree with the Lords in their amendment, and to send to the Lords another amendment in lieu of that amendment? Although I opposed it, the House agreed to a review of the electoral mechanism proposed by the Government, yet the Government have now brought back a Bill that does not include such a review. Will the hon. Lady explain why?
  Miss Johnson: Rather than strengthening the hon. Gentleman's case, the fact that we have gone through much additional scrutiny, which has seemed tortuous to many of us, detracts from it. We are now discussing issues for which precedents exist but, as the Home Secretary observed in his opening remarks, to some extent we are beyond precedent, because we have seen torn apart in front of us fundamental conventions by which the House operates.
  It is important for you as the Opposition to realise that closed lists are not controversial for Labour Members. If you believe something different—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is confusing second and third person. I have nothing to do with the matter.
  Miss Johnson: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Opposition Members are confused if they believe that a

  931
  few speakers from the Government Benches who disagree with the Government represent disagreement by the vast majority of Government Back Benchers.
  Mr. Graham Brady rose—
  Miss Johnson: I will not give way. A majority of 193 is a clear sign. The mark of whether we support the Government is whether we support them in the Division Lobby. Those of us who passed through that Lobby are keen for the measure to go ahead in its present form.
  On 1 July 1986, in the debate on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, to which the Home Secretary referred, the then Leader of the House, Mr. John Biffen, moving the allocation of time motion, said that the Bill had "constitutional importance", as does the present Bill. He said that
  "a significant amount of time"
  had already been provided for the Bill, and that is also true in this case. He remarked that, on its Second Reading, the Bill had a
  "clear majority of 319 votes to 160",
  which is a majority of 159. It is worth noting that, at its last consideration, the Bill received a majority of 193, which is clearly in excess of that.
  In closing the debate, the then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Lynda Chalker commented:
  "The public are not impressed when we sit here night after night raking through the tepid embers of past battles. They want Parliament to get on with the job."—[Official Report, 1 July 1986; Vol. 100, c. 933–974.]
  That is what this motion would do. The debate has been held; the issues have been fully aired. If they have not, it is the Opposition's fault for not doing so. A clear majority support the Bill, and there are plenty of precedents. I support the motion.
  Let us remind ourselves of the precedents. The motion for the allocation of time—or the guillotine, as people happily call it when they want to add to the drama—is mentioned by "Erskine May" as one of the devices that it is important to consider in balancing
  "the claims of business and the rights of debate."
  I accept that that is an important balance. It is our task both to get business done and to enable hon. Members to debate matters properly in the Chamber. There have been several occasions since 1945 when an allocation of time motion has been accepted.
  "Erskine May" goes on to say that such procedures affirm
  "the rights of the majority".
  In the present case, we seek to affirm the rights of the majority in the House who supported the Bill, as well as the rights of the majority of the people, who sent us here on a manifesto which, as the Home Secretary commented, made it clear that we would make such changes. Democracy is the will of the majority when the debate has been had. The debate has taken place, and now is the time to move forward.
  6.25 pm
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: This is the first time in almost 20 years in the House that I have spoken on a guillotine motion. I spent more than 11 of those years on the Government Front Bench, so the opportunities were more limited than the original statistic might suggest. When I stepped down from the Opposition Front Bench in June, had anyone suggested to me that this, my first Back-Bench speech since 1985, would be on a guillotine motion, I would have been deeply sceptical. Nevertheless, that is the speech that I shall make.
  I am sorry that the Home Secretary has left. I hope that the Minister will tell him that I feel moved to speak because of the Home Secretary's insistence that closed lists were some sort of matter of principle that lay at the heart of the Government's thinking on the Bill. For, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary reminded the House, it was my intervention at the Dispatch Box on Second Reading that elicited from the Home Secretary the acknowledgement that he had an open mind on whether there should be a closed list or an open list.
  I shall not quote verbatim, but I believe Hansard records that the tenor of my remarks was that that was a significant statement by the Home Secretary, which I asked him to repeat. I said that we would want to consult with him during that period of open-mindedness. I hope the House will understand why I am singularly unimpressed by those on the Government Front Bench who now try to peddle the line that they were always in favour of the closed list, as a matter of principle.
  May I add, for the Minister to convey to the Home Secretary, that in the House on a number of occasions since the general election I have expressed appreciation to the Home Secretary for his courtesy and for the way in which he has behaved? So I am not—I repeat not—suggesting that the Home Secretary is behaving in a duplicitous way. However, it is right to point out to the House that that newly acquired principle is precisely that—a newly acquired principle to enable the Government to get their legislation.
  I have no problem in principle with the concept of guillotine motions. I have always held in high regard my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who has principled opposition to guillotine motions. He will recall that on a number of occasions during the previous Administration, when he was speaking vehemently against the previous Government introducing guillotine motions, I frequently came into the House to listen to his contribution, even though the Government Whips might have thought him slightly less helpful than they would have wished.
  There is a principled argument against guillotine motions, but I do not hold it. It is right that the Government of the day should get their legislation. We introduced guillotine motions and, in doing so, followed a precedent of the previous Labour Government. I have no problem with the Government introducing a guillotine motion as such this evening, or with the Government invoking the Parliament Act. The Home Secretary, rather unconvincingly, spoke about the conventions of the other place having been torn up in the case of the Bill.
  As my right hon. and hon. Friends have pointed out, the Parliament Act exists precisely because there is always an opportunity for the other House to move beyond revision

  933
  on an issue that may affect the passage of a Bill. As Labour Members have said, if that happens, it is right that the elected Government of the day should have their will. The Parliament Act is there is ensure that that happens. But I hope that the Minister will not persist in the charade—a charade that is hard to defend—that, because the Government of the day have lost a few votes in another place, that can be spun into a great constitutional crisis.
  I remember when—weekly, it seemed to me—Viscount Cranborne reported to the last Government the number of votes that that Government were losing in the House of Lords. Losing votes is not in itself a prelude to a constitutional crisis.
  Mr. George Howarth: The difference is that, on this occasion, the House of Lords has overturned decisions made by the House of Commons. I do not think that a precedent for that was established when the right hon. Gentleman's party was in government.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: There may not be a precedent for this degree of repetition, but there was a recognition of something that still obtains today. It was recognised that the Parliament Act was intended to ensure that the will of this Chamber would ultimately prevail. That is right. It is the Government's view, and it would be the view of the Conservative party whether it was in government or in opposition. None of us questions the fact that, ultimately, the will of the democratically elected Chamber should prevail—and it will prevail in regard to this Bill. That is what the Parliament Act is about.
  I hope that the Minister will forgive a Member of Parliament who has been in the House for quite a long time for not falling prey to the excitement about this great constitutional crisis that Ministers—with, I must say, a conspicuous lack of success—are trying to generate. I must tell the Minister that my feelings about the motion are ambivalent. I believe that depriving my constituents of their historic rights to vote for an individual is an outrage. I will not mince words. I am interested by the number of constituents who, without being prompted, have made clear to me that sense of outrage during the past few weeks. It will not comfort the Minister to learn that the affiliations of those people extend well beyond those of people whom, even in my wildest fantasies, I would expect to vote for me as a parliamentary candidate.
  The Minister will know from my speech on Second Reading—the Bill's first Second Reading, that is—that I am deeply unhappy about the ending of constituencies, as opposed to areas.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That may displease the right hon. Gentleman, but we are debating a timetable motion, and he should not go into matters that will he dealt with on Second Reading in any depth.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: I note your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  My point is that I am outraged by the imposition of a guillotine. Owing to the lack of time for debate, hugely important issues cannot be explored in the detail that they require. I must tell the Minister, however, that although I am outraged by the timetable motion, in a sense I welcome it. It will be apparent even to the most partisan
  934
  Labour supporters outside the House that, when their Government provide for a timetable motion, a Second Reading, a Committee stage, a Report stage and a Third Reading to take place in four hours, it is clear that that Government do not expect the primary legislation that is being debated to be given the scrutiny—from elected Members—that it deserves. I welcome that aspect of the motion, which constitutes the most powerful demonstration to the public of the Government's arrogance.
  The Prime Minister became very frisky the other day. He does not like being called a control freak. I assume that the Minister does not like being called a control freak either.
  Mr. George Howarth: I never have been.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: In that case, the Minister does not understand the collective nature of government. The present Government are made up of control freaks: people who are arrogantly telling the country that, in regard to major legislation, they know better than the combined wisdom of the House of Commons. They will not even give the House of Commons an opportunity to examine this fundamental constitutional Bill. However the Minister wishes to slice it, that conveys an arrogant message to the people, who now understand that it is increasingly the Government's attitude.
  In that sense, I welcome the motion. It is politically hamfisted. The Minister expects the House to look at a constitutional Bill and debate the timetable motion relating to it, all in four hours. That is the message that is being sent to the public. The issue is not the guillotine, or even the timetable. As the Minister will recall, when we debated the Bill in the last Session we discussed the amount of time that it would be appropriate to set aside to examine the issues. The Minister will, I think, be gracious enough to concede that we did not filibuster at any stage. We kept our word, and gave the Bill adequate consideration—and, having done so, we did not berate the Government for tabling it.
  I give way to the Minister.
  Mr. Howarth: I was not asking the right hon. Gentleman to give way, but as he has been kind enough to do so, let me say this. I confirm what he has said, but it rather contradicts the overall point that he is making. The Bill was given detailed consideration when it was dealt with in the House of Commons during the last Session.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: On the contrary. Only a few days ago, the Minister and I went to another place and heard Her Majesty introduce a new Session of Parliament. We heard a list of Bills that would constitute the business of the current Parliament. Although this Bill was not mentioned, it has been introduced, and the House has a right to scrutinise it.
  If the Minister genuinely believed that an element of scrutiny had taken place that ought to be taken into account this time around, it would have been courteous of him—or the Home Secretary—to replicate the discussions in which we engaged during the last Session, in order to secure an arrangement. Ministers did not do that; instead, they sent the country a message conveying the

  935
  Government's arrogance in tabling a motion allowing a total of four hours—including three hours for the guillotine debate—for discussion of every stage of a constitutional Bill.
  Mr. Clive Soley: I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to persist in his charge of arrogance, given that he served in one of the most arrogant Governments in recent history. I should also be interested to learn why the right hon. Gentleman felt perfectly able, in the last Government, to impose a list system on Northern Ireland.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: As the hon. Gentleman—better, perhaps, than most Members of Parliament—will recall, the legislation to which he refers was intended to enable parties—not individuals—to become involved in discussion, with a view to building on the foundations that we had laid for the Good Friday agreement. The nature of the passage of that legislation was different from the passage of this Bill. The hon. Gentleman, with his detailed knowledge of Northern Ireland, knows that and I hope that he is encouraged that I know it, and remember it, as well.
  I give my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) a message. We have four hours, of which more than an hour has been used. I hope that Opposition Front Benchers will not play the Government's arrogant game and that, when the guillotine motion takes effect and we move to Second Reading, my right hon. and hon. Friends will give the Bill the detailed consideration that it deserves, as is appropriate to a Second Reading debate.
  If that gets us to the end of four hours before the debate on Second Reading is completed, so be it. The message that will be sent to the country is that the Government are arrogant. The fact that we could not complete the debate on Second Reading, even though there was no hint of filibustering, would add weight to that charge of arrogance. This is a despicable motion, and I hope that the House rejects it.
  6.41 pm
  Mr. David Curry: If I set off now, I could reach neither Skipton nor Ripon in four hours. If I had set off when the debate began, I could not have been in my constituency meeting people by the time that we had completed the entire consideration of a major constitutional Bill. That shows the extent of the discussion that we shall have.
  The Home Secretary has only himself to blame for his situation. He began by treating the measure with the utmost flippancy, and he has ended by treating it as constitutional outrage. There has been no intermediate stage between the two—it is quite a transition. He began by reminding us that he was quite open to the idea of an open list, which is why we are so concerned, but it fell foul of the Belgian consideration. The House fell apart, having realised that because the Belgians use it, it is, almost by definition, something that cannot not be pursued. I am afraid that that is rather typical of some attitudes.
  I have three concerns, and they are all to do with time. First, we need time to discuss three things that matter. Unlike some hon. Members, I believe that we need a
  936
  European Parliament that enjoys legitimacy. It has a major role to play—a role that neither this House nor any national Parliament can play. As legislation in the European Union develops and becomes more complex, it has to be subject to scrutiny. We in this House try to play our role and try to play a complementary role to the European Parliament, as we should, but it will not do to bundle into this world—through a sort of Caesarean section imposed by a guillotine motion—Members of the European Parliament who do not have the legitimacy to do their job properly.
  That is not the right way to deal with constitutional legislation. I have been in the job, and it is difficult enough to discharge one's responsibilities in the European Parliament without feeling that the whole thing has been pushed into a slightly contemnible existence.
  This is happening against a background of the ethnic cleansing that has taken place in the Labour party, in respect of the purging of its lists. Selection in my party has not exactly been in disarray, but there have been one or two minor disagreements. No doubt selection in the Liberal party—using whatever jargon it needed to make sure that selection was man-woman-man-woman and perfectly matched to the latest social trends—went extremely well.
  All of us would have a certain amount of fun and games if we had to go back to the first-past-the-post system, but the key is that we must have legitimacy for the Parliament. We need to discuss the fact that the Bill will impose institutional anonymity for MEPs, and impose it by guillotine.
  The second reason why we need more time is because we have to reflect on the legitimacy of this House. It is a curious and slightly perverse coincidence that, only a week or so ago, we were discussing how to improve our scrutiny of European legislation, and the fact that we were not doing the job adequately and needed to do it better. Practically simultaneously, the guillotine motion has shown what we really feel about the scrutiny of European legislation—it is a secondary issue.
  It is crucial that we be consistent with ourselves. I believe in scrutiny, by this House and by the European Parliament. We need equivalent legitimacy to do that job in the name of all our constituents.
  Mr. Ian Stewart: The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) said that the measure had been adequately scrutinised. Does the right hon. Gentleman disagree with him?
  Mr. Curry: Of course I disagree, for two reasons. First, the scrutiny was of the extremely narrow amendments that came back from the other place. Secondly, we are in a new Session. As far as I am aware, the constitutional rule of this House is that each Session is sufficient unto itself. I understand that only private Bills can roll across Sessions; we have not yet changed our rules.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that nothing about the imposition of the Parliament Acts requires a Bill to be guillotined in such a way when it comes back for consideration in a second Session?
  Mr. Curry: My right hon. Friend, who has been a Member of the House for twice as long as me, is absolutely right. I am grateful for his remark.

  937
  The third reason why we need more time is that the Bill diminishes democracy in one obvious way—there will be no by-elections. We all know what a check by-elections are on Governments. Moods and circumstances change, and by-elections are massively inconvenient. We might wish that they did not happen.
  The one crime that is even worse than openly dissenting from one's party is dying while a Member of this House, which is massively inconvenient for the Whips. I go to the gym so that I can be difficult by the former method rather than the latter, but by-elections are a useful check and their absence will lessen democracy.
  A list system also lends itself to abuse. We used to have the list for the European Parliament, which is why the issue of time needs to be developed—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When we debate Second Reading, the right hon. Gentleman can put all those arguments. At the moment, we must talk about the narrow subject of the guillotine motion.
  Mr. Curry: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall merely offer an aperitif, in that we must be allowed time to consider how the measure could be disfigured. Continental politicians or the leaders of the party—
  Mr. Soley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that the leader of the Conservative party in the House of Lords has resigned. Could we have a statement from the Opposition about whether Conservative Front Benchers in the Commons are speaking for the Conservative party in the House of Lords any more, or are there two Conservative parties—one in the Lords and one here? Either way, it would assist the debate if we knew who is speaking for them.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Only the Government have powers to make statements in the House.
  Mr. Curry: Many accusations may be laid against me, but speaking for the Conservative Front Bench is not currently one of them. Therefore, I can continue.
  The abuse of the system that can take place is that party leaders—significant political figures overseas—may lead the list and be Members of the European Parliament for 10 minutes before resigning. Did people vote to have Mr. Chirac, Mr. Giscard d'Estaing or Mr. Jospin resign after 10 minutes? Are we to lend ourselves to that manipulation of the lists, where people are merely spectators and are exploited? That is why time—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Only the right hon. Gentleman's last comment was relevant to the motion. He cannot put arguments about closed and open lists at this stage.
  Mr. Curry: A talent in politics is to have the intuition to realise when an argument has been taken as far as circumstances permit. I shall therefore conclude.
  The Government should have their business, but they should work for it. They should have the Bill, in the end, because that is democracy—but they should work for it. This serious constitutional measure breaks with tradition in our politics. It changes how we have naturally thought
  938
  about the way in which our politics operate and the chemistry of the democracy that we defend. That is why we should give the Bill detailed scrutiny. The Government's imposition of this guillotine is an abuse of the spirit of the way in which things are done in this country.
  6.50 pm
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: There is an element of deja vu about these debates. What goes around, comes around. It is cheering to see Conservative Members solidly opposing the guillotine with such fire, and the extraordinary spectacle of the Home Secretary defending what I genuinely believe to be the worst written guillotine motion that has ever been put before the House.
  To support his contention that this motion is desperately necessary, the Home Secretary invoked the words of Lord Biffen, when he was Leader of the House of Commons, during the passage of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1986. I voted against the guillotine motion on that legislation, and I seem to remember that the Home Secretary also did so. The Home Secretary referred to it not because of his voting record, but because it was a constitutional measure. He wanted to show that this business motion is in tune with many previous business motions.
  Many parents tell their children that, if something that was done before was wrong, doing it again does not make it right. That is an evident truth. However, the basis of the Government's argument is that the Conservative Government were wrong to impose that guillotine motion, but now that they are doing it on a constitutional issue it is right to do so. That is nonsense.
  The difference between the European Parliamentary Elections Bill and the European Communities (Amendment) Bill of 1986 is important. This motion imposes a guillotine before we have had Second Reading and before we have had a stumble in Committee. It is not being imposed because the Report stage is manifestly being delayed wrongly. It is being imposed before we have even come to debate the issues in the Bill. That did not happen under what I believe was a profoundly wrong guillotine on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, and that is the difference.
  When has there been a similar guillotine motion?
  Mr. Allan: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman with great care, because he is, by repute, good on such matters. I can point to another difference. The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) announced before the Bill came to the House that he would show zero tolerance towards it and would do all that he could to obstruct it. How could we have had agreement on a sensible timetable given the Leader of the Opposition's comments?
  Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman refers to a "sensible timetable", and that is the point. I am addressing the timetable motion before us—I hope within the terms of the Standing Orders. My proposition is that it is not a sensible timetable. As it is the only timetable I can refer to, the hon. Gentleman will understand why there is no way I can row in his boat.
  What were comparable motions? I regret that the Home Secretary is following in the footsteps of my noble Friend, Lord Baker. The great precedent is that sterling piece of

  939
  legislation, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989, which was guillotined before Second Reading. That was an outrage. Under the terms of that motion, six hours were allowed for Second Reading, which included—as this motion does—the guillotine. The Committee of the whole House lasted for five hours and Report and Third Reading took one hour, so 12 hours were allowed to debate the Bill's contentions.
  That Bill also had something that this Bill does not have; I regret to say that it had the support of all parties in the House. Lord Baker put to us an imperative, sent to him by those two trusty, Labour-supporting papers, The Sun and the Daily Mirror, which assured him that the nation was at risk of being consumed by dangerous dogs. As I recall through the mists of time, he wanted action this day on all stages, because he had identified that the summer was when bitches were in heat, and that a new breed would assault us before Christmas.
  The Government have grasped the worst possible way of constructing a guillotine. I accept that the House does not necessarily share my reservations about guillotines. The Home Secretary has allowed three hours for debate on the guillotine motion and a vote. The Government are prepared to countenance the possibility that the debate on the guillotine and the vote will reduce the time allocated for Second Reading, Committee of the whole House, Report—we know that that will not be allowed—and Third Reading to 40 minutes. The Home Secretary's opening speech took half an hour. He was generous in giving way, which is proper because these are sensitive and difficult matters, but that was at the expense of the debate and vote. That is why this is a vile and outrageous motion. The Government are seriously contemplating taking all the stages of this Bill in the short time of 40 minutes.
  Assuming that we get through Second Reading, we would then consider the reasonable amendments that have been tabled, such as those dealing with by-elections. That matter is relevant and concerns many people. We may want to divide on such an amendment. The Home Secretary has barely stood up; we will have a vote; the business will be over and the Bill shipped to the Lords. That cannot be right. We are adults.
  We represent people, and we understand the processes. I understand the fight between the Opposition and the Government, because those matters touch on the electoral process, on the people whom we represent and on why we are chosen to represent people. The Government are prepared to condense the debate into 40 minutes at the most. That is the proposition on the Order Paper. They may have hoped that the debate on the guillotine would be over in a minute or two, so that we would have had four hours for the rest of the proceedings. We should reflect on that. We would have had four hours to debate a Bill affecting our parliamentary electoral system and the nature of representative democracy in comparison with 12 hours devoted to the Dangerous Dogs Bill.
  That legislation never did the Conservative Government much good. Some hon. Members may remember the long line of people who came to tell us that their favoured and loved mutt was not what other people claimed it was. The new law bedevilled the courts. I do not think that Lord Baker of Dorking would include in his
  940
  learned range of interests on his curriculum vitae the fact that he introduced the guillotine on the Dangerous Dogs Bill.
  I do not want to think of the Home Secretary in that context, but he has introduced the Dangerous Dogs European Elections Bill, and it does not do him justice. This process has become almost farcical, and it denigrates the Chamber. I am seeking to get just some glimmer of sympathy from Labour Members. We know that there is no problem on the Bill. The 1911 Act is being invoked, which is in accordance with the constitution. That is the Government's position.
  The previous Government acted in a similar manner with the War Crimes Bill and that did not create great excitement. This Government have insisted on playing ping-pong with the House of Lords. After the second time the Bill returned they could have announced their intention to invoke the 1911 Act and the Bill would have proceeded on a proper course, in accordance with both our written constitution and the conventions of that constitution, but this is a play. [Interruption.] I am sorry, I do not understand. If the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall), the Labour Whip, wants to interrupt, I am prepared to sit down and listen to him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on.'"] There is no point in making that comment. We have a Deputy Speaker who keeps good order. Even during the worst days, when I was in fear of my life from my side, the Whips showed some form of courtesy in the discussion across the Floor of the House. I point out to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there is a role here for you.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is definitely a role for the Deputy Speaker. I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to be quiet, but particularly the Whips.
  Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  This is part of a bigger game, a bigger play, to which we mere Back Benchers are not party. The Government's actions are an attempt to grab public opinion. Remember that part of the role of an Opposition is to try to cause delay; Oppositions have done it in the past. That is understandable because, ultimately, we will all stand in front of the electorate and be judged on the way in which we conduct ourselves. Unfortunately, many of my former colleagues have already been judged. That, in turn, will be the fate of this Government, so we should be more mindful about the processes in which we take part because they protect all the interests of all the people here.
  It was only the Government who brought the Bill back, not the Opposition. The Government are invoking the 1911 Act. Given that the Bill had been rejected twice in the Lords, it would have been right to invoke that Act then, but we went through the farce five times, backwards and forwards, trying to see down their lordships. Now we are going to go through it again with the nonsense of trying to assert that there is a constitutional blockage. There is none and the Home Secretary knows it. That is why we have this outrageous, truly humiliating guillotine. It cannot be a serious guillotine.
  Like most of the people of this country, I trust the Government. By and large, we want our Governments to succeed. We do not want them to fail, but to see such contempt for constitutional propriety is extraordinary.
  Mr. George Howarth: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in the previous Session—I accept that this is a new Session—the Bill, which is six clauses long, was debated for 34 hours and that the identical Bill has come back again? Does he not think that that should have some bearing on the way in which we deliberate on the matter?
  Mr. Shepherd: I have weighed that up, but the point is that the Bill came back for debate on the narrow focus of Lords amendments. I never spoke during the entire consideration of the Bill. There was only one major discussion of it—Second Reading—and because of time constraints, I did not get called. That is not unusual, but what came back from the House of Lords were the narrow Lords amendments. That is what we have been discussing five times.
  Now the Bill has been re-presented in a new Session of Parliament in its entirety but, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), there is an omission from the amended form—the Government's only amended form: the review mechanism after the elections. That is now omitted, for reasons that we understand. The Government may wish to include it again, but they cannot because they are trapped by the 1911 Act. We understand that, but it is not us who have made the fuss. It is the Government.
  I understand why the Government may want to obscure the issues behind this matter with their intentions on the House of Lords, but they have their mandate on that. They will get what they want on the House of Lords; no one doubts that either. Our question on that has always been where is the check and balance, and what will be the second stage of that reform? That is a perfectly reasonable question to pose in political debate.
  As I said at the start, in the middle and towards the end of my speech, this is a thoroughly bad guillotine. If we do stand for something, and we are all judged, as I tried to show, as individual Members of Parliament, we should have a word to say about the proper processes of this House. Leastways, let us have amendments and properly discuss the matter.
  The amendments that were mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) are worthy of discussion. I hope that the House has respect for that and that the Government reflect that this is nonsense. Even at this late stage, they can move to make the process more acceptable to all hon. Members.
  7.6 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: Although I have missed some of the debate, for which I apologise, I have heard more than enough to convince me that there is a case to speak on the guillotine motion, which is causing so much distress among Conservative Members. I will refer to the comments of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) in a moment. I know his views on this very well; I have some sympathy for the general thrust of his argument, although not on this issue.
  If anything, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should stand condemned for doing too much to help the
  942
  Conservative party by getting the Bill through as fast as possible. If the Leader of the Conservative party in the House of Lords has resigned because he is trying to do a deal to try to cope with the problems that the party in here has caused him—
  Miss Melanie Johnson: He was sacked.
  Mr. Soley: Sorry, he was sacked; that is right. I am never sure whether they use a guillotine in the House of Lords, but, if he has been sacked, fair enough. What we knew full well is that the leader of the Conservative party in the House of Lords was saying one thing, and the leader of the Conservative party in here was saying something entirely different. I would have thought that the guillotine would do them a favour by getting the Bill through as fast as possible and out of the way, with the least possible embarrassment.
  Let us consider the Back Benchers' role, which is what genuinely concerns the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills. As we all know, this is a battle between the Lords and the Commons. It involves the rights of this elected Chamber on a certain issue, which the Conservative party in the House of Lords, using its in-built majority, has sought to push back here time and again. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), was accurate in his intervention. This Bill has already been debated in the previous Session.
  I think that one Conservative Member referred to that debate being in the previous Parliament. If that had been the case, Conservative Members would be right about providing adequate time for debate because Parliament would be full of new Members—or there would be many new Members. The previous Session, however, was attended by the same people as are present during this one; they had the same debate on the same issues for more than 30 hours. People outside do not understand it when hon. Members spend 30-odd hours on a fairly narrow issue: in this case, proportional representation.
  There are many different forms of proportional representation throughout the world—closed lists, open lists and others—all of which have their advantages and disadvantages. They are all relevant. None is totally bad, any more than the first-past-the-post system is totally bad. They all have merits and problems, but the point is that to debate that matter over and again is nonsense and we know it.
  There is one problem for Back Benchers; the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills is an example of it par excellence. I know that he has frequently been in a minority of one in his party and I respect him for that. The problem for Back Benchers is that they want to use time to challenge the Government. I have had this debate with the hon. Gentleman before, but tonight I extend it to his party, to which I offer some advice. It has had about 18 months in opposition. I had 18 years of it and much of that time was spent trying to prove that time was the best weapon that I had against a Government with a big majority. As the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) knows full well, it very rarely worked. As for my contributions on the issue of time, even when I was making the best case possible, it was the painful elaboration of the obvious. I would

  943
  repeat it time and time again in the hope that one day the Government would say, "My God he's right. Why don't we do what he says? It is so sensible." Of course, it does not work like that. Sometimes one can get a Government to change but very rarely by the exercise of time, unless they are up against the end of the Parliament or Session.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman's expositions were always excellent, they just were not persuasive.
  Mr. Soley: The right hon. Gentleman is kind but if they were excellent, I should have had some credit for it. Even one or two amendments would have been appreciated.
  As the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills knows, I sympathise with his frustration about the declining power—not role, but power—of Back Benchers. He is right that there is a problem, but as I have told him elsewhere, the issue is about timetabling. As I have said before, having learned the painful lesson over 18 years, there is a real advantage for Back Benchers in good timetabling. That needs to be agreed between parties. The problem in this case is that we cannot have a normal timetabling programme because of how the matter was handled in the previous Session and because it is part of a much bigger battle between the House of Lords and House of Commons. We need to get the Bill through, and without any more messing about.
  Given all the debate in the previous Session, and as we know full well what the issue is, and as the issue has already caused enormous problems in the Tory party, the Opposition should be trying to get the Bill through. I was in Brussels the other week at the European Commission. Conservative Members of the European Parliament were saying, "For God's sake, don't give us first past the post at the European elections." One reason is that many more of them would lose their seats. The other reason that they are worried about what is happening here is that they fear that the Conservative party is trying to marginalise those of its members who are sympathetic to Europe, such as the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). He referred to institutionalised anonymity. For a terrible moment, I thought that he was referring to the Leader of the Opposition.
  The problem for the Conservative party with its MEPs is real because they do not want first past the post. They would like this Bill to go through and to have a list system precisely because they know that in large constituencies where Members are not known, it is better—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Some hon. Members have been given some leeway, so I have given the hon. Gentleman some. However that leeway must finish because we must get on.
  Mr. Soley: I had anticipated your intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, though not quickly enough. I simply note that Conservative MEPs would like the guillotine to work to get them off the hook.
  The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills has a genuine point about the power of Back Benchers. As I have told him often before, constantly talking at Governments does not work. I have 18 years of intensive
  944
  experience to prove it. What works is good timetabling of Bills, giving plenty of allowance to the Opposition, taking evidence about Bills and all the other things that we have discussed on the Modernisation Committee, on which we both serve. They also make more sense to people outside.
  We have had more than 30 hours of debate on the issue. The fact that this is a new Session does not mean that those words were wasted or that those who spoke had nothing to say but that we have had that debate and need to move on. I end as I began: we need to move on, if nothing else for the sake of the Conservative party and its various parts in the House of Lords.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: I have sat through many of the 34 hours of debate, so hon. Members will not accuse me of coming new to the issue. Three myths are being propagated about this guillotine motion. The first was perpetuated by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley). It is the idea that this is all about a debate between this House and the upper House. It is not; it is a debate on a guillotine motion strictly confined to the question of how much time should be allowed for debate of this Bill in this House before we send it back to another place. It is then for another place to determine how to deal with it in the light of the events of the previous Session.
  The second myth is that the Bill had all the attention that it needs during previous debates. Let me instance two respects in which that is not true. Firstly, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) rightly pointed out that on Second Reading on 25 November 1997, the Home Secretary left his mind open on open and closed lists. Interestingly, it was on 9 March, before Report and Third Reading, that he told the House that he opposed open lists and favoured closed lists; the Committee had concluded its deliberations on 5 March. The Home Secretary came back to the House when only one day's debate was left for open and closed lists.
  Although the Committee was able to examine the Bill, it was not examined on the basis of the Home Secretary's final decision on open and closed lists or of his explanation for the decision. Although lists were debated several times in this House, much of the debate was on whether we agreed or disagreed with the Lords in their amendments, not on whether this House wanted to substitute a different form of open list from that chosen in another place.
  Mr. Allan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lansley: I shall in a moment because the hon. Gentleman understands my point perfectly well. In Committee, the Liberal Democrats proposed a Belgian list system, which the Home Secretary wished to consider. That was not the system sent back to this House by their lordships, which was a perfectly viable alternative open-list system that was not then debated at length in this House.
  Mr. Allan: The hon. Gentleman noted our amendment but there was a Committee in the other place in June in which the issue was debated at length. A vote on open

  945
  lists was taken and lost. At that point, many sensible hon. Members realised that the decision had been taken and the argument lost.
  Mr. Lansley: That is a weak argument with a weak defence. The Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition on the matter has moved to the defence that we do not need to debate it in this House because there was a debate in another place. That will not do. The debate on open lists has still not taken place to a satisfactory extent in this House for the simple reason that we have not had an opportunity to move a series of different amendments. Because of the way in which the debate on the amendments moved by the Lords took place, questions such as those that I raised about the form—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The only hon. Member who has kept to the guillotine motion was the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). Every other hon. Member has gone on to matters that could easily be brought up on Second Reading. I ask the hon. Gentleman to take a leaf out of the book of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills.
  Mr. Lansley: My purpose is straightforward and I shall be as brief as I can. I want to show that there are valid reasons for allowing greater time for this debate because these matters have not yet been satisfactory debated in this House. I shall not dwell on open and closed lists because I have shown by reference to the timetable so far that debate has not taken place in this House in the open-ended form in which it should have.
  The third myth—the Government's third false statement—was the Home Secretary's assertion that we are dealing now with exactly the same Bill. Earlier in the debate, I made the point, which was developed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), that we are not dealing with the Bill that was sent back to the other place with an amendment on reviewing the electoral system. Although I realise that Ministers will say that we are not dealing with that Bill because of the requirements of the Parliament Act 1911, it begs the question—if the Government persist in their intention of using closed lists—in what form should the Bill be sent back to the other place? Should it be sent back specifying closed lists and no review, or with a review? What intentions do the Government have to amend the Bill further in the other place?
  I hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on Second Reading to elaborate on the point that we are not dealing with exactly the same Bill that we debated for all those hours in the previous Session. Not only have recent events, for example, the European parliamentary by-election in Scotland, suggested a valid need for amendments on by-elections—and we have not debated such amendments—but attached to the Bill is an explanatory memorandum differing from that which applied to the Bill that the House considered in the previous Session.
  The Minister will know that, with the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998, Ministers must now make a statement in a Bill's explanatory memorandum on its compatibility with the European convention on human rights. The Home Secretary made such a statement of compatibility on 26 November—therefore, after the point at which the House could have debated the previous Bill.
  946
  The point—which we shall debate subsequently, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I am merely trying to demonstrate that there is a point of real substance—is that article 3 of the first protocol of the European convention on human rights, which was brought into force by the Human Rights Act 1998, states:
  "The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot,"—
  so far so good
  "under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature."
  It is entirely debatable whether the Bill is compatible with that convention provision, and whether voters will be able to express an opinion on issues such as the moral stance taken by a party's candidates on issues of conscience or to express freely their opinions on the choice of candidate presented by a party. It is far from demonstrable that the Home Secretary is right on the matter.
  After passage of the Human Rights Act 1998, the important issue for the House to decide is whether it is right for us to pass this legislation in the form in which the Government are proposing it. If I catch your eye on Second Reading, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope to elaborate on that argument.
  In only a few moments, I have demonstrated that—in addition to the amendments that my hon. Friends have tabled, which should be debated, but for which the Government have allowed inadequate time—a range of issues should be addressed.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 347, Noes 124.

  Division No. 5]

  [7.23 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Breed, Colin

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Alexander, Douglas

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Allan, Richard

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Allen, Graham

  Browne, Desmond

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Burden, Richard

  Ashton, Joe

  Burgon, Colin

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Burstow, Paul

  Austin, John

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Baker, Norman

  Caborn, Richard

  Ballard, Jackie

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Banks, Tony

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Barnes, Harry

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Barron, Kevin

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Battle, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Bayley, Hugh

  Caplin, Ivor

  Beard, Nigel

  Casale, Roger

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Caton, Martin

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Cawsey, Ian

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Berry, Roger

  Chaytor, David

  Best, Harold

  Chidgey, David

  Betts, Clive

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Blackman, Liz

  Church, Ms Judith

  Blizzard, Bob

  Clapham, Michael

  Borrow, David

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Brake, Tom

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  947

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Clelland, David

  Harvey, Nick

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Cohen, Harry

  Healey, John

  Coleman, Iain

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome

  Connarfy, Michael

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cooper, Yvette

  Heppell, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Hesford, Stephen

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hill, Keith

  Cotter, Brian

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Crausby, David

  Home Robertson, John

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hope, Phil

  Cummings, John

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretfoid)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Hurst, Alan

  Davidson, Ian

  Hutton, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Illsley, Eric

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead

  Denham, John

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Dobbin, Jim

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Drew, David

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Edwards, Huw

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Efford, Clive

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Fatchett, Derek

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Feam, Ronnie

  Keetch, Paul

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Kemp, Fraser

  Fisher, Mark

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Flint, Caroline

  Kidney, David

  Follett, Barbara

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Galloway, George

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Gardiner, Barry

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Laxton, Bob

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Lepper, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Linton, Martin

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Livingstone, Ken

  Godsiff, Roger

  Livsey, Richard

  Goggins, Paul

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Love, Andrew

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McAllion, John

  Gorrie, Donald

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Graham, Thomas

  McCabe, Steve

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Grocott, Bruce

  McDonnell, John

  Grogan, John

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gunnell, John

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hain, Peter

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McNulty, Tony

  Hanson, David

  McWalter, Tony

  948

  McWilliam, John

  Sawford, Phil

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mallaber, Judy

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Maxton, John

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Michael, Alun

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

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Snape, Peter

  Milburn, Alan

  Soley, Clive

  Miller, Andrew

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Moffatt, Laura

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Moore, Michael

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Morley, Elliot

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Mullin, Chris

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Norris, Dan

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Oaten, Mark

  Swinney, John

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  O'Hara, Eddie

  (Dewsbury)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Pearson, Ian

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pendry, Tom

  Tipping, Paddy

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Todd, Mark

  Pickthall, Colin

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Pike, Peter L

  Touhig, Don

  Plaskitt, James

  Trickett, Jon

  Pollard, Kerry

  Trusweli, Paul

  Pond, Chris

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pope, Greg

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Pound, Stephen

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Tyler, Paul

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wallace, James

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Purchase, Ken

  Wareing, Robert N

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Watts, David

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Webb, Steve

  Radice, Giles

  White, Brian

  Rammell, Bill

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Rendel, David

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Robertson, Rt Hon George

  Willis, Phil

  (Hamilton S)

  Winnick, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wood, Mike

  Rooker, Jeff

  Woolas, Phil

  Rooney, Terry

  Worthington, Tony

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Roy, Frank

  Wyatt, Derek

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sanders, Adrian

  Mr. Kevin Hughes and Mr. David Jamieson.

  Savidge, Malcolm

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Beggs, Roy

  Amess, David

  Bercow, John

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Blunt, Crispin

  Baldry, Tony

  Boswell, Tim

  949

  Brady, Graham

  Loughton, Tim

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Luff, Peter

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Burns, Simon

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Butterfill, John

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Cash, William

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Chope, Christopher

  Madel, Sir David

  Clappison, James

  Malins, Humfrey

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  (Rushcliffe)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Moss, Malcolm

  Collins, Tim

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Cornmack, Sir Patrick

  Norman, Archie

  Cran, James

  Page, Richard

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Paice, James

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Paterson, Owen

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Pickles, Eric

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Prior, David

  Duncan, Alan

  Randall, John

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Evans, Nigel

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Faber, David

  Ruffley, David

  Fallon, Michael

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Fraser, Christopher

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gale, Roger

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Garnier, Edward

  Soames, Nicholas

  Gibb, Nick

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Gray, James

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Green, Damian

  Spring, Richard

  Greenway, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Streeter, Gary

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Syms, Robert

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Hammond, Philip

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Hayes, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Heald, Oliver

  Tredinnick, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Trend, Michael

  Horam, John

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Viggers, Peter

  Hunter, Andrew

  Walter, Robert

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Wardle, Charles

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Johnson Smith,

  Whittingdale, John

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Willetts, David

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Woodward, Shaun

  Lansley, Andrew

  Yeo, Tim

  Leigh, Edward

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Letwin, Oliver

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Lidington, David

  Mr. Nigel Waterson and Mr. Stephen Day.

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the following provisions shall apply to proceedings on the European Parliamentary Elections Bill:

  Timetable
  1. Proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed at the sitting this day and shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded. four hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

  Questions to be put
  2. When the Bill has been read a second time—

  (a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put,

  (b) proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed while the Question is put, in accordance with Standing Order No. 52(1) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills), on any financial resolution relating to the Bill,

  (c) on the conclusion of proceedings on any financial resolution relating to the Bill, proceedings on the Bill shall be resumed and the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an instruction has been given.

  3. On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if he reports the Bill with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
  4. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Speaker or Chairman shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

  (c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

  (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

  5. On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

  Miscellaneous
  6. Standing Order 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill at the sitting this day; and the proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  7. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after commencement; and the Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.
  8. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to proceedings on the Bill.
  9. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken.
  10. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to the Bill except by a Minister of the Crown.
  11. If at the sitting this day a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over to seven o'clock and proceedings on this Motion have begun before that time, the Motion for the Adjournment shall stand over until the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill.
  12. If the House is adjourned at the sitting this day, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill, no notice shall be required, of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
  Mr. John Gummer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Today I have received a written answer from the Secretary of State for Health, who says that he will announce his decision on the closure of a hospital in my constituency "shortly". It turns out that he announced it today and has embargoed the announcement so that he can be photographed in the local newspaper tomorrow with the neighbouring Labour Member of Parliament, who does not have the hospital in his constituency. That seems to me to be an abuse of the House. The decision should have been announced to me

  951
  as the local Member of Parliament. The Secretary of State refused to see me, the person in whose constituency the hospital is, but saw the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann), who happens to be a member of his party. In 16 years as a Minister, I never did anything of that sort to a member of the Opposition.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I am sorry about the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties, but that is not a matter for me. The right hon. Gentleman has been in the House for a long time; he will know how to proceed.

Orders of the Day

  European Parliamentary Elections Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.39 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  When I moved the guillotine motion earlier, I said that there was little new to be said about the Bill. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) more eloquently put it, the time for debate is over and the time has come to make a decision. That is the truth of the matter. I have here copies of the Official Report of the debates in the other place and this House on this short—albeit important—Bill. The debates fill many columns. Indeed, we have debated the matter on six or more occasions. We had not only a full day on Second Reading, as we should have done, but three days in Committee on the Floor of the House and a further day on Report and Third Reading.
  We were committed at the general election to introducing a proportional system for elections to the European Parliament. So, too, as I said in the debate on the guillotine motion, were the Liberal Democrats. Like everything else in our manifesto and in those parts of the Liberal Democrat manifesto that were coincidental, that proposal received a substantial vote of approval by the British people.
  No electoral system is perfect. That was all that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said when, as Leader of the Opposition, he commented on the introduction by the Conservative party of closed lists to the Northern Ireland forum in 1996—I have to remind Conservative Members of their two-faced position on closed lists. The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) may sigh, as though I should not mention it—
  Sir Norman Fowler: It is tedious.
  Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman, unable to think of anything else to say, claims that it is tedious. The moment the Conservatives admit that it was they who first introduced closed lists for an electoral system in the United Kingdom, we can have consensus on the issue and they can recognise the extraordinary position into which they have manoeuvred themselves.
  One can understand why the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) was slightly twitchy during the debate on the guillotine motion. As he was speaking, he was no doubt wishing that he had been present at the emergency meeting of the shadow Cabinet that was called to consider a further consequence of the Opposition's extraordinary tactics in seeking to abuse the Salisbury principles and to override the will of the House of Commons. Talk about pushing one's luck too far. The Conservatives have completely overreached themselves—the whole tactic has blown up in their faces.
  As I said, no electoral system is perfect, so one has to balance advantages. For reasons that I shall explain, we believe that the closed-list system best balances the advantages for the European Parliament.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the Home Secretary recall that, in debating the measure in the

  953
  previous Session, the leader of the Conservative party and his Front-Bench colleagues regaled us with a great deal of information about the supreme wisdom and judgment of Conservative hereditary peers and, indeed, all Conservative members of the other House? Will he comment on the judgment that they have shown today?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The Home Secretary may want to do that, but not here. Perhaps he will do so outside the Chamber.
  Mr. Straw: I shall certainly not abuse your authority, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I have known you too long even to try. Before you pull me up, however, I shall say that lawyers know of the doctrine of estoppel. Given what has happened, the argument that those in the other place have shown great wisdom does not entirely lie in the mouths of Conservative Front Benchers.
  The European Parliament is different from the Westminster Parliament. The Westminster Parliament exists primarily to sustain a Government and—an honourable function for most of the time—Her Majesty's loyal Opposition. The European Parliament is not an executive body—the Executive is not drawn from it—but primarily a representative body. We believe that it is entirely reasonable that the representatives in the European Parliament—who are, in any case, only one of 15 groups of representatives drawn from all the European Union member states—should be broadly representative of the people of Great Britain. That is better achieved by a system of proportional representation.
  As I said on Second Reading on 25 November, and despite the reasonably well-known fact that I see some advantage in first past the post for Westminster, the small number of Members of the European Parliament to which we are entitled—less than 100—and the huge constituencies that we have had to create have meant that that system has failed to achieve a representative result.
  I do not think that anyone can seriously argue that the huge constituencies have operated in such a way as to create the connection between the electorate and the elected Member that genuinely is a feature of the system for elections to Westminster. I pay tribute to the work of Members of the European Parliament of all parties, but they themselves say that, given the size of their constituencies and the fact that they have to spend so much time in Brussels and Strasbourg, their ability to make that connection is limited.
  The issue that has caused the greatest argument across the Chamber—it is why we are debating the Bill this evening—is the form of the list system. I am glad that, in the dialectical process, we at least achieved unanimity on using in the counting system the divisors invented by our old and now famous friend Victor d'Hondt rather than those invented by Sainte-Lague or even those in the modified version of Sainte-Lague.
  For those who, like me, take a real interest in these issues, I add that in America—where there have been great debates about proportional representation systems, even though such systems are not often used there—the d'Hondt and the Sainte-Lague systems have different
  954
  names. One is called Webster, although I cannot remember which one, and I forget the other name. For those who are interested—
  Mr. Martin Linton: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Straw: One second. I always try to ensure in these debates that more information is imparted. Cambridge, Massachusetts, has a system of proportional representation, whereas Louisiana, reflecting its French heritage, has a majoritarian system similar to the one that operates in France.
  Mr. Linton: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. Before he is given the golden anorak award for being the greatest expert on counting systems, will he accept that the correct name for the d'Hondt system is the highest-average system and the correct name for the Sainte-Lague system is the rounding-up system? The habit of naming such systems after their inventors rather obscures their simplicity.
  Mr. Straw: I am afraid that I shall give my hon. Friend only a bronze award for trying, as I do not think that he is correct. The principal difference that has concerned hon. Members lies in the numbers in the divisors. The d'Hondt system divisors go 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, the unmodified Sainte-Lague system divisors go 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and—as everyone will recall—the modified Sainte-Lague system divisors go 1.4, 3, 5, 7, 9. Hon. Members should know by now—I am happy to give an anorak to anyone who can tell me—why the modified Sainte-Lague system starts with 1.4.
  Mr. Linton: I shall be receiving the silver anorak award. Those mathematical formulae only obscure the point that a divisor of 1, 3, 5, 7 is another way in which to describe the simple process of taking an average, as hon. Members will discover if they try it on the back of an envelope—it is the process by which one rounds up. The point of starting with 1.4 is to avoid what was discovered to happen when the system was first used—that a party with only 5 per cent. of the vote could have its vote rounded up to 10 per cent. and so win a seat. Starting with 1.4 provides an effective threshold.
  Mr. Straw: I award my hon. Friend a second-hand anorak for that. As we all know, 1.4 is the square root of two.
  At Second Reading, I sought to be open-minded on the exact list system—as I have tried to be on many Bills, as I hope my record makes clear. That has been held against me. The closed-list system was in the Bill. I said that that was our preference, but that we were open to argument. I made no undertaking that we would change our mind, but I said that we would listen to the argument. Indeed, we did—we examined it in great detail. In the event, we came down against the so-called Belgian system, and against the open-list system.
  It adds no strength to the argument of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield to criticise us for not being willing to listen to the argument. We took part in considerable debate about the matter. Had the argument been slightly more weighted on one side, we might have

  955
  gone for the Belgian system. In the event—and for the reasons that I explained in February or March—we decided not to do so.
  We felt that the open-list system, proposed by the Opposition, would produce the worst consequences of all. It would not provide people with voter choice. It is called an open-list system, but a proper open-list system ensures that there are as many votes as there are vacancies on the ballot paper. Under the Conservatives' back-of-the-envelope proposals, even if there are 11 vacancies—as there will be in one region—there can be only one vote. Therefore, how does one express a preference for the other 10 candidates who are to be elected? The Opposition cannot explain how that will be sorted out.
  The Opposition must face the fact that one consequence of their proposal is that somebody in one party who gets 500,000 votes may not be elected, while someone in another party who gets 300,000 votes is elected. The British public will not regard that as fair or explicable.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: What is the point of having regions at all? If the people will not play a part in deciding who is elected, why do we not have a national list and a national voting system?
  Mr. Straw: We could have a national list, and it is perfectly fair to say that some European countries have such a system. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that there has not been a great deal of argument about this point. However, we judged that it was better and fairer to operate the system in regions, but to have national lists in Scotland and Wales. It is a balanced argument—it is not a huge issue of principle one way or the other. A national list would increase the chances of a small extremist party gaining not only support, but Members. That would be an argument against it, but this is not an issue on which people have been engaged.
  In my region, people have a strong sense of place for Knowsley, Liverpool, Manchester or Blackburn, but they also have a sense that they are part of the north-west region. Interestingly, that is partly due to the development since the 1950s of commercial television. People's sense of regional identity—even in England—is strong, and it is reasonable to reflect that in the system.
  We are told that the closed-list system is a complete abberation and is undemocratic. However, it is used by the majority of voters within the EU—it is used in France, Germany, Greece, Portugal and Spain. We know that, generally, the Conservatives are European-haters. However, the implication of what they are saying is that, in all those countries, the people are not interested in democracy. I do not accept that argument, and their experience has, on the whole, been satisfactory.
  Mr. John Randall: By-elections are a subject close to my heart. I cannot see how it can be democratic that, three or four years into a term, the electors of a region do not have the opportunity to choose—if they want to—someone from a different party. I also wonder what would happen in the case of someone
  956
  crossing the Floor, as it were—I do not know what one does in the European Parliament. Would that person have to resign his seat?
  Mr. Straw: That matter will come up in discussion on the amendments later. The hon. Gentleman's point would be entirely fair if what we were sustaining in the European Parliament was a Government. I readily accept that by-elections play an important part in regulating the conduct of the Government, and in giving the electorate an opportunity—on the random, but reasonably frequent, occasions that they arise—to send a message to the Government and to Opposition parties. However, those arguments do not apply in terms of a representative Assembly. It is not the case that by-elections in the countries concerned have caused difficulty, and I do not think that they will here.
  No system is perfect, and this is about the balance of advantage. Given the nature and function of the European Parliament, it is more important to ensure that it is broadly representative than to accommodate the prospect of by-elections. On the occasions when by-elections have taken place, the earth has not moved—[Interruption.] Not even in Scotland, where there was a 20 per cent. turnout and 80 per cent. stayed away. In Merseyside, we had the lowest-ever turnout in any by-election-11 per cent.
  Mr. James Clappison: There was one that was lower.
  Mr. Straw: I bow to the hon. Gentleman's superior wisdom.
  The Opposition should have some humility about the system before they try to elevate it into some great moral principle. The Conservative Government introduced closed lists for the Northern Ireland forum.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: No, with great respect; I am just about to finish.
  The Conservatives can wriggle as much as they like, but they proposed the closed-list system for Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK. It may have been for a particular purpose—this system also is for a particular purpose. At the time, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), said that the closed-list system was fair and reasonable. If it was fair and reasonable then, it is fair and reasonable now.
  7.58 pm
  Sir Norman Fowler: I can see why the Home Secretary is so keen on a guillotine. Even by his own standards, that was not a persuasive speech. Calling in aid the constitution when he is bludgeoning the Bill through in a few hours will not persuade even his most uncritical supporters. Nor do I think that any of us finds his argument on Northern Ireland at all convincing, given the situation when my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the then Prime Minister, made it clear that the system was for the special circumstances of Northern Ireland.
  Let there be no question about it—the debate on the Bill has gone overwhelmingly against the Government. Labour Member of Parliament after Labour Member of

  957
  Parliament has spoken against it. However, let me tell the House who has done the best destructive hatchet job on the proposals in the Bill.
  The other day, the Home Secretary chided me for a book that I had written. The Home Secretary has not written a book, as far as I know. If he has, it was remaindered before I got to it. However, he has written articles. His House of Commons file is stuffed full of them, including one for The Times, entitled "What's So Fair About PR?", dated 4 August 1985. What is significant about the article is not so much the general view as the particular views that he put forward, which go to the heart of the Bill.
  In the article, the Home Secretary said:
  "Where PR is based on a list system, with votes effectively cast for a party, and the winning candidates taken, pro rata, from each party's list, power passes from the individual constituency party to those who draw up the list."
  That, of course, is precisely the case that we have put throughout the debate.
  Under a list system, power is transferred from the people to the party organisation. I have made that point, as have the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), and now we know that the Home Secretary agrees with it.
  When the Home Secretary wrote the article, he was observing the position in France. He noted that the system had caused a major battle between national and regional parties, with the latter objecting to the "parachuting in" of national candidates without roots in their area.
  Again, that is precisely the point that we have been making. That is precisely the case in the west midlands, where an EastEnders actor who appeared at the Birmingham rep is preferred over the local candidate, who may be politically incorrect but possibly knows something about the west midlands.
  The Home Secretary then turned to the Liberal Democrats and our old friend Roy Jenkins, if I may be so familiar. He said, correctly, as the Social Democratic party—of happy memory—and the Liberals were about to hold their conferences, that we would be in for two weeks of high-flown phrases about the superior morality and fairness of proportional representation and the way in which it can lead, as Roy Jenkins said, to greater stability of national direction of policy.
  The Home Secretary then said:
  "It is not an argument which I have ever found convincing. It is giving legitimacy to the semi fascist and overtly racialist French National Front"
  I am not sure that I go all the way with that argument, but as it is directed at Liberal Democrats I will not quibble over the details.
  Then the Home Secretary produced an entirely new argument. He said:
  "There is the inconvenient little fact of Hitler."
  I have debated the Bill four or five times—it seems more—and even I have not adduced Hitler in argument, but according to the Home Secretary, the "inconvenient little fact" is that Hitler
  "rose to power in the Weimar republic which used a very respectable system of PR. I do not suggest that any other system would have prevented his rise. I do assert that PR did not prevent it—yet moderation and stability is the large and wild claim made for this system by our own centre parties."
  958
  I do not believe that any Minister could have more effectively demolished the case for a Bill that he has introduced. The Bill does all the things that he previously condemned. That is why it has been so condemned by his colleagues. The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson) took courage this afternoon and made a speech that I believe was intended to be in favour of the Government, but she must be joking if she thinks that the Bill has been overwhelmingly supported by her colleagues.
  On October 27, the Bill was attacked by the hon. Members for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) and for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). On another occasion, the hon. Member for Wrexham said:
  At the end of the day, if I have the choice, I am an open-list person."
  In case we were in any doubt, the hon. Member for Walsall, North reiterated his position. He said:
  "I am not in favour of the closed-list system, I have never voted for it and I do not intend to do so tonight."—[Official Report, 10 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 222–28.]
  On 16 November, the closed-list system was effectively demolished bit by bit by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. He was supported by the hon. Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) intervened to support the Government—I think—but his support was qualified by his later confession. When challenged, he said:
  "I would prefer an open-list system, but I gave the rationale for a closed-list system."—[Official Report, 16 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 701.]
  Not perhaps the most overwhelming support in principle that we have heard.
  On 18 November, the Bill was attacked by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie), and the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) said:
  "I shall support the Government tonight even though I am 150 per cent. committed to the first-past-the-post system."
  The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) sought to make a helpful intervention. He proclaimed:
  "The closed-list system ensures that women and people from ethnic minorities can have their rightful place in the list."
  Unfortunately for him, the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) was sitting directly in front of him at the time. She said:
  "As a woman from an ethnic minority who succeeded under first past the post, I ask my hon. Friend whether he thinks that the closed-list system proposed tonight would be passed in the House on a free vote."
  The hon. Member for Swansea, East rather weakly replied:
  "I am not a Whip … and my arithmetic is very bad, so I would not like to answer that question."—[Official Report, 18 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 979–81.]
  So it goes on. The prize for the most fatuous comment and stance goes, I regret to say, to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan). Attempting to define the Liberal Democrats' position, he said:
  "My party's position remains consistent. Our preferred option is neither a Belgian nor a Finnish model, but one closer to home—the Northern Irish model of the single transferable vote."— [Official Report, 27 October 1998; Vol. 318, c. 183.]

  959
  The hon. Gentleman spent the whole debate voting for the closed-list system.
  The Government are putting power into the hands of the party, not the public. Outside candidates, with no local roots, are being "parachuted in", to use the Home Secretary's phrase. The public are being given no choice. The Bill does away with the public's right to choose a candidate and abolishes by-elections if a candidate resigns or defects.
  The Home Secretary justifies all that with a series of arguments that, frankly, convince almost no one but his Front-Bench colleagues; and they probably do not convince even them. He reveals an obsession with candidates being parachuted into constituencies—he was at it again on Monday when he accused Conservative central office of doing it at the general election—but who, may I ask, is the biggest political parachutist of them all? How did he get his seat? He inherited it. He was special adviser to Lady Castle, and when she moved on to Europe, she bequeathed it to him in her living will.
  It is becoming a quaint old custom for Labour Ministers to look after their special advisers. Lady Castle gave the Home Secretary her seat. He cannot do the same for his special adviser, Norman Warner, so he puts him in the House of Lords: new Labour, new hereditary principle.
  Mr. Straw: I am enjoying the right hon. Gentleman's speech—which makes a change. Leaving aside the fact that, as it happens, I was selected in Blackburn fair and square without Lady Castle being present, he has just accepted that the party, not the people of Blackburn, chose me. There we have it: an admission that a closed list of one operated. What is his argument?
  Sir Norman Fowler: The right hon. Gentleman has not in any way dented my case. My admission is that he was parachuted into Blackburn from outside; I believe that he stood at Tonbridge and Mailing in the preceding election.
  The Bill is bad by any standards. It is detested both by Conservative Members and, frankly, by many Labour Members. The Government complain about the Lords, but the Lords have challenged only the worst feature of the Bill: the closed-list system. In that, I believe, they are supported by the majority of the public.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Norman Fowler: If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not.
  The Bill goes to the heart of our constitution: it determines how an important election is to be fought. It is wrong in principle and contrary to what the majority of people in this country want. That is why it should be rejected.
  8.9 pm
  Mr. Richard Allan: Far from feeling concern that the Labour party has not accepted all aspects of the Bill with open arms, we are comforted by that fact. We are also comforted by the fact that the Home Secretary has changed his position. A simple dogmatic
  960
  statement of principle at one point in one's life, followed by resistance to any further change, does not contribute much to the body politic.
  We welcome the Bill, as we welcomed it during the previous Session, as an important part of the implementation of an agreement that was reached before the election by my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) and the Foreign Secretary on a programme of constitutional change. That was a ground-breaking agreement and we have been impressed with the way in which it has worked since to deliver significant benefits for the people of this country, by demonstrating that politicians can work together for the common good rather than simply throw brickbats at each other on every possible occasion.
  Fair votes for Europe are vital. The Home Secretary mentioned representation and the fact that we have caused an imbalance throughout Europe. He said that treaties have stated that we should have proportional representation because it is unfair on the European Union if we send an unbalanced delegation to the European Parliament. This Bill offers a chance to reverse the low turn-outs in European elections. Far from decrying the system, we believe that the Opposition parties, in particular the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, have an enormous incentive to get people to vote. In many parts of the country, including the Yorkshire and Humberside area, those votes will count as they have never counted before, so the fair vote issue is important and will bring considerable benefits, as well as meeting those treaty obligations.
  We want to be more positive. The Conservative approach has been somewhat schizophrenic. The Conservatives say that the system is appalling and that no one will vote, but they also think that they may pick up a seat or two. There seems to be a conflict between the two objectives.
  We have enjoyed the contributions to the debate by the Home Secretary, in particular his lessons on history and geography, which have frequently taken us to Belgium. I fully accept the argument of the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) that we could have had a clearer explanation, but nothing brings a smile to the face in these lengthy debates as much as the mention of the word, "d'Hondt". I do not know why, but every time that anyone says that word, little grins and chuckles break out throughout the House. We have also enjoyed watching the Conservative party come, somewhat belatedly and not entirely willingly, to the constitutional agenda. They have got involved with some of the issues and debated them seriously, perhaps for the first time, as many Conservatives have studiously avoided such issues during their internal debates and they rarely brought them to the House when they were in government.
  For the Liberal Democrats there are two key issues in choosing a voting system. The first is proportionality: there should be a close relationship between the votes cast and the people elected. The second is voter choice, which has characterised many of the debates. The present Bill clearly takes us a huge way forward as regards proportionality. It is vastly superior to the first-past-the-post system that we have had. We regret the fact that the Bill misses the opportunity to take us further forward with voter choice. We have expressed our preference and, whenever I have spoken, I have been

  961
  asked our position by hon. Members intervening from both sides of the House. I have been able to say, every time, that our first preference is for a single transferable vote, which would avoid the problems of a single vote in the open system that the Conservatives have chosen. Failing that, we want more open systems.
  However, unlike the Conservatives, we can accept that we did not win the last general election and that, having argued our point through the proper democratic procedures in this House and another place, if we then lose the debate or the vote, the Government have a right and a mandate to proceed with their business. It is not our duty to obstruct the Government on an issue on which we have had a fair hearing. We were pleased that the Home Secretary showed he had an open mind about open lists. He gave the argument a hearing, we discussed it and we voted in another place.
  Unlike Conservative Members we work with our peers in another place. We are happy to share our decision-making processes, to use similar arguments in both places and to accept the result of the vote in another place. We are also mindful of the fact that we are more likely to win a vote there than here, given the arithmetic that prevails in this House. We were extremely disappointed that when we tabled an amendment on open lists in the other place at the appropriate time, Conservative peers—surprise, surprise—failed to turn out to support it and yet were later converted to the cause.
  All the key issues in the Bill were discussed at length in the previous Session. For example, on regional constituencies, we successfully argued the case that a regional team would bring benefits for the structure of the European Union, gaining regional funds and so forth. We discussed the principles of proportional representation and by-elections—all the issues that have been raised again tonight were discussed.
  While the Bill is not perfect, we were convinced of our position at the end of that previous process, which is that the system is workable. It is not perfect in every respect and it is not the system that the Liberal Democrats would choose if they were offered a blank sheet of paper, but it is workable and it is a significant improvement on the alternative, which is the present system.
  Internal party procedures have been raised in relation to the Bill and selection has been a major issue. Many notable contributions from Labour Back Benchers have concerned that matter and Conservative Members have been happy to draw attention to the fact that unhappiness has been caused by selection in certain cases. There are major issues to be faced as regards the primaries, but they are not sufficient to block the passage of the Bill. One cannot say that a Bill that allows the United Kingdom electorate a fair vote should be blocked simply because one party has more problems with its internal selection processes than the other parties. That is an issue for that party to solve.
  Mr. Beith: A number of Conservatives who took part in those vast hustings meetings have told me that they are wondering why the decisions that they took then might now be overturned by a return to the first-past-the-post system and a re-opening of constituency selections within their party, probably on a less democratic basis.
  Mr. Allan: An ironic feature of the present situation is that it is fair to say that the candidates and those who have
  962
  been selected for both the main Opposition parties have been selected by far more people than selected any of us in our single constituency contests. Many thousands of people took part and it was a reasonable test of opinion within those parties.
  The Conservatives have trotted out their issue of high principle and, on many occasions, have tried to save us from doing the pragmatic thing. They have suggested that we should continue to stand to one side and bleat in the wilderness about high principle while not achieving any significant goals. We believe that it is better to support a Bill that would achieve some of our objectives than simply to stand by or positively to obstruct something that we want. The Conservatives have been negative throughout. Clearly, they want to fight any fair voting system at every stage of the way. Their position has been explicit. First past the post has favoured them for many years and they see it as their key to success. They want to fight any alternative.
  Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I should have thought that it was obvious from the lack of numbers on the Conservative Benches that the first-past-the-post system has not been fair to our party. The hon. Gentleman mentioned working together on a cross-party basis. Has he had a chance to read the report published today by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs? That all-party Committee states in paragraph 91 of its report:
  "We feel that an open list would be more in keeping with the principle of trusting the people and giving them the maximum choice."
  Mr. Allan: I do not disagree and the hon. Lady has moved me to my fourth point, which is the high principle on which the Conservatives have been working. That report probably reflects what happened with the Scottish and Welsh decisions. Conservative peers went to the limit and died in the ditch because closed lists are of such fundamental democratic importance and the principle cannot be breached, but they allowed the Scottish devolution Bill through, although I do not believe that the Labour party manifesto mentioned closed lists in connection with that measure. They also allowed the Welsh devolution system a passage and closed lists were not mentioned then. As the Home Secretary pointed out, they supported the system for Northern Ireland. for which closed lists were put forward.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne rose—
  Mr. Allan: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. I am sure that I will enjoy his contribution.
  The Conservative spokesman in the other place, Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish, seemed to recognise and accept in Committee that closed lists were not an insurmountable constitutional principle that they could not cross. He said that the Conservatives accepted that the Bill would be enacted as it was and that the most important thing was to have a review thereafter. However, amendments tabled in a spirit of compromise and co-operation in this House, were rejected because that acceptance seemed to disappear when the Conservatives felt that they could kill the Bill.
  Mr. Swayne: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the debate about closed lists came alive only after the

  963
  Scotland Bill had gone through? We began, then, to see the Labour party making its selections, and it was that example that brought the issue alive. Has the hon. Gentleman read the report of the Scottish Affairs Committee?
  Mr. Allan: I know that the Conservative party can be rather slow on the uptake. The hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that the Conservatives had no knowledge of these issues before, and that the light has slowly dawned as we have gone through months of constitutional reform. If that is how the Conservative party works, I suggest that its members do their homework before Bills start rather than waiting until the very end to understand the issues that they have debated.
  The opportunism of the—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. I must be able to hear the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Allan: The opportunism of the Conservative party has been breathtaking. I have heard it described as casuistry. I am not exactly sure of the definition of that word, but in Sheffield, we call it twisted. The Conservatives' twisting seems to have taken them to breaking point, and the stand that was taken—so nobly, so bravely—in the other place appears to have caused a rupture within the parliamentary party in the Lords. I hope that that signals that the Bill will, after tonight, receive an easy and sensible passage, despite irresponsible statements by Conservative Members, including the Leader of the Opposition, that they would seek to obstruct the will of more than 60 per cent. of the British people who voted for parties that supported a proportional system for the European elections. I hope that the Bill will proceed, and I urge the House to give it a fair wind.
  8.21 pm
  Dr. Nick Palmer: I apologise to the spokesmen on both Front Benches for the fact that I probably shall not be here to listen to their responses, but I shall read them with great interest. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) previously devoted three paragraphs of Hansard to requesting a speech from me. I am not accustomed to being in such demand, so I have hastened to oblige him. In the right hon. Gentleman's speech tonight, I heard more Labour speeches quoted than appear in a typical Millbank press release. We are grateful that he takes such interest in what Labour Back Benchers say. Long may it continue.
  Unlike many hon. Members who have spoken against the Bill, I have lived and campaigned in countries that have had both open and closed lists. A point not much discussed is the effect that the open-list system can have on candidates. A candidate in an open-list system must not only assist the party, but ensure that he or she, personally, does better than other candidates on the party's own list. In practice, each candidate is forced to fight an expensive personal campaign in the media to persuade people to vote for him or her rather than the other candidates.
  That has produced perverse results across the continent in areas in which the open-list system is practised. In effect, the system introduces the free market to
  964
  democracy. We all favour openness and freedom, and, as new Labour, we all favour the free market, too. However, I do not think that many people favour a system that introduces a bias towards wealthy candidates who are able to attract support from wealthy backers.
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Mid-Bedfordshire): Putative Members of the European Parliament have limits on their election expenses, and those will not change. Wealthy backers cannot fund candidates to fight each other in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
  Dr. Palmer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point. It is possible to impose limits on both individual spending and party spending, and that is envisaged in the Bill. However, that gives a bonus to well known and wealthy candidates who are able to make themselves known before the election. That system naturally appeals to, say, Lord Archer, or to Conservative Members who have the resources and the contacts to make it possible that their individual campaigns can become known even before the election starts.
  Mr. Tim Loughton: It is absurd to say that only money buys votes. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge the many other ways of becoming well known? One can work hard in one's constituency, deliver leaflets, run campaigns and get into the newspapers. None of that requires vast sums of money.
  Dr. Palmer: I agree that those are relevant factors, and few Members of Parliament are unfamiliar with the type of activities that the hon. Gentleman mentions. However, he must agree that money has talked ever louder for political parties in British politics in recent years. With an open-list system, we would extend that so that money would also talk for individual candidates.
  It is unsurprising if that idea sounds familiar, as it is a concept that used to apply in British politics. If you were a candidate in the 17th or 18th century, you could hope to succeed only if you were funded or had the ability to make yourself known more widely than poor candidates or people of limited income who had no friends. It may be natural that that system should appeal to hereditary peers.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should avoid using the word "you", as that brings the Chair into his argument.
  Dr. Palmer: I am grateful for that correction.
  It is perhaps natural that a hereditary peer would appreciate such a system on the grounds that what was good enough for his ancestor is good enough for him. However, in Britain today, we seek advancement for individuals according to their talents, and through the activities mentioned by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton). It would be a great shame if we gave an incentive to individual self promotion among candidates.
  Political parties initially evolved for two reasons. One was so that people might coalesce around certain ideas and promote them when in Government. The other was that parties enabled individuals to seek and gain office purely through the power of ideas, with the political and

  965
  financial support of the party. That has enriched British politics to an extent that would have been unimaginable if individual candidates had been forced—as they would be forced under an open-list system—to promote their own cause against the causes of other candidates from the same party.
  We should recognise that some peers have genuinely been led to believe that the open-list system is more democratic. The phrase itself appeals to the fairness of individuals.
  Mr. Lansley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Palmer: I shall carry on for the moment.
  Everyone likes the idea of being open, and everyone likes the idea of choice. However, the Conservative party has grossly misled the majority of peers into rejecting the Bill five times, knowing that the open-list system would give an overwhelming advantage to the type of candidates that the Conservatives seek to promote—those who have the finance and connections to promote themselves. I urge the House to support the Bill.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: It is liberating, in a sense, to escape the narrow terms of the amendments that detained us over the past few weeks and return to the principles that are contained within the Bill. I am very much against the basic principle of the Bill. I am not sure why we should be presented with such a Bill. As I said when we debated the Bill in the previous Session, at the risk of repetition, the fact is—[Interruption.] I understand that the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) has disappeared from the Chamber and that that is the occasion of some mirth.
  The principle that there should be elections to a European parliament is one with which I do not agree. The European Assembly cannot be a parliament because a parliament represents a people and there are no European people—there is no European people. Therefore, there should not be elections to the European Assembly.
  We arranged our affairs much more satisfactorily when we nominated Members of this place to the European Assembly. Having moved on from that situation, and having adopted a system of elections, I cannot understand why we now seek to adopt an even less eligible system of election. Constituencies have been replaced by regions that bear no correlation to any understanding that anyone would have in my constituency, for example, of the region in which he lives. There seems to be no logic that our regions should stretch from the Isle of Wight to Milton Keynes. Equally, why should this region be represented by 11 Members of the European Parliament, treading on one another's toes, interfering with one another's responsibilities and creating nothing but confusion?
  We move on to the particular form of election that the Government have brought before us, which is based on the closed list. It is instructive to refer to the Scottish experience. Labour Members are right to draw attention to the fact that we have not suddenly found that our electoral system has been polluted by the closed list. They are right to say that under the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1997 elections will take place on a closed list.
  966
  It is unfortunate that the debate has been guillotined. Time is a huge factor in bringing reasonableness to bear on these issues. Although Labour Members traipsed through the Lobby on the Scotland Bill, as it then was, in favour of a closed list, we now find what the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs reports on its study into multi-led democracy. Paragraph 91 reads:
  "The regional MSPs are to be elected on a closed list system. We feel that an open list would be much more in keeping with the principle of trusting the people and giving them the maximum choice."
  The Select Committee then refers to the fact that in Bavaria such a system is used and that up to 30 per cent. of the voters interfere with the party-list precedent and change it.
  Nevertheless, the Select Committee, with seven Labour Members, produced such a report. Paragraph 91 was the subject of a Division. Of the seven Labour Members, only two voted against the inclusion of the words to which I have referred, given that they had a preference for a closed list.
  As for whether the Bill would have been enacted if there had been a free vote, the arithmetic is clear. We do not need to be experts to discern what would have happened. The Bill would have been thrown out. The passage of the Scotland Bill in Committee is instructive when we consider the voting method that has been chosen in European elections. We must return to our old friend Mr. d'Hondt. It is all very well to be told that the answer to the electoral system is 1.4, because that happens to be the square root of two, but that leads one to wonder what was the question that gave rise to such an answer.
  I said to the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office that one of the advantages of our existing electoral arrangements is that, by and large, people understand them. They understand that a cross put in a box, when added to other crosses, can give rise to a result that most people accept and understand. When I said to the Minister that no one would understand the system that was being imposed, he said: "The voters do not have to understand the system so long as the returning officer does." What will that do for voter turnout and confidence in our electoral system? That is the essence of the argument against changing to a proportional voting system. I regard it as a monstrous system.
  It all very well for Members to say that the House accepted the proposed form of voting when it discussed, as it then was, the Scotland Bill and the Government of Wales Bill. It is true that it takes time for the ramifications and implications for such a voting system to become obvious. It was not until the Scotland Bill and the Government of Wales Bill had passed through the House and the Government were under way with their business of selecting candidates that the weaknesses of the system became apparent. As soon as we saw the cronyism and the way in which long-standing members of the Labour party were shabbily treated, it became clear that the proposed voting system would be a gift to arbitrary power. It is a gift to party managers and party machines, and a gift that we seek to remove. This is our second opportunity to do so and I think that we should take it.
  Mr. David Drew: Second?
  Mr. Swayne: Well, our second opportunity on a Second Reading.

  967
  The Prime Minister's argument again and again was that the Bill is acceptable because all that it does, in effect, is bring us into line with our European partners, most of whom use the closed-list system. It is entirely appropriate that the Prime Minister should draw attention to the fact that our electoral arrangements differ from those that obtain on the continent. However, that is for an historical reason. Elections took place in this country before political parties were formed. We adopted a system of electing candidates rather than parties. It is only recently in our electoral history that we allowed the candidate's party to be printed on the ballot paper.
  On the continent, political parties were well established long before there were elections that enabled them to be elected. Once those elections came along the political parties were in a position effectively to take over the electoral process. Hence the tradition that prevails on the continent, much more than it does here, of electing a political party. Before we fall meekly into line and accept that somehow we are anachronistic, we should remember that our electoral system is our most successful export. It should be understood that 50 per cent. of the voters in the world use the British electoral system, as do 60 per cent. of the world's countries. Our system has served us well and we do not need to take lessons from the continent of Europe. I suspect that we would do much better to retain our existing arrangements by rejecting the Bill.
  8.38 pm
  Mr. David Drew: I spoke on Second Reading and in Committee last time the Bill went round this course, so I am entitled to give myself at least a bronze anorak award. We feel that we have heard every debate and every technicality under the sun, although I am sure that, if my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) speaks, he will come up with new and wonderful technicalities. I shall keep to the matter at hand.
  I should say mea culpa because, in Committee, I spoke in favour, in principle, of the open-list system. We had an interesting debate, but no Conservative Member spoke in support of that system. I am pleased that Conservative Members are back on message tonight and returning to their true position of supporting first past the post, although, from time to time, they give the illusion of supporting open lists. I am confused about how they are trying to match proportionality and first past the post.
  Our debate considered the implications of open list systems. It is fair to say that both the d'Hondt and Sainte-Lague systems have difficulties, but they are certainly preferable to the open-list system proposed by the Conservatives. It is disingenuous of them to try to persuade us that they are in favour of an open-list system that no one else seems to favour but, until tonight, they have spoken fiercely in its favour. There is opportunism in their support for that system not only in this place but in the House of Lords, where, month after month, they have tried to manipulate arguments on a system in which they do not believe in order to change the position of this House. That is undemocratic, unfair and unacceptable.
  I speak whole-heartedly in favour of the opportunity that we have to introduce a proportional system for the European elections. Like the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), I think that the key principle is that,
  968
  for the first time in a national election, we have established that votes will be counted proportionally. As someone who has long believed in electoral reform, I welcome that development, which is more important than the issue of open or closed list systems. 'That is why I voted for the Government and will do so again. We must pass the Bill now. We have had a long debate that has gone over every possible ground and will come to a conclusion—hopefully, sooner rather than later. We know that we must put the system in place.
  I recognise the benefits of a regional list system because we are moving towards regional identities with the setting up of regional development agencies and, as some of us would like, regional chambers. There is no reason why we should not elect European Members on a regional list system. By introducing proportionality, we will ensure fairness and justice, which we all desire.
  I am rehearsing arguments that we had a year ago almost to the day. Conservative Members referred to the need for suitable checks and balances in the system. Why not have different electoral systems for different representative bodies? Why should first past the post be all-embracing and omnipotent? Many of us seek alternatives because we have seen the damage that the system can do when there is an arrogant belief—as I called it many months ago—that it is the only system that can elect people. That is evidently not true.
  We have heard all the arguments. It is important that we put in place a proportional system. Some hon. Members want there to be an opportunity for a review. We have had something of a hokey-cokey with the Bill. The Conservative party may still want to table an amendment in Committee. I do not necessarily agree with that, but it is a delaying tactic and we need to get on with the Bill. The candidates are important and need to know that the process for which they have been selected will take place, but returning officers, who have already been mentioned, and the electorate will have to come to terms with the system. That is not unimportant. There is a belief that the way to increase turnout is through fair votes and proportionality. That belief has to be tested, but that can be done only if people know under which system it is to be tested, so the sooner we get on with it, the better.
  We have had all the arguments and constitutional conflict; we now need to move on. The Conservative party has used the issue to delay and to wreck, but their efforts have cost them dear in many respects. We know what we are moving toward and we can see the merits of a closed-list system, which were set out in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The sooner we can go out and persuade people of our case, the better.
  8.45 pm
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in the debate, because I have had the pleasure of speaking in all the European debates of the past 25 years and, by and large, warning the House that disaster lay ahead. I find it difficult to do that tonight, because, to be quite honest, I do not understand why on earth the Government are bothering with this legislation.
  Implementing the legislation will cost us a lot of money: the Bill reveals that it will cost £4 million to explain to people how the system works. I am the Member of Parliament for Rochford as well as for Southend, East.

  969
  I am not making a political point, but every one of the councillors in the lovely old borough of Rochford, which was in the Domesday book, is a Labour councillor. They were told today that their spending increase over the next 12 months has to be 1.1 per cent., which is less than the rate of inflation. That will mean that they will have to cut services. How the blazes am I to explain to them that we are going to pass a silly Bill and spend £4 million on a totally pointless exercise?
  We must ask ourselves: does the European Parliament matter at all? If we are to be honest, we must all admit that, if the European Parliament were to close its doors tomorrow, nobody apart from the taxi drivers of Strasbourg would notice. We keep giving the European Parliament pretend powers, trying to create the impression that it has power, but in fact there is no power and no authority in that place, because the whole underlying principle of the European Community is not democratic and there is no way that it can change, even though people continue to believe that it can change. All the power is concentrated in the Court and the Commission and in horse trading in the Council of Ministers, so we can only give the European Parliament pretend powers. If we were being honest, we would ask whether it really matters what system we use to elect Members of the European Parliament, when that Parliament is basically irrelevant.
  My second question is for my hon. Friends. Although I appreciate that some of them feel passionately about the issue of closed or open lists, they must ask themselves what the blazes people are meant to do when they go along to vote. If in an area called the eastern region there are 11 candidates for each party, how on earth am I, the average voter, expected to know who those candidates are and what their opinions are?
  There is a passionate minority in Britain—a few people, probably 5 per cent. of the population on either side—who are either strongly for or strongly against the European Economic Community, and such people will make it their business to discover candidates' views, so as to have the opportunity to express their opinions. However, the vast majority of people in Britain have gone to sleep on the European issue; they do not want to know anything about it. In addition, the political parties do not want to discuss the issue, because it can cause strong disagreements.
  The only real principle at stake is that of answerability. It is important that we should preserve that, but we must ask whether European matters are the area in which we most want to preserve it. How can a Member of the European Parliament be answerable? If he cannot do anything and people do not know who he is, it is difficult to keep up the pretence of democracy here.
  I am genuinely curious as to why the Government are bothering. The Government have advanced only two specific arguments, one of which is that other European countries do it. That should make us suspicious, because we can then see the European principle of regional government being imposed on Britain—on England—even though people do not want it. Huge offices are being built in Cambridge, which is in my local region, and large organisations invite me to lunches, dinners and seminars and send me lots of coloured paper, but I am left wondering what it is all about. Unfortunately, what we find is that regional government is being promoted by the EU, even though the people of England do not want
  970
  it. I wonder whether the whole business of regional assemblies, regional government and regional papers is all to do with something being pushed by the EEC.
  The second argument advanced by the Government is that, if we adopt the new system, more Conservatives will be returned to the European Parliament. Is that the principle for which one should support the Bill? I should like to think that we were doing something more significant, not simply expressing a view on that silly matter.
  When I came to the House of Commons, the principle of democracy was important to me. When I arrived here many years ago—certainly before many of the hon. Members present were born—I remember that my parents were very proud. They felt that I was joining a worthwhile institution, one that was uplifting and to which Churchill had belonged.
  My second son is cleverer than I am, and earns more money than I do because he works for a merchant bank. Last year he was asked, along with everyone else who works at the bank, what his parents did. It upset me when he said, "I did not mind saying that my dad was Teddy Taylor, because people know that you have some unusual views, but I did not like to say that you are a Member of Parliament." That gives us some idea how substantially the standing of this place has gone down.
  We should recognise that, over the past 25 years, we have been destroying our democracy. We have taken power away from the people. I hope that hon. Members will think seriously about how we have been abolishing democracy and making people's views almost totally irrelevant. When democracy has been abolished in other parts of the world, the same things always happen: the power goes to individuals who are outwith control, and they always want to help their friends, not necessarily because they are corrupt, but because they are simply not answerable.
  It upsets me that the Bill will make Members of the useless European Parliament, which is of no relevance to the people, a tiny 1 per cent. less answerable to the people, even though there is not much for which MEPs can be responsible. I hope that the Government will answer the important question why they are bothering with the Bill. Who has complained about the present system? Who has said that it does not work?
  We have had a by-election in Scotland in which only 20 per cent. of the people bothered to vote. They felt that it was irrelevant. The vast majority of the people in Britain think that the European Parliament is irrelevant.
  It would be helpful if the Government told us why they are bothering to introduce the Bill. Has there been pressure from the EU to adopt the same kind of electoral system throughout the EU? I have watched all the changes being introduced, step by step, over the past 25 years. Ministers say that changes are taking place not because they are being forced to implement them, but because they want to do so. Later, we find that they have been pressurised to do so.
  What has happened to democracy is sad. We are being asked to agree tonight to £4 million being spent wholly unnecessarily to achieve nothing in respect of an assembly that has no power, no real responsibility and no answerability. It is a sad night for Parliament. I hope that the Government will tell us the truth or let us throw out this silly, irrelevant measure.
  8.53 pm
  Mr. Martin Linton: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), I look forward to the enactment of the Bill, which I believe will enfranchise millions of voters in this country who, until now, have never had a chance for their vote to make a difference in an election. There are millions of Labour voters in the south—indeed, in the constituency of the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), for one—and millions of Conservative voters in Scotland who at present are excluded by the electoral system from any feeling that their vote matters in elections.
  The proposed electoral system will, for the first time in this country—I exclude Scotland and Wales—create a situation where people's votes will count. As well as enfranchising millions of voters, it may well energise our democracy.
  In the last European election we had, along with the Netherlands, the lowest turnout of any of the 15 countries in the European Parliament. The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) may think that that is a good thing, but low turnout is a problem that is peculiarly strong in this country. The voting system has clearly been a major factor in that. The change to a new voting system, together with the right public information campaign—I do not think that spending £4 million on public information before the election will be money wasted—will energise many people to take part in the election, whereas they would not have taken part in previous elections.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: When he opened the debate, the Home Secretary was asked about a national list. He had to agree that a national list would be even more inclusive, in that it would allow people who wished to vote for extremist parties to do so. It would enable people to vote for small minorities, in order to secure representation. That, is it not, is the logical conclusion of the hon. Gentleman's argument—if he really believes that this opens up the possibility of representation of a kind that constitutes the key issue in this context.
  Mr. Linton: I would have thought that the point of regional representation was self-evident. Its aim is to give MEPs the possibility of being representative on at least some human scale.
  The point made by the hon. Gentleman about a national list is quite different. As he knows, the introduction of a national list would reduce the pressure to introduce much smaller parties in the European Parliament. It is no part of my understanding of democracy that greater democracy can be achieved by our allowing parties with support amounting to 1, 2 or 3 per cent. to be represented. That simply confuses the issue. The point of a regional system is that it will create a threshold against small parties.
  The hon. Member for New Forest, West grappled with the names of devisers, which he has apparently mastered. The point of the difference between the systems is this: the system proposed by the Bill will create a situation in which—in the south-east, for example—any candidate winning less than 10 per cent. could not be elected. Under the other system, the same arrangement would obtain, but the qualifying percentage would be 5 per cent. That is the crucial difference between the devisers.
  972
  I should have thought that, if Labour Members believe in a system that does not involve encouragement of the proliferation of small parties, they should—in this regard, at least—applaud the proposals in the Bill.
  I have followed the hon. Gentleman's argument carefully, but the breakthrough point is different in different regions. It is 10 per cent. or 11 per cent. in the south-east, but it is 33 per cent. in Wales. Should we not have equally sized regions? The political system is being skewed by the existence of large and very small regions.
  Mr. Linton: That is probably true. I used the south-east as an example, because, with 10 members in a 10-member region, it will normally take 10 per cent. to be elected if the other deviser had been used, it would, effectively, have halved the threshold.
  The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) accused the Home Secretary of employing tedious arguments. I would say that the whole of this debate has become tiresome. In the House of Commons alone, we have discussed it for 36 hours. I hoped that Conservative Members would at least have returned to the new Session—having thought about the system that they supported in the last Parliament—with a workable system. However, we are back with the same unworkable system.
  The Home Secretary pointed out that, under this system, a candidate could be elected with 300,000 votes, whereas a candidate from another party winning 500,000 votes might not be elected. That strikes me as enough of a problem with any electoral system, but there is an even worse problem in this system: someone could be elected, appearing as No. 2 on the list, with no votes at all. The system that is being advocated, and was advocated in the last Parliament, means that most voters would naturally take the top name in the box, and all the votes would be counted for all the people in the box—even candidates who received no personal votes and no indication of support from the electorate. Even those people could find themselves elected. No wonder the system is only used in Finland and Luxembourg, and has not recommended itself to any of the other countries of the European Union.
  Mr. Randall: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why that system is so apt for Finland? If it is unfair, why are the Finns using it? He is very unfair to them.
  Mr. Linton: The onus is on the hon. Gentleman to explain why he advocates the Finnish system. I can only point to the great difficulties of such a system.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) talked about the experience of Switzerland, a non-European Union country which also has an open list system with voting not for parties, but only for candidates. That system has created competition between candidates and the anomalous position whereby candidates receiving no votes nevertheless get elected.
  I struggled for a long time to understand the mystery of why the Opposition ignored open lists, month after month. They abstained on them in Committee and never mentioned them in debates. Suddenly, towards the end of the process, they became obsessed with open lists.
  Mr. Clappison: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because he has given me the opportunity to put right what he and several of his hon. Friends have said.

  973
  As the hon. Gentleman heard my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) say, and as I can confirm from my own experience, we raised the question of open lists in the debate on Second Reading a year ago. We have raised it at every opportunity since, and we have opposed what the Government are doing because we want voters to have a choice. The hon. Gentleman, too, has said in the past that he wants them to have a choice.
  Mr. Linton: I have spoken in favour of the Belgian system, which is semi-open, but, as I recall, there has been no Opposition support for that system at any stage. Only in the later stages did they discover the apparent benefits of the Finnish system.
  I have found the reason why the Opposition changed their opinion during the debate. It is nothing to do with the arguments made in the Chamber or in the other place, but it is to do with events within their own party. Towards the end of the debate, they had already selected their candidates for the European Parliament so they had obviated one of the obvious difficulties that they would have faced had they had an open list system and a lot of pro-European candidates.
  I quote from the Financial Times, which states that, rather than having a
  "'broad church of views on Europe' … candidates were put forward only if they vowed 'not to rock the boat on our single currency policy'".
  In other words, far from giving the voters a democratic choice of Conservative candidates—which they appeared to do, and which is the principle on which they support such a system—the Opposition carefully weeded out any candidates who would present the electorate with any choice whatever.
  An article in The Daily Telegraph carries a statement by two Conservative Members of the European Parliament who had hoped to stand in the Conservative cause in the European elections next year, but were deselected by the Conservative party. They say:
  "'It is untrue and unacceptable to claim that the Conservative candidates for next year's election represent 'all opinions on Europe'.
  In reality, only two categories of Conservative are represented: those who say they agree with William Hague on a single currency and those who say he has not gone far enough in his opposition to it.
  Those who made clear their disagreement with Mr. Hague's opposition to British membership for up to nine years were rejected or, in our specific cases, deselected.'"
  Having got rid of any dissenting voices, the Opposition presented to the electorate an apparent choice of candidates, but that choice is of only Euro-sceptic or Europhobic candidates.
  Mr. Loughton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because he quoted two MEPs who were not reselected. One might expect them to say that, but the vast majority of MEPs were reselected. Is it so strange to him that, if that policy was demanded of candidates, it was demanded by all members of the Conservative party who were entitled to vote? It may surprise him that there was unity of purpose on the European policy of the Conservative party in those selections—decided not by the party leadership, but by every individual member acting as one.
  Mr. Linton: Of course, but the result was convenient. Only after the result of their hustings—when they realized
  974
  that they had a complete Euro-sceptic ticket—were the Opposition prepared to offer the electorate choice among their candidates. [Interruption.] If, perchance, the Opposition were successful in pressing their amendments and they were lumbered at the last moment with their Finnish-Luxembourg open system for selecting candidates, it would cause anarchy in the Conservative party. The party would have to reselect candidates at short notice, and that would open up the splits that it has done so much to conceal.
  We are discussing the Bill because of the opposition of Conservative hereditary peers in the House of Lords. It is well within our rights to question their right to tell us how to run a democratic election, and to challenge their credentials for pontificating on, of all things, electoral systems. If there is one area that they cannot claim to have expertise in, it is elections.
  I shall mention some of the Conservative hereditary peers who voted in the House of Lords to ensure that the Bill fell in the last Session and has had to be re-introduced and discussed again tonight. Why is the Marquess of Ailsa a Member of the House of Lords? Because, in 1831, one of his ancestors married William IV's illegitimate daughter. Why can Viscount Cranborne, the late lamented leader of the Conservatives in the House of Lords, vote on our electoral system? Because one of his ancestors was Elizabeth I's adviser, whom she affectionately referred to as her pygmy—he was surely the original Blackadder. I refer of course to Robert Cecil, the founder of that aristocratic house.
  Why is the Earl of Romney a Member of the House of Lords, and why did he have the power to reject this Bill? Because one of his ancestors, Sir Robert Marsham, paid £5,000 for his barony in 1716. Why did Lord Ampthill, a Cross-Bencher, have the right to vote against the Bill and to send it back to the House of Commons? Because he is a descendant of a Victorian diplomat, Lord Odo Russell, who was a member of the family who happened to own Bloomsbury.
  Why was Lord Palmer, another Cross-Bencher, able to vote on the Bill, and why was he able to determine our electoral system? His name gives us half the answer. Lord Palmer was one of the great biscuit tycoons of the Victorian era—he was half of Huntley and Palmers. Far more relevant to his ennoblement was the fact that he was a large-scale contributor to the Conservative party.
  I come lastly to Lord Sudeley, another Cross-Bencher, who cast his vote against the Bill in the Lords and is one of the causes of our having to discuss it tonight. His family made a fortune in the slave trade in the West Indies. In a recent interview in one of the weekend supplements, he justified his family fortune by saying, "We used to be better orff with slavery." We would be better off getting on with Third Reading.
  9.9 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Mid-Bedfordshire): I followed the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) in a debate a few weeks ago. He was confusing and confused then, and he is no better now. This time he spoke even more claptrap. I shall be extremely brief, because a number of colleagues want to speak.

  975
  In the past, it was a characteristic of dictatorships that when a messenger came with an unpopular message, the dictator executed the messenger.
  Mr. Tony McNulty: Is that what happened to Lord Cranborne?
  Mr. Sayeed: No, Lord Cranborne is still going strong.
  With this Government we have an elected dictatorship. For them, the merits of the argument count for nothing. The only thing that matters is the size of their House of Commons majority.
  We have a Prime Minister who, either through fear of Parliament or contempt for it, does not bother to vote in this place, rarely bothers to attend and relies on obsequious Back Benchers to push his sometimes cockamamie legislation through. Rather than test on the anvil of parliamentary debate the measures that he wishes to put forward, he prefers to use taxpayers' money to pay for spin doctors, who manipulate a sometimes acquiescent media.
  Because the Prime Minister does not like the message that the Lords have been sending him, knows that they may do exactly what they did to a Conservative Government—reject certain Bills that the Government put forward—and does not like the Lords, or even the threat of the Lords disagreeing with him, he has decided to execute the political messenger. As he cannot do it fast enough, he has been denigrating the Lords with ridicule, and the Home Secretary has been his assiduous servant.
  What have the peers been saying? They have been saying something very simple: local people have the right to determine who their candidate is. They have not been opposing the Bill. They have kept strictly to the Salisbury convention. They have been supporting the Bill, but asking the Commons to remember that this is a democracy; that is all that they have been doing.
  I hope that, when the Bill goes back to the Lords, they will continue to support democracy and stand firm because what has happened in this place is a denial of democracy—true democracy. Even though the majority in this place dislike the way in which the Labour party operates closed lists, the majority have voted for them. That is a denial of democracy.
  If the Government had had the humility to accept that the way in which the Labour party operates closed lists is a disgrace and abhorrent to any democrat, and had operated the list system, even a closed-list system, in the way our party or the Liberal Democrats operate it, with local people deciding who the candidates are and the ranking of the candidates, the Lords would probably have let the Bill through. It is because the Government have not done that that they have brought on themselves their own difficulties.
  I would have hoped that the House would oppose the guillotine motion, which was disgraceful. I hope that it will oppose Second Reading, but I do not expect it to do so. I hope that the Lords will stand firm because they will certainly need to do so.
  9.13 pm
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), who, at earlier stages of our debates, has made similar distinguished contributions and taken a principled stand on the Bill.
  What has depressed me in this debate is that, from the Home Secretary and other Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton), we have not heard any recognition of some of the new arguments that have been advanced in relation to the Bill. In particular, I was depressed and saddened that the Home Secretary, who in his speech on the guillotine motion suggested that he had answered every question, conspicuously failed to pick up on both questions that have been asked in previous debates and issues that have been brought forward in relation to this Second Reading.
  Time is short, so I want to refer just to two points—well, perhaps three, if you will forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is important that they be debated. I fear that they not going to have sufficient debate, but I want to raise them, so that the Minister can at least give some sort of reply.
  The first concerns an argument that has been made time and again and was propagated by the hon. Member for Battersea. The Home Secretary and others have suggested that open lists are unacceptable because if voters can express a preference between individual candidates, it is statistically possible that a candidate of party A could be elected even though he secures fewer votes than the candidate of party B. The Home Secretary signally failed to accept that that occurs for two reasons.
  First, the system gives proportionality to parties. The Home Secretary asserts—and, fundamentally, it has not been denied—that people primarily, but not exclusively, vote for parties. Some people choose to vote for candidates rather than parties, though they are probably in the minority. It is purely because of the insertion of proportionality into the system that someone in party A with fewer votes than the candidate of party B might get elected.
  Secondly, under the Government's closed-list system, it is possible—indeed, likely—that candidates will be elected for parties when they would be shown to be much less preferred than the candidates of other parties if voters were able to express a preference. The point is that we will never know. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) talked about his candidate preferences, but we will never know what differences may exist among voters in respect of their preference for particular candidates.
  Mr. Linton: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that in his Finnish system, it would be possible for a Conservative candidate who attracted no votes on a ballot paper to be elected?
  Mr. Lansley: Of course that is possible, but it would only happen if a party's No. 1 candidate was a particularly well known national figure who is likely to attract the largest number of votes. My noble Friend Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish instanced some such examples on closed or semi-open lists. By virtue of winning such a proportion, a candidate can bring through a tail of much less well

  977
  known candidates who have had a negligible or even, statistically, a nil return. That is a direct product of proportionality.
  Even, however, if we accept the principle enunciated by the Home Secretary—that party is the principal reason why people vote—that does not preclude the possibility that significant numbers of people may wish to express a preference—or wish to have the chance to—between candidates from one party. The hon. Member for Battersea would admit that, even in his party, the homogeneity imposed by the panels in Millbank tower has not yet reached the point where supporters of the Labour party are completely incapable of distinguishing between Labour candidates. Even to this day, they are capable in certain circumstances of distinguishing between them.
  That would particularly be so where, as in the west midlands, at the top of the list imposed by Labour's selection system sits someone who is self-evidently not familiar with the west midlands and whose fame derives from work in the acting profession. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) apologised for having to leave, so we will forgive him for not being here; but if he were, we could chide him for seeming to argue that a candidate's notoriety would be a reason for a party not to put him at the top of the list. When it came to it, his party went down precisely that route and sought a famous candidate.
  That points to one of the besetting sins of closed lists: the examination of candidates down to the second, third, fourth or fifth place on a list is irrelevant. All parties seek to do is to signal party allegiance and, perhaps, in respect of the No. 1 person on a list, seek someone to present it in the best available light. That is an abuse.
  Conservative Members have instanced cases in continental systems in which people have been placed first on the list simply to attract the party vote, but who subsequently resign and hand over their office to someone else.
  Mr. Linton: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in the case of the proposed Labour list in the west midlands, no one will be asked to vote for a well known soap opera star just so that other candidates will be elected on his coat tails? People will be voting for a party, and that candidate will be elected according to his order on the party list. The position would be quite the reverse under the scheme—the Finnish system—that the hon. Gentleman is proposing, as the person in the first position on the Conservative list—be it Lulu, Lord Archer or someone else—would carry on their coat tails people for whom no voter had expressed any preference, simply because he or she was sufficiently famous and attractive in their own right to win votes in sufficient numbers.
  Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman is right about that. However, he is highlighting a distinction between closed and open lists that supports Opposition Members', not Ministers', argument. The hon. Gentleman has made it clear in previous speeches that he is in favour of open lists—at least the Belgian list system, which would offer some of the benefits of using the attraction of specific candidates, whether they occupy the first, second or third position. That leads to the question of why the Government are proposing to use a closed-list system in which the only preference that voters can express is between parties, whereas they are including on ballot papers parties' candidate lists. What is the point of doing that?
  978
  The point is that, in the west midlands, for example, the Labour party believes—erroneously—that it will be able to use the name of a well known soap opera actor, thereby augmenting its vote.
  Mr. John Hayes: Before my hon. Friend moves on, there is a point that requires amplification. Is not the practical effect of the closed-list system the outcome that parties would tend to transport into the European Parliament—or any other body, if the system were to be extended—people of whom they hold a high opinion, and who would not want the inconvenience of having to serve an electorate in any meaningful or real way?
  Is not the truth that that would be a step back to the time before the passage of the 19th century reform Acts, when places in Parliament were in the gift of notables, whose favourites were elevated to Parliament without having to do any of the hard graft? Is that not the real issue? The issue is not, as the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) suggested, about an opportunity for famous people to drag others with them. It is about an opportunity for famous people—in the sense that they are famous in their own party—to be given the opportunity without the hard graft of properly standing for election and making themselves accountable to the electorate.
  Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Liberal Democrats have been trying to argue that we should distance the way in which the Labour party has selected its candidates from our debates on a closed list, as if they were separate and unrelated issues. However, the way the Labour party has selected its candidates is the precise issue. A closed list has enabled the Labour party to select candidates as it has, in what it believed to be the secure expectation of contesting the European parliamentary elections with candidates in the order decided by the party apparatus, rather than requiring it to insert Labour party members' preferences into the system.
  On ballot papers, although there will be an opportunity for voters to express a party preference, the Bill will not allow voters to express a preference between a party's candidates. Moreover, voters would not be able, if they were so minded, to express a preference on an issue, thereby elevating it above party. The bishops in another place, for example, were rightly very exercised by the desire of some voters to use the vote that they cast by reference to issues of conscience. Some voters put issues of conscience above party when electing representatives. Under the Bill, that will not be possible.
  Since our most recent debate on the Bill, the Home Secretary—whom I am pleased to see return to his place—has asserted, on 26 November, that it was compatible with the European convention on human rights, which we have also debated. This is the first time the House has debated a Bill on Second Reading in the light of the requirement that Ministers should say whether it is compatible with the convention.
  Article 3 of the first protocol of the convention says:
  "The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature."

  979
  The Home Secretary made his statement on the compatibility of the Bill with the convention not by answering a question in the House or in the Votes and Proceedings of the House; presumably he simply signed a piece of paper in the Home Office to that effect.
  The Home Secretary has not explained why the Bill is compatible, even though I raised the issue during the debate on the guillotine motion. The aim of the convention is for voters to be able to express their opinion freely. That opinion is not expressed exclusively between parties. The bishops in another place made it clear—as have we, time after time—that the expression of opinion by voters between—
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman and several of his colleagues have raised issues during the debate and addressed questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or to me. It appears that they do not intend to allow us time to respond. Is it in order for him to carry on in such a way that we shall not have an opportunity to respond?
  Mr. Clappison: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the light of the Minister's request for further time, given that the Government have underestimated the time required for the debate, is there any way in which the Government can be assisted to reverse their guillotine motion and give us time to debate the Bill properly?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Although the debate is time limited, the length of time that a Member speaks is not. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has the Floor.
  Mr. Lansley: I might have been able to make more progress if the Minister had not interrupted me on a point of order. Labour Members, including the Home Secretary, have said that there is nothing new to be said about the Bill, but lo and behold there is something new and they do not want to hear it. The Home Secretary knew that compatibility with the European convention was an issue, but he failed to address it, just as he failed to say whether he believed—regardless of whether it is in the legislation—that there should be a review of closed lists. It will fall to be debated in another place, as has happened too many times on the Bill, where Ministers will have to answer questions that have been raised here and should have been debated here—but for the fact that the Government have prevented us from doing so.
  Mr. Loughton: Many new points have been raised during the debate. Is my hon. Friend aware that only last week 17 angry churchmen, including archbishops, bishops and the chairman of the conference of Methodist Churches, expressed their great anger to the Prime Minister that conscience was being squeezed out by the Bill? No one will be able to vote for a candidate on a matter of conscience.
  Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend illustrates the point with force. The European convention gives voters the right to
  980
  choose the members of their legislature. As the bishops rightly say, some voters may want to express their free choice on a matter of conscience. Moreover, some people distinguish between candidates of the same party on ideological grounds, but that will not be possible under the closed list system.
  Mr. Beith: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the first-past-the-post system, which he favours and to which we would return if the Bill fails, is open to challenge in the European Court of Human Rights on the grounds that it does not allow the voters a choice between candidates of the same party?
  Mr. Lansley: I am not saying that, as the right hon. Gentleman and the Home Secretary know. Saying that first past the post is a closed list of one is a red herring, as that system is devised to secure a different objective—a relationship between an elected representative and a defined geographical area. As the Home Secretary made clear, regional electoral areas are being created only for proportionality. Regions could offer voters the opportunity to choose between candidates, but the Bill will deny them that opportunity.
  What will happen if, before the European elections, people go to a court to seek a declaration of incompatibility between the European convention and the legislation on the grounds that their right to choose a particular candidate as a matter of conscience will be frustrated? The Home Secretary has chosen not to recognise the consequences of the Human Rights Act 1998, but he should tell us—not through the medium of his Minister of State in another place—whether he intends to make secondary legislation using the Henry VIII powers in the Human Rights Act to change the voting system at the last minute if it is found that there is incompatibility.
  I am surprised that no Labour Member has been sufficiently acute to have asked whether any of the five European countries that use closed lists have discovered that the system is incompatible with the European convention on human rights. In fact, no country has done that yet, but only because the matter has not been brought to court. As a consequence of the timetable, we are debating an issue—
  It being four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to the Order [this day].
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 315, Noes 123.

  Division No. 6]

  [9.33 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Banks, Tony

  Alexander, Douglas

  Barron, Kevin

  Allan, Richard

  Battle, John

  Allen, Graham

  Bayley, Hugh

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Beard, Nigel

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Ashton, Joe

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Austin, John

  Berry, Roger

  Baker, Norman

  Best, Harold

  Ballard, Jackie

  Blackman, Liz

  981

  Blizzard, Bob

  Follett, Barbara

  Borrow, David

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Brake, Tom

  Galloway, George

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Gapes, Mike

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Gardiner, Barry

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Browne, Desmond

  Gerrard, Neil

  Burden, Richard

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Burgon, Colin

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Burstow, Paul

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Caborn, Richard

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Goggins, Paul

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Gorrie, Donald

  Caplin, Ivor

  Graham, Thomas

  Casale, Roger

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Caton, Martin

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Chaytor, David

  Grogan, John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Gunnell, John

  Church, Ms Judith

  Hain, Peter

  Clapham, Michael

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Hanson, David

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Healey, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clelland, David

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Heppell, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Hesford, Stephen

  Coleman, Iain

  Hill, Keith

  Colman, Tony

  Hinchliffe, David

  Connarty, Michael

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Corbett, Robin

  Home Robertson, John

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cotter, Brian

  Hope, Phil

  Cousins, Jim

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Crausby, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hurst, Alan

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Hutton, John

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Davidson, Ian

  Illsley, Eric

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jamieson, David

  Denham, John

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Dobbin, Jim

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Drew, David

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Edwards, Huw

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Efford, Clive

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Fatchett, Derek

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Kemp, Fraser

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Fisher, Mark

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Kidney, David

  Flint, Caroline

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  982

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Rammell, Bill

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Rendel, David

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Laxton, Bob

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lepper, David

  Rooney, Terry

  Leslie, Christopher

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Roy, Frank

  Linton, Martin

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Livsey, Richard

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Love, Andrew

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sawford, Phil

  McCabe, Steve

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Sheerman, Barry

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Macdonald, Calum

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  McFall, John

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

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

  McNulty, Tony

  Snape, Peter

  McWalter, Tony

  Soley, Clive

  McWilliam, John

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Mallaber, Judy

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Martlew, Eric

  Stunell, Andrew

  Maxton, John

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Swinney, John

  Michael, Alun

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Milburn, Alan

  (Dewsbury)

  Miller, Andrew

  Moffatt, Laura

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Morley, Elliot

  Tipping, Paddy

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Todd, Mark

  Mullin, Chris

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Touhig, Don

  Norris, Dan

  Trickett, Jon

  Oaten, Mark

  Truswell, Paul

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Pearson, Ian

  Wareing, Robert N

  Pendry, Tom

  Watts, David

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Webb, Steve

  Pickthall, Colin

  White, Brian

  Pike, Peter L

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Plaskitt, James

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Pollard, Kerry

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Pond, Chris

  Willis, Phil

  Pope, Greg

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Pound, Stephen

  Woolas, Phil

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Worthington, Tony

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Wyatt, Derek

  Purchase, Ken

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Mr. Clive Betts and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  Radice, Giles

  983

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Leigh, Edward

  Amess, David

  Letwin, Oliver

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Lidington, David

  Baldry, Tony

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Beggs, Roy

  Loughton, Tim

  Bercow, John

  Luff, Peter

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Blunt, Crispin

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Boswell, Tim

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Brady, Graham

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Madel, Sir David

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Burns, Simon

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Butterfill, John

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Chope, Christopher

  Moss, Malcolm

  Clappison, James

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Norman, Archie

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Ottaway, Richard

  (Rushcliffe)

  Page, Richard

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Paice, James

  Collins, Tim

  Paterson, Owen

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Pickles, Eric

  Cran, James

  Prior, David

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Randall, John

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Ruffley, David

  Duncan, Alan

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Evans, Nigel

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Faber, David

  Shepherd, Richard

  Fallon, Michael

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Spring, Richard

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Fraser, Christopher

  Streeter, Gary

  Gale, Roger

  Swayne, Desmond

  Garnier, Edward

  Syms, Robert

  Gibb, Nick

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Gray, James

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Green, Damian

  Tredinnick, David

  Greenway, John

  Trend, Michael

  Grieve, Dominic

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Viggers, Peter

  Hammond, Philip

  Walter, Robert

  Hawkins, Nick

  Wardle, Charles

  Hayes, John

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Heald, Oliver

  Whittingdale, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Hogg, Fit Hon Douglas

  Willetts, David

  Horam, John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Woodward, Shaun

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Mr. Nigel Waterson and Mr. Stephen Day.

  Lansley, Andrew

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House, pursuant to the Order [this day].
  Further proceedings on the Bill stood postponed, pursuant to the Order [this day].

  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Order [this day],
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, it is expedient to authorise the charging on and payment out of the Consolidated Fund of—

  (1) charges to which returning officers are entitled by virtue of that Act, and

  (2) sums required by the Secretary of State for expenditure on the provision of training relating to functions conferred on returning officers by virtue of that Act.—[Mr. Hill.]

  The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 118.

  Division No. 7]

  [9.46 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Clelland, David

  Allan, Richard

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Allen, Graham

  Cohen, Harry

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Coleman, Iain

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Colman, Tony

  Ashton, Joe

  Connarty, Michael

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Corbett, Robin

  Austin, John

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Baker, Norman

  Cotter, Brian

  Ballard, Jackie

  Cousins, Jim

  Banks, Tony

  Crausby, David

  Barron, Kevin

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Battle, John

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cummings, John

  Beard, Nigel

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Berry, Roger

  Dalyell, Tam

  Best, Harold

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Blackman, Liz

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Davidson, Ian

  Boateng, Paul

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Borrow, David

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Denham, John

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Brake, Tom

  Dismore, Andrew

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Dobbin, Jim

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Doran, Frank

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dowd, Jim

  Browne, Desmond

  Drew, David

  Burden, Richard

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Burgon, Colin

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Burstow, Paul

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Caborn, Richard

  Edwards, Huw

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Efford, Clive

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Fatchett, Derek

  Caplin, Ivor

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Casale, Roger

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Caton, Martin

  Fisher, Mark

  Cawsey, Ian

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Flint, Caroline

  Chaytor, David

  Follett, Barbara

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Church, Ms Judith

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Clapham, Michael

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Galloway, George

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Gapes, Mike

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Gerrard, Neil

  985

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Love, Andrew

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McAllion, John

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Godsiff, Roger

  McCabe, Steve

  Goggins, Paul

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gorrie, Donald

  Macdonald, Calum

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McFall, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Grocott, Bruce

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Grogan, John

  McNulty, Tony

  Gunnell, John

  McWalter, Tony

  Hain, Peter

  McWilliam, John

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hanson, David

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Healey, John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Martlew, Eric

  Heppell, John

  Maxton, John

  Hesford, Stephen

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hill, Keith

  Michael, Alun

  Hinchliffe, David

  Milburn, Alan

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Miller, Andrew

  Home Robertson, John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hope, Phil

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Morley, Elliot

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Mullin, Chris

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Norris, Dan

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Oaten, Mark

  Hurst, Alan

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hutton, John

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  O'Neill, Martin

  Illsley, Eric

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Jamieson, David

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pearson, Ian

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)

  Pendry, Tom

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Pond, Chris

  Jones, Ms Jenny(Wolverh'ton SW)

  Pope, Greg

  Pound, Stephen

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kemp, Fraser

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kidney, David

  Radice, Giles

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Rammell, Bill

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Rendel, David

  Lady man, Dr Stephen

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Laxton, Bob

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lepper, David

  Rooney, Terry

  Leslie, Christopher

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Roy, Frank

  Linton, Martin

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Livsey, Richard

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  986

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Tipping, Paddy

  Sawford, Phil

  Todd, Mark

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Touhig, Don

  Sheerman, Barry

  Trickett, Jon

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Truswell, Paul

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Snape, Peter

  Wareing, Robert N

  Soley, Clive

  Watts, David

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Webb, Steve

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  White, Brian

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Willis, Phil

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Woolas, Phil

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Worthington, Tony

  Swinney, John

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann(Dewsbury)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Mr. Clive Betts.

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Hammond, Philip

  Amess, David

  Hawkins, Nick

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Hayes, John

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Heald, Oliver

  Beggs, Roy

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Bercow, John

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hogg, Fit Hon Douglas

  Boswell, Tim

  Horam, John

  Brady, Graham

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hunter, Andrew

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Burns, Simon

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Butterfill, John

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Chope, Christopher

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Clappison, James

  Lansley, Andrew

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Leigh, Edward

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Collins, Tim

  Loughton, Tim

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Luff, Peter

  Cran, James

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Duncan, Alan

  Madel, Sir David

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Malins, Humfrey

  Evans, Nigel

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Faber, David

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Norman, Archie

  Fraser, Christopher

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gale, Roger

  Page, Richard

  Garnier, Edward

  Paice, James

  Gibb, Nick

  Paterson, Owen

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Pickles, Eric

  Gray, James

  Prior, David

  Green, Damian

  Randall, John

  Greenway, John

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Ruffley, David

  987

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Viggers, Peter

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Walter, Robert

  Shepherd, Richard

  Wardle, Charles

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Spring, Richard

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Stanley Rt Hon Sir John

  Wilkinson, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Willetts, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Syms, Robert

  Woodward, Shaun

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Tredinnick, David

  Mr. Nigel Waterson and Mr. Stephen Day.

  Trend, Michael

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [Mr. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Clause 1

  NUMBER OF MEPs, ELECTORAL REGIONS AND ELECTORAL SYSTEM
  Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 312,Noes 119.

  Division No. 8]

  [9.57 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Alexander, Douglas

  Caplin, Ivor

  Allan, Richard

  Casale, Roger

  Allen, Graham

  Caton, Martin

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Ashton, Joe

  Chaytor, David

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Austin, John

  Church, Ms Judith

  Baker, Norman

  Clapham, Michael

  Ballard, Jackie

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Banks, Tony

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Barron, Kevin

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Beard, Nigel

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Clelland, David

  Berry, Roger

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Best, Harold

  Cohen, Harry

  Blackman, Liz

  Coleman, Iain

  Blizzard, Bob

  Colman, Tony

  Boateng, Paul

  Connarty, Michael

  Borrow, David

  Corbett, Robin

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cotter, Brian

  Brake, Tom

  Cousins, Jim

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Crausby, David

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Cummings, John

  Browne, Desmond

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Burden, Richard

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Burgon, Colin

  Dafis, Cynog

  Burstow, Paul

  Dalyell, Tam

  Caborn, Richard

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Davidson, Ian

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  988

  Dawson, Hilton

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Denham, John

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Dowd, Jim

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Drew, David

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Edwards, Huw

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Efford, Clive

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kemp, Fraser

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Kidney, David

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Fisher, Mark

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Flint, Caroline

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Follett, Barbara

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Laxton, Bob

  Galloway, George

  Lepper, David

  Gapes, Mike

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gardiner, Barry

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Linton, Martin

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Livsey, Richard

  Gerrard, Neil

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Love, Andrew

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McAllion, John

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Godsiff, Roger

  McCabe, Steve

  Goggins, Paul

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gorrie, Donald

  Macdonald, Calum

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McFall, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Grocott, Bruce

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Grogan, John

  McNulty, Tony

  Gunnell, John

  McWalter, Tony

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McWilliam, John

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hanson, David

  Mallaber, Judy

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Healey, John

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich).

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Martlew, Eric

  Heppell, John

  Maxton, John

  Hesford, Stephen

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hill, Keith

  Michael, Alun

  Hinchliffe, David

  Milburn, Alan

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Miller, Andrew

  Home Robertson, John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hope, Phil

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Motley, Elliot

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Mullin, Chris

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Norris, Dan

  Hurst, Alan

  Oaten, Mark

  Hutton, John

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Illsley, Eric

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Jamieson, David

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Jenkins, Brian

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)

  Pearson, Ian

  989

  Pendry, Tom

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Pike, Peter L

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Plaskitt, James

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Pollard, Kerry

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Pond, Chris

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Pope, Greg

  Stunell, Andrew

  Pound, Stephen

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Swinney, John

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  (Dewsbury)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Purchase, Ken

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Tipping, Paddy

  Rammell, Bill

  Todd, Mark

  Raynsford, Nick

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Touhig, Don

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Trickett, Jon

  Rendel, David

  Truswell, Paul

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Rooney, Terry

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Roy, Frank

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Watts, David

  Salmond, Alex

  Webb, Steve

  Savidge, Malcolm

  White, Brian

  Sawford, Phil

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Willis, Phil

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Woolas, Phil

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wyatt, Derek

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

  Snape, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Soley, Clive

  Mr. Clive Betts and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Amess, David

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Evans, Nigel

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Faber, David

  Beggs, Roy

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Bercow, John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Blunt, Crispin

  Fraser, Christopher

  Boswell, Tim

  Gale, Roger

  Brady, Graham

  Garnier, Edward

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gibb, Nick

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Gray, James

  Burns, Simon

  Green, Damian

  Butterfill, John

  Greenway, John

  Chope, Christopher

  Grieve, Dominic

  Clappison, James

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Hammond, Philip

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Hayes, John

  (Rushcliffe)

  Heald, Oliver

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Cran, James

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Horam, John

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Day, Stephen

  Hunter, Andrew

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  990

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Shepherd, Richard

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Lansley, Andrew

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Leigh, Edward

  Spring, Richard

  Letwin, Oliver

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Streeter, Gary

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Loughton, Tim

  Syms, Robert

  Luff, Peter

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Tredinnick, David

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Trend, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Madel, Sir David

  Viggers, Peter

  Malins, Humfrey

  Walter, Robert

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Wardle, Charles

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Waterson, Nigel

  Moss, Malcolm

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Whittingdale, John

  Norman, Archie

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wilkinson, John

  Page, Richard

  Willetts, David

  Paice, James

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Paterson, Owen

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Pickles, Eric

  Woodward, Shaun

  Prior, David

  Yeo, Tim

  Randall, John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ruffley, David

  Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Tim Collins.

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

  ELECTORAL REGIONS IN ENGLAND
  Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 311, Noes 114.

  Division No. 9]

  [10.10 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Borrow, David

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Allan, Richard

  Brake, Tom

  Allen, Graham

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Ashton, Joe

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Browne, Desmond

  Austin, John

  Burden, Richard

  Baker, Norman

  Burgon, Colin

  Ballard, Jackie

  Burstow, Paul

  Banks, Tony

  Caborn, Richard

  Barron, Kevin

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Battle, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Beard, Nigel

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Caplin, Ivor

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Casale, Roger

  Berry, Roger

  Caton, Martin

  Best, Harold

  Cawsey, Ian

  Betts, Clive

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Blackman, Liz

  Chaytor, David

  Blizzard, Bob

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Boateng, Paul

  Church, Ms Judith

  991

  Clapham, Michael

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Healey, John

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clelland, David

  Heppell, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cohen, Harry

  Hill, Keith

  Coleman, Iain

  Hinchliffe, David

  Colman, Tony

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Connarty, Michael

  Home Robertson, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hope, Phil

  Cotter, Brian

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Cousins, Jim

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Crausby, David

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Cummings, John

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hurst, Alan

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Hutton, John

  Dafis, Cynog

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Dalyell, Tam

  Illsley, Eric

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davidson, Ian

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Dawson, Hilton

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Denham, John

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Drew, David

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Edwards, Huw

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Efford, Clive

  Kidney, David

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Fisher, Mark

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Flint, Caroline

  Laxton, Bob

  Follett, Barbara

  Lepper, David

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Leslie, Christopher

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Linton, Martin

  Galloway, George

  Livsey, Richard

  Gapes, Mike

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Gardiner, Barry

  Love, Andrew

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  McCabe, Steve

  Gerrard, Neil

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Macdonald, Calum

  Godsiff, Roger

  McFall, John

  Goggins, Paul

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McIsaac, Shona

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Gorrie, Donald

  McNulty, Tony

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McWalter, Tony

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McWilliam, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mallaber, Judy

  Grogan, John

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Gunnell, John

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  992

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sawford, Phil

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Martlew, Eric

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Maxton, John

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Michael, Alun

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Milburn, Alan

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

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

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Snape, Peter

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Soley, Clive

  Morley, Elliot

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Mullin, Chris

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Norris, Dan

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Oaten, Mark

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  O'Neill, Martin

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Stunell, Andrew

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Swinney, John

  Pearson, Ian

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Pendry, Tom

  (Dewsbury)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Pike, Peter L

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Plaskitt, James

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pond, Chris

  Todd, Mark

  Pope, Greg

  Touhig, Don

  Pound, Stephen

  Trickett, Jon

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Truswell, Paul

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Purchase, Ken

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Wareing, Robert N

  Radice, Giles

  Watts, David

  Rammell, Bill

  Webb, Steve

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Rendel, David

  Willis, Phil

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Woolas, Phil

  Rooney, Terry

  Worthington, Tony

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Roy, Frank

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Salmond, Alex

  Mr. David Jamieson and Mr. David Hanson.

  Savidge, Malcolm

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Amess, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  (Rushcliffe)

  Beggs, Roy

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Bercow, John

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Cran, James

  Blunt, Crispin

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Boswell, Tim

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Brady, Graham

  Day, Stephen

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Duncan, Alan

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Burns, Simon

  Evans, Nigel

  Butterfill, John

  Faber, David

  Chope, Christopher

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Clappison, James

  Fox, Dr Liam

  993

  Fraser, Christopher

  Page, Richard

  Gale, Roger

  Paice, James

  Garnier, Edward

  Paterson, Owen

  Gibb, Nick

  Pickles, Eric

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Prior, David

  Gray, James

  Randall, John

  Green, Damian

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Greenway, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Ruffley, David

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Hammond, Philip

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hawkins, Nick

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hayes, John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Heald, Oliver

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Horam, John

  Spring, Richard

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Streeter, Gary

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Swayne, Desmond

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Syms, Robert

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Taylor, Ian Esher& Walton)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Lansley, Andrew

  Tredinnick, David

  Leigh, Edward

  Trend, Michael

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Viggers, Peter

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Walter, Robert

  Loughton, Tim

  Wardie, Charles

  Luff, Peter

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Whittingdale, John

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Wilkinson, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Willetts, David

  Madel, Sir David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Maples, John

  Woodward, Shaun

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Yeo, Tim

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Moss, Malcolm

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Norman, Archie

  Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Tim Collins.

  Ottaway, Richard

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

  AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS
  Motion made and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 289, Noes 116.

  Division No. 10]

  [10.21 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Berry, Roger

  Alexander, Douglas

  Best, Harold

  Allan, Richard

  Betts, Clive

  Allen, Graham

  Blackman, Liz

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Ashton, Joe

  Borrow, David

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Austin, John

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Baker, Norman

  Brake, Tom

  Ballard, Jackie

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Banks, Tony

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Barron, Kevin

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Beard, Nigel

  Browne, Desmond

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Burden, Richard

  994

  Burgon, Colin

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Burstow, Paul

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gorrie, Donald

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Grocott, Bruce

  Casale, Roger

  Grogan, John

  Caton, Martin

  Gunnell, John

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Chaytor, David

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Church, Ms Judith

  Healey, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Heppell, John

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hill, Keith

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clelland, David

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Home Robertson, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Coleman, Iain

  Hope, Phil

  Colman, Tony

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

  Cotter, Brian

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cousins, Jim

  Hurst, Alan

  Crausby, David

  Hutton, John

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Illsley, Eric

  Cummings, John

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dobbin, Jim

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Doran, Frank

  Kemp, Fraser

  Dowd, Jim

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Drew, David

  Kidney, David

  Drown, Ms Julia

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Edwards, Huw

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Efford, Clive

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Ennis, Jeff

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Laxton, Bob

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Lepper, David

  Fisher, Mark

  Leslie, Christopher

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Flint, Caroline

  Linton, Martin

  Follett, Barbara

  Livsey, Richard

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Love, Andrew

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Galloway, George

  McCabe, Steve

  Gapes, Mike

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Gardiner, Barry

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  McFall, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McIsaac, Shona

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McNulty, Tony

  Godsiff, Roger

  McWalter, Tony

  Goggins, Paul

  McWilliam, John

  995

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mallaber, Judy

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall, David (Sheweston)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Maxton, John

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Milburn, Alan

  Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)

  Miller, Andrew

  Snape, Peter

  Moffatt, Laura

  Soley, Clive

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morley, Elliot

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Mullin, Chris

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Norris, Dan

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Oaten, Mark

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stunell, Andrew

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  O'Neill, Martin

  Swinney, John

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  (Dewsbury)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pearson, Ian

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Pendry, Tom

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pike, Peter L

  Todd, Mark

  Plaskitt, James

  Touhig, Don

  Pollard, Kerry

  Trickett, Jon

  Pond, Chris

  Truswell, Paul

  Pope, Greg

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pound, Stephen

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Purchase, Ken

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Wareing, Robert N

  Radice, Giles

  Watts, David

  Rammell, Bill

  Webb, Steve

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Rendel, David

  Willis, Phil

  Rooker, Jeff

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Rooney, Terry

  Woolas, Phil

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Worthington, Tony

  Roy, Frank

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Salmond, Alex

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mr. David Jamieson and Mr. David Hanson.

  Sawford, Phil

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  (Rushcliffe)

  Amess, David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Collins, Tim

  Beggs, Roy

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Bercow, John

  Cran, James

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Boswell, Tim

  Day, Stephen

  Brady, Graham

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Duncan, Alan

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Burns, Simon

  Evans, Nigel

  Butterfill, John

  Faber, David

  Chope, Christopher

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Clappison, James

  Fraser, Christopher

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Gale, Roger

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Garnier, Edward

  996

  Gibb, Nick

  Paice, James

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Paterson, Owen

  Gray, James

  Pickles, Eric

  Green, Damian

  Prior, David

  Greenway, John

  Randall, John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Hammond, Philip

  Ruffley, David

  Hawkins, Nick

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Hayes, John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Heald, Oliver

  Shepherd, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Horam, John

  Spring, Richard

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Streeter, Gary

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Swayne, Desmond

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Syms, Robert

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Leigh, Edward

  Tredinnick, David

  Trend, Michael

  Letwin, Oliver

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Viggers, Peter

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Walter, Robert

  Loughton, Tim

  Wardle, Charles

  Luff, Peter

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Whittingdale, John

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Wilkinson, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Willetts, David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Maples, John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Woodward, Shaun

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Yeo, Tim

  Moss, Malcolm

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Norman, Archie

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ottaway, Richard

  Mrs. Caroline Spelman and Sir David Madel.

  Page, Richard

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

  EXPENSES
  Motion made and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 285, Noes 115.

  Division No. 11]

  [10.31 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Berry, Roger

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Best, Harold

  Alexander, Douglas

  Betts, Clive

  Allan, Richard

  Blizzard, Bob

  Allen, Graham

  Borrow, David

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Ashton, Joe

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Brake, Tom

  Austin, John

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Baker, Norman

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Ballard, Jackie

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Banks, Tony

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Barron, Kevin

  Browne, Desmond

  Bayley, Hugh

  Burden, Richard

  Beard, Nigel

  Burgon, Colin

  Berth, Rt Hon A J

  Burstow, Paul

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  997

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Grogan, John

  Casale, Roger

  Gunnell, John

  Caton, Martin

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Chaytor, David

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Healey, John

  Church, Ms Judith

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Clapham, Michael

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Heppell, John

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hill, Keith

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Home Robertson, John

  Clelland, David

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hope, Phil

  Cohen, Harry

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Coleman, Iain

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Colman, Tony

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Corbett, Robin

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hurst, Alan

  Cotter, Brian

  Hutton, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Crausby, David

  Illsley, Eric

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Cummings, John

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dawson, Hilton

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Keen, Alan (Fettham & Heston)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Kemp, Fraser

  Dobbin, Jim

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kidney, David

  Doran, Frank

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Dowd, Jim

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Drew, David

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Edwards, Huw

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Efford, Clive

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Ennis, Jeff

  Laxton, Bob

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Lepper, David

  Feam, Ronnie

  Leslie, Christopher

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Levitt, Tom

  Fisher, Mark

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Linton, Martin

  Hint, Caroline

  Livsey, Richard

  Follett, Barbara

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Love, Andrew

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McCabe, Steve

  Galloway, George

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Gapes, Mike

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Gardiner, Barry

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  McFall, John

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gerrard, Neil

  McIsaac, Shona

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McNulty, Tony

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McWalter, Tony

  Godsiff, Roger

  McWilliam, John

  Goggins, Paul

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mallaber, Judy

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Gorrie, Donald

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  998

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Skinner, Dennis

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Maxton, John

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Milburn, Alan

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Moffatt, Laura

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

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Snape, Peter

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Soley, Clive

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Morley, Elliot

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Mullin, Chris

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Norris, Dan

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Oaten, Mark

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stunell, Andrew

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Swinney, John

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Pearson, Ian

  (Dewsbury)

  Pendry, Tom

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Pickthall, Colin

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Pike, Peter L

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Plaskitt, James

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pond, Chris

  Todd, Mark

  Pope, Greg

  Touhig, Don

  Pound, Stephen

  Trickett, Jon

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Truswell, Paul

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Purchase, Ken

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Radice, Giles

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Rammell, Bill

  Wareing, Robert N

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Watts, David

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Webb, Steve

  Rendel, David

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Rooney, Terry

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Willis, Phil

  Roy, Frank

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Woolas, Phil

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Worthington, Tony

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Salmond, Alex

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wyatt, Derek

  Sawford, Phil

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mr. David Jamieson and Mr. David Hanson.

  Sheerman, Barry

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Amess, David

  Cran, James

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Beggs, Roy

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Bercow, John

  Day, Stephen

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Blunt, Crispin

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Boswell, Tim

  Duncan, Alan

  Brady, Graham

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, Nigel

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Faber, David

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Burns, Simon

  Fraser, Christopher

  Butterfill, John

  Gale, Roger

  Chope, Christopher

  Garnier, Edward

  Clappison, James

  Gibb, Nick

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Gray, James

  (Rushdiffe)

  Green, Damian

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Greenway, John

  Collins, Tim

  Grieve, Dominic

  999

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Prior, David

  Hammond, Philip

  Randall, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Hayes, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Heald, Oliver

  Ruffley, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Horam, John

  Shepherd, Richard

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hunter, Andrew

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Spring, Richard

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Streeter, Gary

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Swayne, Desmond

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Syms, Robert

  Lansley, Andrew

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Leigh, Edward

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Tredinnick, David

  Loughton, Tim

  Trend, Michael

  Luff, Peter

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Viggers, Peter

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Walter, Robert

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Wardle, Charles

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Waterson, Nigel

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Whittingdale, John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Maples, John

  Wilkinson, John

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Willetts, David

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Woodward, Shaun

  Norman, Archie

  Yeo, Tim

  Ottaway, Richard

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Page, Richard

  Paice, James

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Paterson, Owen

  Mrs. Caroline Spelman and Sir David Madel.

  Pickles, Eric

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

  COMMENCEMENT
  Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
  The Committee divided:Ayes 275,Neos 116.
  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

  NEW SCHEDULE 2 TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ACT 1978
  Motion made and question put, That this schedule be the first schedule to the Bill:—
  The committee divided: Ayes 272, Noes 120.

  Division No. 12]

  [10.42 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Blizzard, Bob

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Borrow, David

  Alexander, Douglas

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Allan, Richard

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Allen, Graham

  Brake, Tom

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Ashton, Joe

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Browne, Desmond

  Austin, John

  Burden, Richard

  Baker, Norman

  Burgon, Colin

  Ballard, Jackie

  Burstow, Paul

  Banks, Tony

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Barron, Kevin

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Beard, Nigel

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Caplin, Ivor

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Casale, Roger

  Berry, Roger

  Caton, Martin

  Best, Harold

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Betts, Clive

  Chaytor, David

  1000

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Church, Ms Judith

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clapham, Michael

  Heppell, John

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clark, Dr Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Home Robertson, John

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hope, Phil

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clelland, David

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Coleman, Iain

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Colman, Tony

  Hurst, Alan

  Connarty, Michael

  Hutton, John

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cotter, Brian

  Illsley, Eric

  Cousins, Jim

  Jamieson, David

  Crausby, David

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)

  Cummings, John

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davidson, Ian

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Kemp, Fraser

  Dismore, Andrew

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Kidney, David

  Donohoe, Brian H

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Doran, Frank

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Dowd, Jim

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Drew, David

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Edwards, Huw

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Efford, Clive

  Laxton, Bob

  Ennis, Jeff

  Lepper, David

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Leslie, Christopher

  Feam, Ronnie

  Levitt, Tom

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Fisher, Mark

  Linton, Martin

  Fitzsimons, Loma

  Livsey, Richard

  Flint, Caroline

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Follett, Barbara

  Love, Andrew

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McAvoy. Thomas

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McCabe, Steve

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Galloway, George

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gapes, Mike

  McFall, John

  Gardiner, Barry

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  McIsaac, Shona

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Gerrard, Neil

  McNulty, Tony

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McWalter, Tony

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McWilliam, John

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mallaber, Judy

  Goggins, Paul

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Gorrie, Donald

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Martlew, Eric

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Maxton, John

  Grogan, John

  Milburn, Alan

  Gunnell, John

  Miller, Andrew

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hanson, David

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Healey, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  1001

  Norris, Dan

  Soley, Clive

  Oaten, Mark

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Pearson, Ian

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Pendry, Tom

  Stunell, Andrew

  Pernam, Ms Linda

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Pickthall, Colin

  Swinney, John

  Pike, Peter L

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann(Dewsbury)

  Plaskitt, James

  Pond, Chris

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pope, Greg

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Pound, Stephen

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Todd, Mark

  Purchase, Ken

  Touhig, Don

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Trickett, Jon

  Radice, Giles

  Truswell, Paul

  Rammell, Bill

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Rendel, David

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Rooney, Terry

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Roy, Frank

  Wareing, Robert N

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Watts, David

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Webb, Steve

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Salmond, Alex

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Sawford, Phil

  Willis, Phil

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Woolas, Phil

  Sheerman, Barry

  Worthington, Tony

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

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

  Mr. Mike Hall and Mr. Keith Hill.

  Snape, Peter

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Evans, Nigel

  Amess, David

  Faber, David

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Beggs, Roy

  Fraser, Christopher

  Bercow, John

  Gale, Roger

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Garnier, Edward

  Blunt, Crispin

  Gibb, Nick

  Boswell, Tim

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brady, Graham

  Gray, James

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Green, Damian

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Greenway, John

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Burns, Simon

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Butterfill, John

  Hammond, Philip

  Chope, Christopher

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clappison, James

  Hayes, John

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Horam, John

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Collins, Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Day, Stephen

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Lansley, Andrew

  Duncan, Alan

  Leigh, Edward

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Letwin, Oliver

  1002

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Lidington, David

  Spring, Richard

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Loughton, Tim

  Streeter, Gary

  Luff, Peter

  Swayne, Desmond

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Syms, Robert

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher& Walton)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Madel, Sir David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Malins, Humfrey

  Thompson, William

  Maples, John

  Tredinnick, David

  Mawhinney, Ftt Hon Sir Brian

  Trend, Michael

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Moss, Malcolm

  Viggers, Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Walter, Robert

  Norman, Archie

  Wardle, Charles

  Ottaway Richard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Page, Richard

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Whittingdale, John

  Paice, James

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Paterson, Owen

  Wilkinson, John

  Pickles, Eric

  Willetts, David

  Prior, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Randall, John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Yeo, Tim

  Ruffley, David

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Shepherd, Richard

  Mr. Oliver Heald and Mr. James Cran.

  Soames, Nicholas

  Division No. 13]

  [10.53 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Browne, Desmond

  Alexander, Douglas

  Burden, Richard

  Allan, Richard

  Burgon, Colin

  Allen, Graham

  Burstow, Paul

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Ashton, Joe

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Austin, John

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Baker, Norman

  Caplin, Ivor

  Ballard, Jackie

  Casale, Roger

  Banks, Tony

  Caton, Martin

  Barron, Kevin

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Chaytor, David

  Berth, Rt Hon A J

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Church, Ms Judith

  Berry, Roger

  Clapham, Michael

  Best, Harold

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Betts, Clive

  Clark, Dr Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Borrow, David

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Brake, Tom

  Clelland, David

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  1003

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Coleman, Iain

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Colman, Tony

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Connarty, Michael

  Hurst, Alan

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cotter, Brian

  Illsley, Eric

  Cousins, Jim

  Jamieson, David

  Crausby, David

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)

  Cummings, John

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davidson, Ian

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Kemp, Fraser

  Dismore, Andrew

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Kidney, David

  Donohoe, Brian H

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Doran, Frank

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Dowd, Jim

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Drew, David

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Edwards, Huw

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Efford, Clive

  Laxton, Bob

  Ennis, Jeff

  Lepper, David

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Leslie, Christopher

  Feam, Ronnie

  Levitt, Tom

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Fisher, Mark

  Linton, Martin

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Livsey, Richard

  Flint, Caroline

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Follett, Barbara

  Love, Andrew

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  McCabe, Steve

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Galloway, George

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gapes, Mike

  McIsaac, Shona

  Gardiner, Barry

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  McNulty, Tony

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  McWalter, Tony

  Gerrard, Neil

  McWilliam, John

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Mallaber, Judy

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Goggins, Paul

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Gorrie, Donald

  Martlew, Eric

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Maxton, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Milburn, Alan

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Miller, Andrew

  Grogan, John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Gunnell, John

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hanson, David

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Mullin, Chris

  Harvey, Nick

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Norris, Dan

  Healey, John

  Oaten, Mark

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Hepburn, Stephen

  O'Neill, Martin

  Heppell, John

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Hesford, Stephen

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Hinchliffe, David

  Pearson, Ian

  Home Robertson, John

  Pendry, Tom

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Hope, Phil

  Pickthall, Colin

  Howarth, George (KnowsleyN)

  Pike, Peter L

  1004

  Plaskitt, James

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Pond, Chris

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Pope, Greg

  Stunell, Andrew

  Pound, Stephen

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Swinney, John

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann(Dewsbury)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Purchase, Ken

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Radice, Giles

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Rammell, Bill

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Rendel, David

  Todd, Mark

  Rooney, Terry

  Touhig, Don

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Trickett, Jon

  Roy, Frank

  Truswell, Paul

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Salmond, Alex

  Tyler, Paul

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Sawford, Phil

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wareing, Robert N

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Watts, David

  Webb, Steve

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Willis, Phil

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

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

  Woolas, Phil

  Snape, Peter

  Worthington, Tony

  Soley, Clive

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Wyatt, Derek

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mr. Mike Hall and Mr. Keith Hill.

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Amess, David

  Fraser, Christopher

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Gale, Roger

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Garnier, Edward

  Beggs, Roy

  Gibb, Nick

  Bercow, John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gray, James

  Blunt, Crispin

  Green, Damian

  Boswell, Tim

  Greenway, John

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Brady, Graham

  Hammond, Philip

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hawkins, Nick

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hayes, John

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Burns, Simon

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Butterfill, John

  Horam, John

  Chope, Christopher

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Clappison, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Collins, Tim

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Lansley, Andrew

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Leigh, Edward

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Day, Stephen

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Lidington, David

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Duncan, Alan

  Loughton, Tim

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Luff, Peter

  Evans, Nigel

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Faber, David

  MacKay, Pit Hon Andrew

  Flight, Howard

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  1005

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Swayne, Desmond

  Madel, Sir David

  Syms, Robert

  Malins, Humfrey

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Maples, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher& Walton)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Thompson, William

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tredinnick, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Trend, Michael

  Norman, Archie

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Ottaway, Richard

  Viggers, Peter

  Page, Richard

  Walter, Robert

  Paice, James

  Wardle, Charles

  Paterson, Owen

  Waterson, Nigel

  Pickles, Eric

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Whittingdale, John

  Prior, David

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Randall, John

  Wilkinson, John

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Willetts, David

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Woodward, Shaun

  Shepherd, Richard

  Yeo, Tim

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Spring, Richard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mr. Oliver Heald and Mr. James Cran.

  Streeter, Gary

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2

  MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF SCHEDULE 1 TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ACT 1978
  Motion made, and Question put, That this suhedule be the Second schedule to the Bill:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 266, Noes 117.
  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3

  MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put, That this schedule be the Third schedule to the Bill:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 262, Noes 116.

  Division No. 15]

  [11.15 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Allan, Richard

  Clelland, David

  Allen, Graham

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cohen, Harry

  Ashton, Joe

  Coleman, Iain

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Colman, Tony

  Austin, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Baker, Norman

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Ballard, Jackie

  Cotter, Brian

  Banks, Tony

  Cousins, Jim

  Barron, Kevin

  Crausby, David

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Berth, Rt Hon A J

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Cummings, John

  Berry, Roger

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Best, Harold

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Betts, Clive

  Dafis, Cynog

  Blizzard, Bob

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Borrow, David

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Davidson, Ian

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Browne, Desmond

  Dismore, Andrew

  Burden, Richard

  Dobbin, Jim

  Burgon, Colin

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Doran, Frank

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Dowd, Jim

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Drew, David

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Edwards, Huw

  Caplin, Ivor

  Efford, Clive

  Casale, Roger

  Ennis, Jeff

  Caton, Martin

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Chaytor, David

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Fisher, Mark

  Clapham, Michael

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Flint, Caroline

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Follett, Barbara

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  1009

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Livsey, Richard

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Galloway, George

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gapes, Mike

  McCabe, Steve

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gerrard, Neil

  McIsaac, Shona

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McNulty, Tony

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McWalter, Tony

  Godsiff, Roger

  McWilliam, John

  Goggins, Paul

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Mallaber, Judy

  Gorrie, Donald

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Grogan, John

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Maxton, John

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Milburn, Alan

  Hanson, David

  Miller, Andrew

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Moffatt, Laura

  Harvey, Nick

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Healey, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Norris, Dan

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Oaten, Mark

  Heppell, John

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hesford, Stephen

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Hill, Keith

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hinchliffe, David

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Home Robertson, John

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Pearson, Ian

  Hope, Phil

  Pendry, Tom

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pike, Peter L

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Plaskitt, James

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Pond, Chris

  Hurst, Alan

  Pound, Stephen

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Illsley, Eric

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jamieson, David

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Jenkins, Brian

  Purchase, Ken

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Radice, Giles

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Rammell, Bill

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Rendel, David

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Rooney, Terry

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Roy, Frank

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Salmond, Alex

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Sawford, Phil

  Kemp, Fraser

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Kidney, David

  Sheerman, Barry

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

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

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Snape, Peter

  Laxton, Bob

  Soley, Clive

  Lepper, David

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Leslie, Christopher

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Levitt, Tom

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Linton, Martin

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  1010

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Tyler, Paul

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Stunell, Andrew

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Watts, David

  Swinney, John

  Webb, Steve

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Wicks, Malcolm

  (Dewsbury)

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Willis, Phil

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Woolas, Phil

  Tipping, Paddy

  Worthington, Tony

  Todd, Mark

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Touhig, Don

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Trickett, Jon

  Wyatt, Derek

  Truswell, Paul

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Mr. Greg Pope and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Amess, David

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Beggs, Roy

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Bercow, John

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Blunt, Crispin

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Boswell, Tim

  Lansley, Andrew

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Leigh, Edward

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Letwin, Oliver

  Brady, Graham

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Loughton, Tim

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Luff, Peter

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Burns, Simon

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Butterfill, John

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Chope, Christopher

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Clappison, James

  Madel, Sir David

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Maples, John

  (Rushcliffe)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Collins, Tim

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Cran, James

  Moss, Malcolm

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Ottaway, Richard

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Page, Richard

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Paice, James

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Paterson, Owen

  Duncan, Alan

  Pickles, Eric

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Prior, David

  Evans, Nigel

  Randall, John

  Faber, David

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Flight, Howard

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Ruffley, David

  Fraser, Christopher

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Gale, Roger

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Garnier, Edward

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gibb, Nick

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Green, Damian

  Spring, Richard

  Greenway, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Streeter, Gary

  Swayne, Desmond

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Syms, Robert

  Hammond, Philip

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Hawkins, Nick

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Hayes, John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Heald, Oliver

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Thompson, William

  Horam, John

  Tredinnick, David

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Trend, Michael

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Hunter, Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  1011

  Walter, Robert

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Wardle, Charles

  Woodward, Shaun

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Yeo, Tim

  Whittingdale, John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Wilkinson, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Willetts, David

  Mr. Nigel Waterson and Mr. Stephen Day.

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Schedule 3 agreed to.

Schedule 4

  REPEALS AND REVOCATIONS
  Motion made and question put, That this schedule be the first schedule to the Bill.
  The committee divided: Ayes 272, Noes 121.

  Division No. 16]

  [11.27 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Cotter, Brian

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cousins, Jim

  Alexander, Douglas

  Crausby, David

  Allan, Richard

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Allen, Graham

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cummings, John

  Ashton, Joe

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Austin, John

  Dafis, Cynog

  Baker, Norman

  Dalyell, Tam

  Ballard, Jackie

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Banks, Tony

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Barron, Kevin

  Davidson, Ian

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Berry, Roger

  Dobbin, Jim

  Best, Harold

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Blizzard, Bob

  Doran, Frank

  Borrow, David

  Dowd, Jim

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Drew, David

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Edwards, Huw

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Efford, Clive

  Browne, Desmond

  Ennis, Jeff

  Burden, Richard

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Burgon, Colin

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Flint, Caroline

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Follett, Barbara

  Caplin, Ivor

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Casale, Roger

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Caton, Martin

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Galloway, George

  Chaytor, David

  Gapes, Mike

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Clapham, Michael

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clelland, David

  Goggins, Paul

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Cohen, Harry

  Gorrie, Donald

  Coleman, Iain

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Colman, Tony

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Connarty, Michael

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Grogan, John

  1012

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Norris, Dan

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Oaten, Mark

  Hanson, David

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Harvey, Nick

  O'Neill, Martin

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Healey, John

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Pearson, Ian

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Pendry, Tom

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Heppell, John

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hesford, Stephen

  Pike, Peter L

  Hinchliffe, David

  Plaskitt, James

  Home Robertson, John

  Pond, Chris

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Pope, Greg

  Hope, Phil

  Pound, Stephen

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Purchase, Ken

  Hurst, Alan

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Radice, Giles

  Illsley, Eric

  Rammell, Bill

  Jamieson, David

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Rendel, David

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)

  Rooney, Terry

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Roy, Frank

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Salmond, Alex

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Sawford, Phil

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Skinner, Dennis

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Kidney, David

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

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Snape, Peter

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Soley, Clive

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Laxton, Bob

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Lepper, David

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Leslie, Christopher

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Levitt, Tom

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Linton, Martin

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Livsey, Richard

  Swinney, John

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  McAvoy, Thomas

  (Dewsbury)

  McCabe, Steve

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  McIsaac, Shona

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  McNulty, Tony

  Tipping, Paddy

  McWalter, Tony

  Todd, Mark

  McWilliam, John

  Touhig, Don

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Trickett, Jon

  Mallaber, Judy

  Truswell, Paul

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Tyler, Paul

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Maxton, John

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Milburn, Alan

  Wareing, Robert N

  Miller, Andrew

  Watts, David

  Moffatt, Laura

  Webb, Steve

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Mullin, Chris

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Willis, Phil

  1013

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Woolas, Phil

  Worthington, Tony

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Mr. Clive Betts and Mr. Keith Hill.

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Amess, David

  Leigh, Edward

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Letwin, Oliver

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Beggs, Roy

  Lidington, David

  Bercow, John

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Loughton, Tim

  Blunt, Crispin

  Luff, Peter

  Boswell, Tim

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Brady, Graham

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Malins, Humfrey

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Maples, John

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Burns, Simon

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Butterfill, John

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Chope, Christopher

  Moss, Malcolm

  Clappison, James

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington

  Norman, Archie

  and Chelsea)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Page, Richard

  (Rushcliffe)

  Paice, James

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Paterson, Owen

  Collins, Tim

  Pickles, Eric

  Cran, James

  Prior, David

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Randall, John

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewkb'ry)

  Day, Stephen

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Ruffley, David

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Duncan, Alan

  Shepherd, Richard

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Evans, Nigel

  Spring, Richard

  Faber, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Flight, Howard

  Streeter, Gary

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Swayne, Desmond

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Syms, Robert

  Fraser, Christopher

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Gale, Roger

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Garnier, Edward

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Gibb, Nick

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Thompson, William

  Gray, James

  Tredinnick, David

  Green, Damian

  Trend, Michael

  Greenway, John

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Grieve, Dominic

  Viggers, Peter

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Walter, Robert

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Wardle, Charles

  Hammond, Philip

  Waterson, Nigel

  Hawkins, Nick

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Hayes, John

  Whittingdale, John

  Heald, Oliver

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Wilkinson, John

  Horam, John

  Willetts, David

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Woodward, Shaun

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Sir David Madel and Mrs. Caroline Spelman.

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Schedule 4 agreed to.
  Bill reported, without amendment.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made and Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Order [this day], That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 122.

  Division No. 17]

  [11.39 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Dobbin, Jim

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Alexander, Douglas

  Doran, Frank

  Allan, Richard

  Dowd, Jim

  Allen, Graham

  Drew, David

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Edwards, Huw

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Efford, Clive

  Austin, John

  Ennis, Jeff

  Baker, Norman

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Ballard, Jackie

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Banks, Tony

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Barron, Kevin

  Fisher, Mark

  Bayley, Hugh

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Flint, Caroline

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Berry, Roger

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Best, Harold

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Betts, Clive

  Galloway, George

  Blizzard, Bob

  Gapes, Mike

  Borrow, David

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Gerrard, Neil

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Browne, Desmond

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Burden, Richard

  Godsiff, Roger

  Burgon, Colin

  Goggins, Paul

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gorrie, Donald

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Grogan, John

  Casale, Roger

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Caton, Martin

  Hanson, David

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Chaytor, David

  Harvey, Nick

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clapham, Michael

  Healey, John

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hill, Keith

  Cohen, Harry

  Hinchliffe, David

  Coleman, Iain

  Home Robertson, John

  Colman, Tony

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Connarty, Michael

  Hope, Phil

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cotter, Brian

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Crausby, David

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hurst, Alan

  Cummings, John

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Illsley, Eric

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Jamieson, David

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  1015

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Radice, Giles

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Rammell, Bill

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Rendel, David

  Kemp, Fraser

  Rooney, Terry

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Roy, Frank

  Kidney, David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Salmond, Alex

  Kirkwood, Anchy

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Sawford, Phil

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Sheerman, Barry

  Laxton, Bob

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Lepper, David

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Levitt, Tom

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

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Snape, Peter

  Linton, Martin

  Soley, Clive

  Livsey, Richard

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McCabe, Steve

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  McNulty, Tony

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  McWalter, Tony

  Stunell, Andrew

  McWilliam, John

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mallaber, Judy

  Swinney, John

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  (Dewsbury)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Maxton, John

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Milburn, Alan

  Tipping, Paddy

  Miller, Andrew

  Todd, Mark

  Moffatt, Laura

  Touhig, Don

  Moore, Michael

  Trickett, Jon

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Truswell, Paul

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Mullin, Chris

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Norris, Dan

  Tyler, Paul

  Oaten, Mark

  Wallace, James

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Ward, Ms Claire

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wareing, Robert N

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Watts, David

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Webb, Steve

  Pearson, Ian

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Pendry, Tom

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Willis, Phil

  Pike, Peter L

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Plaskitt, James

  Woolas, Phil

  Pond, Chris

  Worthington, Tony

  Pope, Greg

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Pound, Stephen

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Purchase, Ken

  Mr. Mike Hall and Mr. David Clelland.

  Quinn, Lawrie

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Amess, David

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Brady, Graham

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Beggs, Roy

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Bercow, John

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Burns, Simon

  Blunt, Crispin

  Butterfill, John

  Boswell, Tim

  Chope, Christopher

  1016

  Clappison, James

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  (Rushcliffe)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Maples, John

  Collins, Tim

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Cran, James

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Day, Stephen

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Norman, Archie

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Ottaway, Richard

  Duncan, Alan

  Page, Richard

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Paice, James

  Evans, Nigel

  Paterson, Owen

  Faber, David

  Pickles, Eric

  Flight, Howard

  Prior, David

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Randall, John

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Fraser, Christopher

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Gale, Roger

  Ruffley, David

  Garnier, Edward

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gibb, Nick

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Gray, James

  Spring, Richard

  Green, Damian

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Streeter, Gary

  Greenway, John

  Swayne, Desmond

  Grieve, Dominic

  Syms, Robert

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Hammond, Philip

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Hayes, John

  Thompson, William

  Heald, Oliver

  Tredinnick, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Trend, Michael

  Horam, John

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldenshot)

  Walter, Robert

  Hunter, Andrew

  Wardle, Charles

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Waterson, Nigel

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Whittingdale, John

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Wilkinson, John

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Willetts, David

  Lansley, Andrew

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Leigh, Edward

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Woodward, Shaun

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Yeo, Tim

  Lidington, David

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Loughton, Tim

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Luff, Peter

  Mrs. Caroline Spelman and Sir David Madel.

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (Sittings)),
  That the Northern Ireland Grand Committee shall meet at Westminster on Thursday 10th December, Thursday 28th January, Thursday 25th February, Thursday 25th March, Thursday 10th June and Thursday 8th July at 10.30 a.m.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  Question agreed to.

  Harefield Hospital
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  11.50 pm
  Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): It is only nine months since I secured an Adjournment debate on 6 March on the future of Mount Vernon hospital, Northwood. Many of the fears that I expressed then have been realised, notwithstanding a petition of some 80,000 signatures in support of the hospital being built up and not run down, and the public's particularly strong backing for the preservation of its regional burns, plastic and oral maxilla-facial surgery unit.
  Now, the future of Harefield hospital nearby is in question and I crave the House's ear again, even though I have no illusions about how difficult it is to influence the direction of the national health service in favour of those who finance it: the taxpayers.
  On Wednesday 18 November, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Mc Walter) secured a debate about West Hertfordshire health authority, which, among other health authorities, funds the treatment of patients both at Mount Vernon and at the regional and national cardiothoracic specialist hospital at Harefield. He complained that, despite the language of the West Hertfordshire health authority, which talks about a new super-hospital, the proposal represented a substantial cut in the facilities available to the people of west Hertfordshire. The hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward), whose constituents attend Harefield hospital with chest and heart illnesses, echoed those complaints.
  There was a shared and relevant anxiety in the debate, which was also expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page), whose electors, too, are treated at Harefield and whose community health council has formally objected to West Hertfordshire health authority proposals. The Government will not grant money to maintain the status quo, which is crucial to build up existing centres of national excellence such as Harefield and Mount Vernon, but they have a predilection in favour of the construction of new hospitals funded through the private finance initiative.
  When the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), responded to that debate—I am glad to see that he is present again—he admitted that the Government's modernisation programme was "extremely ambitious". I would not, however, contradict the conclusion that was drawn by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead about the proposals of the West Hertfordshire health authority. He said:
  "implicit in its plans must be a substantial reduction in the asset base, which means that an awful lot of hospital closures that have not been accounted for must be in the pipeline."
  The Minister of State boasted that
  "work has started on the construction of eight hospitals under PFI"
  and boasted about
  "the biggest new hospital building programme in the history of the NHS-31 new hospitals worth almost £2.4 billion, 25 of which will be built through PFI, with a total value of almost £2.2 billion."— [Official Report, 18 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 917–18.]
  Where does that leave existing specialist centres of national and, in the case of Harefield, international excellence, which need, by comparison, very modest
  1018
  additional capital funding to modernise their facilities? If the dire precedent of Mount Vernon is anything to go by, they are left in a very vulnerable position. At Mount Vernon, between a mere £5 million and £7 million are required to modernise a superb burns, plastic and oral maxilla-facial surgery unit. However, West Hertfordshire health authority would like it to be moved into its new £150 million green-field site, private finance initiative hospital. Hillingdon health authority would like it to go to the new, costly inner-city Westminster and Chelsea hospital.
  Harefield is known globally as the hospital that has done more heart and lung transplants than any other: well over 2,000 since 1980. Professor Sir Magdi Yacoub's internationally famous team has done an immeasurable service to the reputation of British medicine worldwide. It will be remembered that Diana, Princess of Wales attended, masked and medically gowned, an operation there.
  Harefield hospital also has an extensive programme of heart and lung operations, more than 3,000 a year. The hospital makes a profit. Doctors from 60 countries have been trained, and patients from as many countries treated, there. Surgeons trained at Harefield have taken their skills of heart and lung transplantation back to the countries of their birth.
  Research at Harefield is integral to the work of the hospital. As with the superb cancer and burns research facilities at neighbouring Mount Vernon, the research has been made possible by an impressive combination of public and charitable funding. As Sir Magdi has said about the Harefield heart science centre:
  "Most of our work to date has been on the fault repair side of the heart and lung business. I believe it should be possible within a generation to identify the causes of heart and lung disease with a view to their prevention and thus deprive fault repair surgeons like me of their jobs."
  Phase 1 of the heart science centre was completed in 1993. It has developed the artificial heart, evolved therapies to reduce transplant tissue rejection and analysed the processes of heart degeneration and the causes of cardiovascular disease. Building phase 2 will cost £2.5 million at 1996 prices, plus revenue costs, but its work on the prevention and treatment of cardiomyopathy and studies of the molecular and genetic origins of heart disease and of means of preserving donor organs longer will save the NHS millions of pounds in the longer term. Above all, it will save countless human lives.
  Harefield hospital owes its origin to the Australian great war hospital on the site at Harefield park where many thousands of wounded Anzac soldiers were treated when they were brought back from the battlefields of Gallipoli and France. The hospital has a numerically small, but inspirationally famous, focus on children. Giving children born with heart problems a chance to lead a healthy life is an important part of its work. When Harefield received funding as a supra-regional transplant centre, the next project was to raise money for a new children's ward. The give-a-child-a-chance appeal was most successful, and in July 1989 the ward was opened by Her Royal Highness, the Princess Royal. Sadly, this ward is due to be closed and its facilities moved to the Royal Brompton, although out-patient paediatrics may remain at Harefield.
  When the Royal Brompton and Harefield hospitals merged this April, it was my private fear that asset stripping at the expense of the country cousins at

  1019
  Harefield would occur, not only in terms of equipment and facilities but of its supreme asset, its personnel. This is now a grave risk, starting with paediatric surgery.
  A west London cardiothoracic review was initiated. In mid to late October 1998, its conclusions were lodged with the Department of Health. It suggested three possibilities. First, that the Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS trust should maintain its services in the existing locations. That would be the wise course, building on the hospitals' respective strengths and complementing effectively their talents and expertise.
  Alternatively, it was suggested services at Harefield should be concentrated at the Royal Brompton, which could only involve a diminution of facilities and beds, to the detriment of patients in need of cardiothoracic treatment. It would also be a breach of faith with the joint message in the merger consultation document issued by Sir Geoffrey Errington, the then chairman of Harefield, and Sir Philip Otton, who now chairs the joint trust, which made no mention at all of closing Harefield, but spoke only of improvement of care for patients and better coordinated research.
  Finally, it was suggested that both Harefield and Royal Brompton hospitals could be combined in a new hospital, to be built alongside St. Mary's on the Paddington basin site. We are told that it could still keep the proud title of Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS trust, but what consolation is that to the wonderful people who stand to lose their jobs? I do not know how much the project would cost or how it would be financed—perhaps through the private finance initiative, such as the project in west Hertfordshire. I also would not presume to know whether Chelsea needs another Lanesborough hotel, such as that constructed on the old St. George's hospital site at Hyde park corner.
  I do know that closing Harefield hospital would tear the heart out of Harefield village. It is the only major source of employment in the last village left in what remains of rural Middlesex. In the words of the author of its history, the cardiothoracic surgeon Mary Shepherd, who worked there for some 20 years, Harefield hospital is "the heart of Harefield", the place where in the great war 50,000 wounded Anzacs were treated, and close to where 114 of their number remain to lie in St. Mary's churchyard, in graves bedecked and garlanded with spring flowers by local school children every Anzac day.
  Between the wars, Harefield hospital treated the scourge of tuberculosis. In the second world war, Harefield dealt with casualties north of the river Thames and, with St. Mary's hospital, Paddington, enlarged its scope to deal with general and thoracic surgical war casualties, hence its current expertise.
  Harefield hospital is, in short, a special place, and covetous eyes are cast upon its skilled and devoted staff—even Northwick Park hospital, in Harrow, might aspire to employ them. Its asset value must tempt potential developers, too. However, surely modernising the NHS means building on its strengths. Harefield, in peace and in war, has won a place not only in the hearts of its staff, of the villagers and of its patients and their families, but of the nation. Surely that transcends property valuations.
  Harefield hospital's situation in rural green belt, at the nodal point of the M1, M25, M40, M4 and M3 motorway network, near to Heathrow and Luton airports, with its
  1020
  very own helicopter pad, ample space, surrounding quiet countryside, clean air and cheaper housing, is surely the right one to make it the right place for the country's premier cardiothoracic transplant centre, now and well into the century that is to come.
  Developers, PEI financiers, and great and good committee men may have other ideas, but I simply pray that Our Lady of Harefield—whose image in glass glorifies a window in the hospital chapel—and of the parish church dedicated in her name may bring advent wisdom to Ministers and allow the work of the healing of hearts to continue in the village where England's first and only Pope, Nicholas Breakspear—Adrian IV—was born.
  12.5 am
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I congratulate the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on securing this important debate on the future of Harefield hospital—one of the best-known heart hospitals in the national health service. I am grateful for the opportunity to describe the high regard in which we hold its services.
  Coronary heart disease is the most common cause of premature death in the United Kingdom. It accounts for about a quarter of deaths under the age of 65 and is on the increase. In 1997–98 in England, 389 heart and lung transplants were performed, of which around a quarter were undertaken at Harefield.
  The Government have recognised the importance of getting the treatment and the prevention of the disease right by making it a major national priority for the NHS. It will be one of the first two services to be subject to uniform standards through a new national service framework. The framework will be published in April 1999 and will seek to improve the quality and consistency of services by setting clear national standards for providing care.
  Today's service must be of high quality, but we also need to invest in tomorrow's service by researching the disease and teaching and training the young doctors and nurses who will provide care in years to come. The Government's commitment to research on cardiac and respiratory diseases is unwavering. This year, NHS providers in England will receive a total of £349 million for spending on research. The Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS trust is the health service's pre-eminent provider of research into cardiac and respiratory diseases and is receiving £20 million—just under 6 per cent. of that total.
  Many people are aware that, under the inspirational leadership of Professor Sir Magdi Yacoub, Harefield hospital has become a world leader in heart and lung transplantation. It has the largest transplant programme in Europe, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, and has accumulated experience over the past two decades that is second to none, not just in this country or in Europe, but in the world. Since its programme was set up in the early 1980s, Harefield has completed well over 2,000 transplants. I pay tribute to Sir Magdi and the whole team at Harefield, who have helped so many people over so many years to live a rich and fulfilling life.
  Harefield not only provides top-quality medical care, but makes a major contribution to world-class research into cardiac disease through its links with the Imperial college school of medicine. The research output of the

  1021
  cardiac and respiratory sciences department at Imperial has been recognised in successive assessments by the Higher Education Funding Council for England as of the highest international quality. Some 20 per cent. of the UK's research output in cardiac and respiratory diseases is completed at Imperial and its associated NHS hospitals. Perhaps even more impressively, two thirds of top-quality research citations in the UK are generated by the same department.
  However, like all hospitals, Harefield is not immune to pressures and it would be wrong to try to ignore them. Some of those pressures are the inevitable result of its own pioneering effort. Following the success of Harefield's transplant programme in the 1980s, eight centres in England are designated to undertake heart and lung transplantation. Harefield continues to have the largest transplant programme, although Papworth hospital in Cambridge is now of a broadly similar size. All centres have benefited from Harefield's work and from the teaching and training that it has provided to young specialists, many of whom have gone on to work in other centres throughout the country. Through its success in sponsoring the development of other centres, Harefield has seen a substantial fall in the size of its transplant programme, with 98 transplants this year compared with 219 when the hospital was at its peak 10 years ago.
  The key to future success in the research of cardiac and respiratory disease is also changing. Increasingly, top-quality medical research needs to combine basic scientific research with more specialist condition-based research, which tends to take place closer to the patient. That is why we were pleased to announce the opening of the new £67 million basic medical sciences building at Imperial college in September 1998—£20 million was contributed by the NHS, a further £20 million came from the Department for Education and Employment and the remainder was funded by the university itself.
  Recently, Imperial has expressed concerns that the level of fragmentation in specialist cardiac services in and around west London may erode the future international competitiveness of the university and the national health service's research base. Those are serious concerns and we need to look at them seriously.
  As part of the independent review of London's health services, the Government asked Sir Leslie Turnberg to assess the need for change in that area of London. He was also asked to look at the process that had been developed involving both the NHS and its academic partners to shape the change. Sir Leslie was encouraged by the progress that he saw. His report registered a particular concern that the way in which the service is organised in west London may not be maximising its long-term contribution to national and international research. He advised the Government to ensure that plans were carried out for a more rational distribution of specialist services across west London. The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood may recall that we accepted all Sir Leslie's Turnberg's recommendations, including that one.
  The NHS executive asked hospitals and health authorities in that part of west London, along with Imperial college, to take part in a review of specialist cardiac and thoracic services. The review commissioned expert clinical input from a panel chaired by Sir Terence English, an internationally respected figure in heart transplantation who completed the very first heart transplant in this country and who is a former president of the Royal College of
  1022
  Surgeons. The review was completed in July and broadly confirmed Sir Leslie's impression that cardiac and thoracic services in west London were not organised in a way that would continue to support the highest-quality service and academic endeavour.
  Sir Terence English said that three of the four cardiac centres in west London were not seeing a sufficient critical mass of patients. He recommended that existing services should be focused on fewer, larger centres. He also advised that collocation of specialist cardiac services with other related specialties would bring benefits that were not available to single specialty hospitals such as Harefield.
  We have also received advice on the national heart and lung transplant programme from the joint consultants committee, which comprises the royal medical colleges and the relevant specialist associations. The advice was that the NHS should be working to a position where such complex acute services are provided only from multi-specialty hospital sites.
  Sir Terence English's recommendations are being considered, alongside the conclusions of parallel reviews into specialist paediatric services and renal transplantation in west London, by the west London partnership forum. The forum comprises the hospitals and health authorities in west London as well as Imperial college and the NHS. It is chaired by the noble Lord Newton of Braintree, for whom I have the highest regard; I am sure that he will do a very good job for NHS services in that part of London and, indeed, in the rest of the country.
  As the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood rightly said, the forum is examining a number of options for the future of cardiac services. Those include consolidating all the work of Harefield at the Royal Brompton site in Chelsea, keeping Harefield as a specialist centre and investing in the site, and building a new major heart and lung hospital adjacent to St. Mary's hospital in Paddington. Any firm proposals will be subject to formal consultation.
  As the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood knows, I cannot comment further, since I would have to adjudicate in the event of a community health council objecting to any such proposals. I can tell him that the Government recognise the unique nature of Harefield. The interaction of science, research, teaching and services is an enormous strength. We also know that, if the Harefield team were broken up, it would be very difficult—if not impossible—to reassemble it.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met with Sir Magdi and given him a personal assurance that, while the issues are being considered, planning blight will not be allowed and funding will be made available to ensure continuing essential investment at Harefield. I hope that the hon. Member for Ruislip—Northwood finds some comfort in those reassurances, and that he will think again about some of the language, about asset stripping and so on, which he deployed in his speech.
  There are difficult issues to consider in this case, and we will take the time and the trouble to do so. We will take advice from leading clinicians in the land, we will listen carefully to what Sir Magdi and others have to say and we will listen to the proposals of Lord Newton and his team. We will then reach our conclusions, following a full and proper public consultation.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Twelve midnight.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of the £19 billion allocated to education as a result of the Comprehensive Spending Review will be(a) direct Government grant and (b) a permission for LEAs and other sector providers to borrow or raise funding from other sources; and if he will make a statement. [61806]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The £19 billion figure relates to the UK. The table gives the resources for my Department's areas of responsibility as published in the Comprehensive Spending Review White paper, split between central government and Education Standard Spending, which is the support for recurrent spending on education by local authorities in England.

  £billion

  1999–00

  2000–01

  2001–02

  DfEE and OFSTED

  15.5

  17.3

  18.6

  Education Standard Spending

  20.5

  21.7

  23.1

  Of the central government resources, credit approvals to local authorities for schools capital work will be set at £454m in 1999–00, compared with £376m in 1998–99. These will be supplemented by PFI credits of £350m in 1999–00, compared with £130m in 1998–99. Decisions on the deployment of schools capital resources between grant and credit approvals for 2000–01 and 2001–02 will be taken during 1999 in the light of consultation on the schools capital strategy and on decisions by schools on their status within the new schools framework.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what advice he has given to principals and vice-chancellors during the current academic year on the collection of fees from non-UK EU students. [61811]

  Mr. Mudie
  No specific advice has been given to principals and vice-chancellors on the collection of fees from non-UK EU Students.

  Research Funding
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will change the system of funding research at universities to encourage more co-operation between different institutions. [61544]

  Mr. Mudie
  The funding of research at universities by the higher education funding bodies is informed by ratings of research quality through the Research Assessment 170
  Exercise (RAE). I welcome the recognition by the higher education funding bodies, in their planning for the next RAE to be held in 2001, of the importance of ensuring that the arrangements for making submissions do not deter research collaboration. The funding bodies are currently considering further how to facilitate the submission of collaborative research in the RAE in the light of recent consultation on this and other issues.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of the(a) Investors in People Standard, (b) Management Charter Initiative, (c) Management Standards and (d) Management NVQs for SMEs; and if he will make a statement; [61549]

  (2) what research his Department has (a) commissioned and (b) reviewed into the take up of competence-based management qualifications within SMEs; [61550]

  (3) what research his Department has (a) commissioned and (b) reviewed into the link between management training and performance in SMEs. [61551]

  Mr. Mudie
  DfEE commissioned a three-year evaluation of the effectiveness of Investors in People which was carried out by the Institute for Employment Studies at the University of Sussex. The following reports were published: "Evaluation of Investors in People in England and Wales" (1994); "Evaluation of Investors in People in England and Wales, 1994–1995" (1995); and "The Return on Investors" (1996). All are available in the House of Commons Library. A review of the Management Charter Initiative was carried out for DfEE by DTZ Pieda Consulting and published as DfEE Research Report 67 in July 1998. It is also available in the Commons Library. Management Standards and NVQs were included in a review of all NVQs and SVQs which took place from 1996 to 1998 and identified improvements needed for SMEs which will be fed back to the relevant lead bodies and awarding bodies.

  DfEE has not commissioned any research specifically into the take-up of competence-based management qualifications in SMEs, although gaining of qualifications by owner-managers of SMEs was included in a report for the Department on small firms' training needs, practices and difficulties by Professor James Curran et al. This was published in 1996 in DfEE's Research Studies series and is available in the House of Commons Library.

  MCI (on behalf of DfEE and DTI) commissioned a review of research by Durham University Business School into the role of management development in the growth of high growth SMEs which was published in 1997. SMEs were also included in two research studies published by DfEE: "The business benefits of competence-based management development" by J and R Winterton (Research Studies 16, 1996) and "Evaluation of the business benefits of management development" by DTZ Pieda Consulting (Research Report 66, 1998). Both reports are in the Library.

TREASURY

  Exchequer Income
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated current net income to the Exchequer for the operation of(a) National Air Traffic Services, (b) student loans, (c) residual debt in British Energy plc, (d) the radio spectrum, (e) Belfast Port, (f) the Commonwealth Development Corporation, (g) the Royal Mint and (h) the Tote. [61424]

  Mr. Byers
  Details of the income and expenditure of the five public corporations listed (National Air Traffic Services; Belfast Port, one of the Northern Ireland Public Trust Port Authorities; Commonwealth Development Corporation; Royal Mint; and the Tote) can be found in the relevant annual report.

  Information on loans to students and repayments of them can be found in Chapter 2 of the Department for Education and Employment's departmental report (Cm 3910), and details of the income and expenditure of the Radiocommunications Agency in Chapter 14 of the Department of Trade and Industry's departmental report (Cm 3905).

  Details of interest income from the Government's residual debt holdings in British Energy plc are published annually in the Appropriation Accounts (Volume 16: Class XVI, Vote I).

  Self-assessment
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total expenditure and what was the breakdown of the expenditure on(a) public opinion research, (b) television, radio and newspaper advertising and (c) direct mail incurred by his Department and agencies on the self-assessment public information campaign; and if he will make a statement. [61686]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Since the launch of the Self Assessment public information programme in June 1995 about £21 million has been spent informing taxpayers of changes. Within this expenditure, £718,000 has been spent on public opinion research, £13 million on television, radio and newspaper advertising and £750,000 on direct mail. All these figures are exclusive of VAT and are costs to date (30 November 1998).

  EU Tax Harmonisation
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what powers he has over veto of the harmonisation within the European Union of(a) company taxes, (b) personal taxes and (c) excise duties; and if he will make a statement. [61714]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Decisions on these matters are subject to unanimity.

  Tax Policy Co-ordination
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to seek to co-ordinate savings and corporate taxation across European Union nations; and if he will make a statement. [61071]
  172
  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 30 November 1998]: The UK is taking an active part in discussions on the draft Directive on taxation of savings, but we have made it clear that we will not agree to any course of action which would seriously damage the UK and other European financial markets. There are no proposals for the coordination of corporate taxation in the European Union.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his policy to promote an OECD-wide approach to tax policy co-ordination; and if he will make a statement. [61072]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 30 November 1998]: The UK takes an active part in the work of the OECD which is consistent with our aims of promoting economic growth through the development of international trade and investment.

  EU National Budget Deficits
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his policy that there should be reporting of European Union national budget deficits to distinguish between(a) borrowing for net investment purposes and (b) borrowing to fund current expenditure; and if he will make a statement. [61068]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 30 November 1998]: Council Regulation 3605/93 sets out the budgetary reporting requirements for Member States. In assessing the national budget deficits, Article 104c(3) of the Maastricht Treaty states that the level of government investment expenditure should be taken into account.

  European Growth and Stability Pact
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his policy to oppose amendments to the(a) interpretation and (b) implementation of the European Growth and Stability Pact promoting greater flexibility towards budget deficits which result from high levels of net public sector investment; and if he will make a statement. [61066]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 30 November 1998]: The Government are not aware of proposals by Member States to amend the Stability and Growth Pact. The Pact supports sound public finances which are vital for macroeconomic stability and the success of EMU.

  Duty Free
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions have taken place at Ministerial level over the last six months about the future of duty free and the tax regime following its abolition. [61882]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 1 December 1998]: I discuss these questions regularly both with colleagues in Government and in Europe.

  Dividend Tax Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much it would cost to exempt pensioners from the abolition of the dividend tax credit for the years(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02; [61839]
  173
  (2) if he will list by region in Great Britain the number of pensioners who will lose money, and the amounts involved, as a result of the abolition of the dividend tax credit. [61842]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 1 December 1998]: It is estimated that the cost of exempting those aged over 65 from the abolition of payable tax credits on dividend income would be about £25 million in each full year. I regret that no estimates are available on a regional basis for either the number of pensioners affected or the amounts of money involved.

  Defence Expenditure
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of total taxation went towards military expenditure in the last year for which figures are available. [61737]

  Mr. Byers
  Defence spending in 1997–98, the last year for which figures are available, amounted to 6.64 per cent. of the government's current receipts.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will seek to introduce a right conscientiously to object to paying taxes for military spending. [61740]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have no plans to do so.

  Universities and Colleges
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce tax incentives for companies giving money to fund universities and colleges. [61543]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A number of tax reliefs are already available for companies giving money to universities and colleges.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Modernising Justice White Paper
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if his Department intends to publish a White Paper on modernising justice. [62352]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor has today laid before Parliament a White Paper on Modernising Justice. Copies of the White Paper and accompanying Press Notice have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Rights of Audience
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what responses the Government have received to their consultation paper, Rights of Audience and Rights to Conduct Litigation in England and Wales: the Way Ahead. [62353]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government received 100 responses to the consultation paper. Of these 64 were in favour of the Government's proposals, 12 were opposed, 11 were neutral or did not comment, and 13 were mixed. Copies 174
  of the responses have today been placed in the Libraries of both Houses, and the Supreme Court Library, with the exception of 6 responses which were made in confidence. The responses were carefully analysed and taken into account in the development of our proposals on rights of audience which are contained in the Modernising Justice White Paper published today.

  The Respondents are listed (those who responded in confidence are not listed):

  Those involved in the current statutory procedure:

  Lord Justice Potter, Chairman, on behalf of ACLEC

  The Director General of Fair Trading

  Professor Lee Bridges (member of ACLEC)

  The Judiciary

  The Lords Justices of Appeal

  The Justices of the High Court

  The Council of HM Circuit Judges

  The Association of District Judges

  The Lord Ackner Lord Justice Buxton

  Mr. Justice Holland

  Mr. Justice Sedley

  Mr. Justice Carnwath

  Mr. Justice Lloyd

  HH John Gower QC

  Members of Parliament

  Austin Mitchell MP

  The Bar

  The General Council of the Bar

  The Council of the Inns of Court

  The Bar Association for Commerce, Finance and Industry

  The Employed and Non-Practising Bar Association

  The London Common Law and Commercial Bar Association

  The Official Referees Bar Association

  The Personal Injuries Bar Association

  The South Eastern Circuit

  The North Eastern Circuit

  Barristers in private practice, or unspecified

  David Blunt QC

  Martin Edwards

  Nicholas Forwood QC

  Richard King

  Stuart Lovering

  Liam Murchin

  Chris Purnell

  Alec Samuels

  Robert Spicer

  Robert Wright QC

  Employed or non-practising barristers

  James Birkin

  Edward Bowles (Crown Prosecutor)

  Robert Christie Angela Delbourgo

  Richard Hill Keith Loney

  Anne Moore-Williams (Law Commission)

  Jeremy White

  175

  Solicitors

  The Law Society

  The Law Society Group for Solicitors with Disabilities

  The London Solicitors Litigation Association

  The Solicitors' Association of Higher Court Advocates

  The Young Solicitors' Group and the Trainee Solicitors Group

  The London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association

  Solicitors' Firms

  Clifford Chance

  Geoffrey Parker Bourne

  Herbert Smith

  Lovell White Durrant

  Norton Rose Slaughter and May

  Thompsons

  White Dalton

  Individual Solicitors

  Christopher Bright (Linklaters)

  Hardeep Singh Nahal (Herbert Smith)

  Gary Summers (Magrath and Co.)

  Legal Executives

  The Institute of Legal Executives

  Individual Legal Executives

  Miss C. Abbs

  Stuart Blake

  Jeremy Chaplin

  Private Individuals

  Marion Heath

  Arthur Oakes

  John Randall

  Anthony Zachary

  Companies employing lawyers

  James R. Knowles

  KPMG Tax Advisers

  Teachers of Law

  Committee of Heads of University Law Schools (Professor S.H. Bailey)

  Nottingham Law School (Professor Peter Jones and Professor Philip Knott)

  The Association of Law Teachers (John Hodgson)

  The College of Law (Professor Nigel Savage)

  Inns of Court School of Law (Susan Blake)

  Alistair Kelman

  Alan Taylor

  Legal Organisations

  The Association of Council Secretaries and Solicitors

  The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers

  The British Legal Association

  The Civil Court Users Association

  The Crown Prosecution Service

  The Justices' Clerks' Society

  The Legal Action Group

  The Legal Services Ombudsman

  Other Organisations and Bodies

  The Chartered Institute of Patent Agents

  The Consumers' Association

  The Institute of Chartered Accountants

  The Institute of Credit Management

  The Joint Committee for Ethnic Minorities in Wales

  176

  The Metropolitan Police

  The National Federation of Consumer Groups

  The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education

  The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

  The Trades Union Congress.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Concessionary Television Licences
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many pensioners currently receive a concessionary television licence under each criterion for each region in Great Britain. [61152]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 27 November 1998]: Regional statistics on the concessionary television licence scheme do not distinguish between pensioners and other beneficiaries, or according to the criteria under which individuals qualify. The number of concessionary licences currently on issue in the United Kingdom, by country, is (to the nearest thousand):

  Number

  England and Wales

  555,000

  Scotland

  53,000

  Northern Ireland

  12,000

  Television Licence Evasion
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on what plans there are in place to reduce the level of television licence evasion in Chelmsford. [61889]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 1 December 1998]: The BBC has statutory responsibility for the administration and enforcement of the television licensing system. TV Licensing, which carries out the day to day administration and enforcement as agent for the Corporation, adopts all appropriate measures to minimise evasion throughout the United Kingdom. Standard enforcement procedures are complemented by targeting pre-determined areas for higher levels of enforcement activity. It is contrary to TV Licensing's policy to publish details of areas due to be targeted; to do so would give comfort to evaders in other parts of the country.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Mine Clearance
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list Government expenditure on mine clearance for each year since 1992, broken down by country. [61794]

  Clare Short
  Government expenditure on mine clearance projects, including integrated mine awareness activities, is set out in the table.
  177

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99up to30.11.98

  Afghanistan

  —

  1,188,900

  916,131

  1,233,087

  1,025,000

  1,050,000

  2,106,500

  499,900

  Angola

  —

  —

  —

  1,847,527

  1,003,570

  —

  —

  —

  Cambodia

  60,000

  206,337

  1,461,100

  1,693,425

  1,305,369

  1,058,700

  689,686

  1,632,287

  Egypt

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  500,000

  87,308

  —

  Georgia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  220,781

  N. Iraq

  —

  —

  200,439

  15,315

  444,750

  785,000

  658,972

  740,000

  Laos

  —

  —

  —

  —

  543,386

  148,307

  101,250

  500,000

  Mozambique

  —

  —

  574,586

  414,832

  471,000

  408,900

  487,500

  362,500

  Rwanda

  —

  —

  —

  30,000

  —

  —

  —

  Somalia

  300,000

  373,540

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yemen

  —

  —

  —

  100,000

  —

  47,772

  —

  —

  Former Yugoslavia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  275,000

  —

  —

  Global/Regional

  —

  —

  —

  —

  165,082

  —

  1200,000

  2375,000

  1 Foreign and Commonwealth Office funded activities

  2 Value of surplus equipment re-deployed by DFID and MOD to mine clearance projects

  Note:

  Expenditure by Department for International Development unless otherwise stated

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Clare Short: The Government have provided grants International Development if she will list the organizations for humanitarian mine clearance activities to the to which the Government have given money for the purpose following organisations: of mine clearance in each year since 1992; and in each case the amount received by each organisation. [61793]

  £

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  The HALO Trust

  60,000

  388,786

  1,267,859

  1,913,898

  1,592,688

  1,417,600

  1,092,000

  1,751,468

  UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance for Afghanistan (UNOCHA)

  —

  1,000,000

  500,000

  1,000,000

  750,000

  500,000

  2,000,000

  —

  Rimfire

  300,000

  373,540

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mines Advisory Group (MAG)

  —

  —

  251,064

  1,038,944

  2,361,387

  1,033,307

  951,908

  2,204,000

  Cambodian Mine Action Centre (CMAC) (via UNDP)

  —

  —

  1,133,333

  1,000,000

  500,000

  —

  —

  —

  UN Humanitarian Assistance Coordination Unit (UCAH) (Angola)

  —

  —

  —

  226,029

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Government of Egypt

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  500,000

  87,308

  —

  UN (Rwanda)

  —

  —

  —

  30,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UN Voluntary Trust Fund

  —

  —

  —

  600,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UN Mine Action Centre (UNMAC) (Sarajevo)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  220,000

  —

  —

  UN Development Programme (UNDP) (Laos)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  89,000

  —

  —

  —

  Government of Yemen (Via UN Development Programme) (UNDP)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  47,772

  —

  —

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the amount spent on(a) humanitarian mine clearance, (b) commercial mine clearance, (c) military initiative mine clearance,

  £

  Year

  (a) Humanitarian mine clearance1

  (b) Commercial mine clearance2

  (c) Military initiative mie clearance3

  (d) Mine awareness

  (e) Research and development 4

  1991–92

  5360,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1992–93

  51,762,326

  —

  —

  6,451

  —

  1993–94

  53,152,256

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1994–95

  55,863,652

  —

  —

  —

  104,928

  1995–96

  54,828,473

  —

  —

  15,230

  —

  1996–97

  54,288,860

  —

  —

  70,000

  —

  1996–97

  665,082

  —

  —

  —

  —

  178
  Clare Short
  The Government have provided grants for humanitarian mine clearance activities to the following organisations:

  (d) mine awareness and (e) research and development for mine clearance by Her Majesty's Government in each year since 1992. [61792]

  Clare Short
  Disbursements are set out in the table.
  179

  £

  year

  (a) Humanitarian mine clearance1

  (b) Commercial mine clearance2

  (c) Military initiative mine clearance3

  (d) Mine awareness

  (e) Research and development4

  1997–98

  54,149,642

  —

  —

  —

  376,673

  1997–98

  6200,000

  —

  —

  6250,000

  —

  1998–99

  53,990,468

  —

  205,000

  —

  548,343

  at 30 November 1998

  6250,000

  —

  7125,000

  —

  —

  Expenditure by Department for International Development (DFID) unless otherwise indicated.

  1 Includes clearance of anti-personnel landmines and other unexploded ordnance.

  2 DFID has not funded commercial mine clearance. There are no records of UK commercial demining activities currently available in Department of Trade and Industry.

  3 Activities funded from Ministry of Defence (MOD) budget. Military initiative Mine Clearance since 1992 has taken place only in Bosnia, where it is a part of the wider military operation since November 1992. Activities have including training and supervision of mine clearance programmes (conducted by the Entity Armed Forces) as well as the provision of Mine Awareness training to over 15,000 school children. The MOD has also continued to monitor and maintain the minefields in the Falkland Islands. Again, this work is one part of the duties of those involved and it would not be possible to cost it.

  4 MOD-funded applied research into military clearance technology has increase significantly over the past three years and is expected to remain high for the next five years at least. The department currently spends approximately £3m per annum on research into counter-mine technologies. The MOD does not have a remit to fund research into purely humanitarian demining, as opposed to operation de-mining (which has differing requirements); however, it is only comparatively late in a programme that the specific utility of a technology is identified. A separate focal point of post-conflict mine clearance research has been established at the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency's (DERA) facilities at Chertsey in Surrey to complement the research being conducted in support of operational mine clearance.

  5 Includes integrated mine awareness activities.

  6 Payment made from Foreign and Commonwealth Office funds.

  7 Value of surplus equipment re-deployed to mine clearance projects.

  DFID also commission DERA direct for specific advice and assignments.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the impact of recent development in Zimbabwe's land resettlement programme on the provision of aid by her Department. [61891]

  Clare Short
  The land resettlement programme is one of the factors being considered in the development of a New Country Strategy for Zimbabwe. We are consulting widely in the preparation of the Strategy. I will place a copy of the Country Strategy Paper in the Library of both the Houses when it is published.

  Sustainable Development and Environmental Protection
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department has taken to develop its approach to sustainable development and environmental protection. [62355]

  Clare Short
  We published a policy statement on the environment "Eliminating World Poverty: Why The Environment Matters" on 1 December. This follows up the White Paper on International Development and explains our approach to environmental protection and sustainable development. The statement invites comments on our approach. I will place copies in the Library of the House.

PRIME MINISTER

  United Kingdom Delegations (WEU and COE)
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister what changes there are in the composition of the United 180
  Kingdom Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Assembly of the Western European Union. [62511]

  The Prime Minister
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) has been appointed as a Substitute representative in place of Lord Steel of Aikwood.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his most recent discussions with President Clinton on Iraq, in relation to the precise objectives of potential military action. [61461]

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  David Shayler
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister who appointed David Shayler to the Security Services; and if he will make a statement on the procedure by which he was recruited. [61940]

  The Prime Minister
  Mr. Shayler was recruited by the Security Service, using its normal selection and vetting procedures. These were similar to the procedures in use throughout the Civil Service at the time.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  ENTRUST
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) waste minimisation projects and (b) projects to help with the remediation of contaminated land have been supported by ENTRUST; and at what value. [60872]
  181
  Mr. Meale
  According to ENTRUST, the relevant figures to date are:(a) Waste Minimisation Projects
  134 projects have been approved by ENTRUST, with a total value of £14,573,200. Of these, 35 projects have been implemented, with a value of £2,069,740.
  (b) Projects to help with the Remediation of Contaminated Land
  139 projects have been approved by ENTRUST, with a total value of £21,388,140. Of these, 33 projects have been implemented, with a value of £1,252,400.

  Recycling
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans the Government have to encourage the development of secondary markets for recyclables; and if he will make a statement. [61497]

  Mr. Meale
  The Government believe recycling is critical to the task of making our waste management more environmentally acceptable, and we are committed to a substantial increase in the role it plays in this country. We are currently reviewing our national waste strategy and will publish a draft in Spring 1999, at which point further comments will be invited from all parties. The final version of the new waste strategy will be published as a Command Paper, and adopted by the Government, before the end of 1999.

  My Department is considering the measures that could be taken to enhance the markets for recycled materials, including new or extended use of economic instruments, and whether Government and other high profile organisations should take more of a lead in specifying high recycled content and environmental standards for the products they purchase.

  As part of this work, we have commissioned a research project to investigate market failures in the demand for secondary materials. In addition, we have set up a Market Development Group to identify the barriers to expanding the markets for recycled materials and to develop practical proposals to help overcome them. Advice from the research project and the report of the Market Development Group will feed into the draft new waste strategy in Spring 1999.

  Razor Wire Fencing
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what studies his Department has commissioned into the safety of the use of razor wire as a fencing material and its possible dangers to humans and animals; and if he will make a statement. [61480]

  Mr. Meale
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has not commissioned any studies into the safety of the use of razor wire.

  Countryside Agency
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has engaged recruitment consultants to advise him on suitable candidates for appointment as Chair of the new Countryside Agency; and what criteria will be employed to assess potential candidates. [61648]
  182
  Mr. Meacher
  My Department employed recruitment consultants primarily to ensure that details of the post were made known as widely as possible. Their work supplemented advertisements in the national press and requests for nominations from a wide range of public and private sector organisations. The consultants also dealt with the issue and receipt of application forms, and made an initial categorisation of applications.

  The sift of applicants was carried out in accordance with the Nolan procedures by a panel comprising officials from my Department and an independent member. Advice from the recruitment consultants was also available to them. In carrying out the sift, the panel were looking principally for a knowledge of, and demonstrated commitment to, countryside and rural issues, excellent communication skills, and managerial ability, both to lead and motivate the commissioners and staff of a large organisation and to ensure that the two existing agencies were successfully brought together.

  Synthetic Riding Surfaces
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will prohibit the use of PVC waste for synthetic riding surfaces and its importation for such purposes. [61485]

  Mr. Meale
  The import and export of waste are governed by European Council Regulation (EEC) No. 259–93, the 'waste shipments' Regulation. PVC is included on the Regulation's Green list of wastes which do not require prior authorisation when traded for recovery, providing they are not contaminated with hazardous substances. There is no evidence that either clean, uncontaminated PVC waste or recovered PVC products are harmful to human health or the environment. There are therefore currently no plans to prohibit the import of such waste or products recovered from it.

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will assess the advantages of enabling receipts from landfill tax to be invested in the recycling infrastructure in the United Kingdom. [61835]

  Mr. Meale
  The review of landfill tax by Customs and Excise for the 1998 Budget revealed strong support for the Environmental Bodies Credit Scheme. Following this, the Government are currently considering if the Environmental Bodies Credit Scheme, which is funded from receipts from the landfill tax, might be enhanced, in particular with a view to encouraging recycling. A decision on the extent of any changes to the existing arrangements has yet to be made.

  Train Operating Companies
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the incentives available to train operating companies to provide services above the minimum standards set by their franchise. [61896]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The minimum level of service an operator must plan to provide is set out in the Passenger Service Requirement (PSR), which forms a key part of the contract. Train operating companies have commercial
  183
  incentives to operate additional services and attract more passengers. The Franchising Director has powers to enforce compliance with the PSR and failure to comply could lead to termination of the franchise.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the levels of air pollution around United Kingdom airports which can be ascribed to pollution from(a) aircraft and (b) motor vehicles. [61893]

  Mr. Meale
  Detailed estimates of polluting emissions have been prepared for 11 areas of the United Kingdom (London, Manchester, West Midlands, Merseyside, Glasgow, Bristol, West Yorkshire, Southampton, Portsmouth, Swansea and Port Talbot and Middlesbrough). Emissions from a wide range of sources are calculated for each 1km by 1km grid square within the areas for which these inventories have been produced. The sources examined include both aircraft and motor vehicles. The emissions estimates are available in a series of reports prepared by the London Research Centre on behalf of my Department. Copies of the reports will be sent to the hon. Member shortly.

  Further information on emissions from aircraft and road transport is available from the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory, which can be accessed through the Department's web site at http://www.environment.detr.gov.uk/airq/aqinfo.htm. The web site also includes links to the London Research Centre's site which contains some of the relevant information from the local inventories.

  Railways
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the companies which currently discharge responsibilities undertaken by British Rail prior to privatisation. [61899]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Ownership of many of the successor companies has changed since they were franchised or sold, and the information requested is no longer collected on a comprehensive basis.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what responsibilities the shadow Strategic Rail Authority will have in respect of(a) train path allocation and (b) national timetables. [61895]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Railtrack allocates train paths in accordance with access rights which the operators hold and with the operators' bids for paths. Railtrack is also responsible for the national timetable. Railtrack will retain these responsibilities when the shadow Strategic Rail Authority is established next Spring. However, we envisage that the new organisation will assess at a strategic level network capacity, future demand and the balance between passenger and freight operations.

  Animals (Illegal Trafficking)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he is taking to help prevent the extinction of(a) the Tibetan antelope and (b) the gold snub-nosed monkey. [61900]

  Mr. Meale
  The Tibetan Antelope(Panthalops hodgsonii) and the Golden Snub-nosed Monkey (Pygathrix roxellana) are listed on Appendix 1 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and Annex A of the EC Wildlife Trade Regulation which implements CITES within the European Union. International trade in these species is effectively banned. However, there is evidence that illegal trafficking in Tibetan Antelopes' wool (shahtoosh) is linked to smuggling in products from another Appendix 1, and critically endangered, species—the tiger. Last year the Metropolitan Police seized 138 shahtoosh shawls from a shop in Mayfair, the biggest seizure in the world so far. In October this year, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister received further information about this illegal trade during his visit to China. Next year, as Chair of the CITES Standing Committee, the UK will lead a mission to tiger range states and consumer countries to assist all concerned in their efforts to crack down on illegal trade by strengthening enforcement, raising public awareness of the threats to these species and gathering further information useful in tackling international wildlife crime.

  Rail Freight
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he still expects to receive a grant application shortly from Railtrack in respect of the piggyback rail freight scheme. [61634]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Minister of Transport had a useful introductory meeting with the Chief Executive of Railtrack on 15 November. A range of issues were discussed, including the piggyback scheme and other rail freight proposals, all of which, in Railtrack's view, would require significant amounts of Government grant. However, no formal proposals or grant application have been received from Railtrack, and the timing of any application was not discussed.

  Waste Exports and Imports
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to amend the United Kingdom Management Plan for Exports and Imports of Waste. [62524]

  Mr. Meacher
  The UK policies on exports and imports of waste are set out in the "United Kingdom Management Plan for Exports and Imports of waste", which was published on 16 May 1996. The Plan came into effect on 1 June 1996.

  Under the Plan, imports of waste from European Community Member States, with the exception of Ireland and Portugal, for disposal by high temperature incineration are being progressively phased out under an annual quota. This arrangement is intended to allow Member States time to develop their own high temperature incineration facilities, and is consistent with the long-standing United Kingdom policy that developed countries should be self-sufficient in disposing of their own waste. The quota is due to expire on 31 May 1999.
  185
  The Government have received a request from the high temperature incineration industry to extend the quota by at least a year. After careful consideration of the industry's representations, the Government have decided not to extend the quota. Any such extension of the quota would undermine the UK policy on self-sufficiency in waste disposal by developed countries.

  However, it has become apparent that the Plan requires clarification on one minor, but important, point. There is, at present, an apparent inconsistency over whether waste imported under the quota needs to be disposed of, or simply imported into the UK, by 31 May 1999. The Government intend to clarify the situation by confirming that the waste must arrive at the appropriate disposal facility by 31 May 1999. This carries no cost implications.

  My Department has therefore today published, for consultation, details of the proposed change. Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Library of both Houses.

  Orton Pit
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Government will submit Orton Pit to the European Commission as a candidate special area of conservation. [62525]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government have decided that Orton Pit should be submitted to the European Commission as a candidate SAC on account of its important population of Great Crested Newts. This will happen in the next few days.

  Composting Development Group
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what response he received to the consultation on the Composting Development Group report; and if he will make a statement. [62526]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Composting Development Group Report was published in July as a consultation paper. The response was overwhelmingly positive with widespread support for its recommendation.

  The Government welcome the Report as a significant step forward in the development and promotion of composting. We consider that its conclusions are sound and we endorse the thrust of its recommendations, which successfully address the major barriers to marketing compost and identify practical ways forward to help overcome them. We broadly accept those recommendations directed specifically at Government Departments, though we need to consider carefully how best to implement them. I commend the other recommendations to the relevant organisations and bodies which the Report identifies and urge them to make every effort to implement them.

  The Department received 75 responses. A list of responses received has been placed in the Library of the House; copies of individual responses may be obtained through the DETR Library.

DEFENCE

  Defence Council Instructions
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a list of unclassified Defence Council Instructions which have been issued since 1 February. [62044]

  Mr. Spellar
  I am today placing a copy of this list in the Library of the House.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he intends to oppose German proposals put to the December meeting of the North Atlantic Council that NATO should adopt a policy of no first use of nuclear weapons; and if he will make a statement. [61736]

  Mr. George Robertson
  No member country has proposed to NATO that it adopt a policy of No First Use of nuclear weapons. In conducting the Strategic Defence Review we concluded that such a policy would be incompatible with our and NATO's doctrine of deterrence, and that it would not further nuclear disarmament. We see no need to change NATO nuclear policy as expressed in the Alliance Strategic Concept.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the figures were for military spending broken down into(a) nuclear and (b) non-nuclear spending in the most recent available year. [61739]

  Mr. George Robertson
  It is not possible to divide military spending neatly into nuclear and non-nuclear because many force elements have a variety of roles which may include support to nuclear and non-nuclear tasks, as I set out in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffat) on 2 November 1998,Official Report, columns 349–50.

  Figures have been published in the annual UK Defence Statistics document and in the Strategic Defence Review White Paper, which also contains further detail. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Chemical Warfare
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much of the defence budget is dedicated to research in chemical warfare in the current financial year. [61738]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence funds research into defence against both chemical and biological warfare agents at the Chemical and Biological Defence Sector of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency at Porton Down. The information sought is not readily available in the format requested, but in the current financial year, the total expenditure on chemical and biological defence research is estimated at £33.6m. This research is focused solely towards providing UK armed forces with safe and effective protection against the effects of chemical and biological warfare agents.

  Defence Diversification Agency
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much of the Defence Diversification budget was spent on non-military research in the most recent year for which figures are available. [61742]
  187
  Mr. Spellar
  There has in the past been no Defence Diversification budget as such. Funding for my Department's research programme is provided for military purposes, although the resultant technologies can often have civil benefits. The modest costs arising from the creation of the Defence Diversification Agency at the end of this month will therefore be a departure from past practice, which we hope will enable the more widespread exploitation of our technology in the civil sector.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated cost of the Defence Diversification Agency in the current financial year. [61741]

  Mr. Spellar
  As we announced on 16 November 1998,Official Report, column 326, the estimated operating budget of the Defence Diversification Agency is expected to be some £2 million a year. Accordingly, a sum of £400,000 has been set aside to cover the costs of the Agency from its creation at the end of this month to the end of the current financial year.

  RN Warships (Chile)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what commission has been paid to agents for the sale of Royal Navy warships to Chile in the last 10 years. [62054]

  Mr. George Robertson
  In line with long-standing Departmental policy, no commissions of any kind were or are paid to agents for Government to Government sales for ex-Royal Navy ships to Chile or any other country.

  Equipment Sales
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what examination is made of the credentials of agents of(a) foreign Governments and (b) arms-purchasing companies who deal with the Armed Services over the sale of equipment. [62058]

  Mr. Spellar
  While they are sometimes called upon to provide foreign buyers with advice on, or demonstrations of, the capabilities of military equipment, the Armed Services do not deal with agents of(a) foreign governments and (b) arms purchasing companies on the sale of such equipment. This applies equally to the sale of surplus defence equipment by the Disposal Sales Agency.

  Commemorative Information (Websites)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons the Commonwealth War Graves Commission website search facilities have failed to allow access to inquirers. [62066]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Commission launched the Debt of Honour Register on the Internet on 9 November to give access to the commemorative information on 1.7 million of the Commonwealth's war dead beyond that provided to 50,000 inquirers annually by letter and telephone.

  The Internet site was developed by Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA) and during the first two weeks of operation a technical defect limited access to the site. The defect manifested itself only after the service was experiencing full-load conditions. However, during this period approximately 230,000 of the several million, who have visited the site, have interrogated the database.
  188
  As of 1 December the service has been stabilised and its reliability improved. Further diagnosis and rectification work is being urgently undertaken by CCTA.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the contract with CCTA for the construction of a memorial search facilities website, indicating penalty clauses applicable. [62067]

  Mr. Spellar
  A contract to develop and maintain an Internet site for the Commonwealth War Graves Commission was let to the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA) on 29 July 1998. Penalty clauses were not applicable in the agreement for the development work undertaken.

  The Commonwealth War Graves Commission launched the Debt of Honour Register on the Internet on 9 November to give access to the commemorative information on 1.7 million of the Commonwealth's war dead beyond that provided to 50,000 inquirers annually by letter and telephone.

  VC10 Fleet
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is(a) the reason for replacement and (b) the cost of the new body panels purchased for the CIK RAF VC10 fleet. [62094]

  Mr. Spellar
  The original body trim panels, used to convert the interior of the RAF VC10 CMk1 for its passenger carrying role, were over 20 years old, did not conform to current fire, smoke and toxicity regulations and were becoming increasingly difficult to maintain. The precise cost of the interior trim panels is "commercial in confidence" and I am, therefore, withholding it under exemption 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the contracts with AIM Aviation (Jecco) Ltd. which included(a) furnishings and (b) other equipment. [62092]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence contract database lists 34 active contracts with AIM Aviation (Jecco) Ltd. This does not include local purchase orders, raised by units for items valued at under £5,000, for which no central record is held. Detailed information about the equipment or furnishings ordered under the contracts is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the value was of the contract placed with AIM Aviation (Jecco) Ltd which included bed-settees for the RAF VC10 fleet; how many bed-settees at what cost were included in the order; on what date the order for the bed-settees was placed with AIM Aviation (Jecco) Ltd; and if he will place a copy of the contract in the Library. [62091]

  Mr. Spellar
  The decision to replace the existing bed settees was made by the RAF under the previous administration in February 1997. A contract for six divan bed-settee units was awarded to AIM Aviation (Jecco) Ltd. on 20 August 1997 following a competition. No other items were included in the contract. The cost of equipment
  189
  procured from industry under contracts awarded by the Ministry of Defence is "commercial in confidence" and consequently, I am withholding the information under exemption 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. I will not be placing a copy of the contract in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the orders for VIP equipment for the RAF VC10 fleet which have been cancelled since 1 May 1997, indicating the contents of the orders. [62093]

  Mr. Spellar
  There is no record of any order for VIP equipment for the RAF VC10 fleet being cancelled since 1 May 1997.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what meetings he has had with police concerning levels of policing for New Year's Eve 1999 and the following week; and what assessment he has made of the potential impact of the Millennium Bug on policing needs for that period. [61176]

  Women prisoners removed from mother and baby units

  Removed

  1998

  1997

  1996

  Holloway

  1 (violent and disruptive behaviour)

  2 (bullying)

  1 (psychotic incident)

  New Hall

  0

  1 (unable to care for baby)

  1Not known

  Styal

  0

  2 (violent behaviour)

  2 (drug offences)

  Askham Grange

  0

  0

  1 (charged with a section 1 offence under the Children and Young Persons Act 1993)

  1 records not available

  Extradition
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what facilities there are for arranging the transfer of a person arrested abroad in an EC country to face charges in a United Kingdom court; what legal aid facilities are available to such persons; and if he will make a statement. [61664]

  Kate Hoey
  There are two ways in which a person may be brought back to face criminal charges. The United Kingdom's extradition arrangements with most European countries are governed by the European Convention on Extradition. Where a person living in a Convention country stands accused in the United Kingdom of an extraditable offence, there is provision for an extradition request to be made. If the request is granted, the person concerned will be surrendered to stand trial in this country.

  Provision also exists for the voluntary repatriation to this country of convicted prisoners serving sentences in European Community countries. Such transfers take place in accordance with the provisions of the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, and the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984. Any outstanding charges could be brought against a prisoner
  190
  Mr. Boateng
  Police staffing levels are an operational matter, to be determined by individual chief officers. Equally, it is for each force to assess the likely impact of the Millennium Bug, both on policing needs during the celebrations and on their own police Information Technology systems.

  Central guidance is being issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers' (ACPO) Millennium Co-ordinating Committee (MCC), chaired by John Evans (Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall) who will be ACPO president during the Millennium. He has met with the Prime Minister's adviser to discuss the issues. I understand that ACPO are advocating a multi-agency approach to dealing with public order and public safety issues over the Millennium. Forces will be establishing contingency plans and liaising with local agencies and organisations accordingly.

  Prison Mother and Baby Units
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women were removed from each of the four prison mother and baby units in (i) 1998, (ii) 1997 and (iii) 1996; and for what reasons. [61019]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The information is given in the table.

  who had consented to be repatriated to this country, once they returned here.

  Legal aid is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. I am advised, however, that it would be open to a person so facing charges to apply in the usual way for criminal legal aid, once he had been returned to the United Kingdom, and that any such application would be considered under Part V of the Legal Aid Act 1988.

  Traffic Police
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many traffic police officers were deployed(a) five years ago and (b) at the latest available date in (i) each of the Metropolitan Police divisions, (ii) Surrey, (iii) Thames Valley and (iv) the United Kingdom. [61723]

  Kate Hoey
  The information for England and Wales is set out in the table. The numbers of traffic police officers in Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively. Within the Metropolitan Police, traffic officers are deployed at an area level, rather than at divisional level.

  Traffic policing does not necessarily occur independently of other police work, and the number of officers deployed to the traffic division is not indicative

  191
  of the money spent on traffic policing. A large part of traffic officers' time is spent dealing with ordiary crime. It is an advantage that traffic officers deal with matters

  Total police assigned to the traffic function

  Forces

  Year 1993–94

  Year 1994–95

  Year 1995–96

  Year 1996–97

  Year 1997–98

  Metropolitan Police—1 Area

  153

  123

  130

  120

  119

  Metropolitan Police—2 Area

  117

  165

  153

  195

  139

  Metropolitan Police—3 Area

  89

  272

  211

  225

  225

  Metropolitan Police—4 Area

  79

  131

  131

  124

  122

  Metropolitan Police—5 Area

  162

  261

  292

  252

  218

  Metropolitan Police—6 Area

  140

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Metropolitan Police—7 Area

  119

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Metropolitan Police—8 Area

  95

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Metropolitan Police HQ

  55

  51

  0

  6

  0

  Total Metropolitan Police

  1,009

  1,003

  917

  922

  823

  Surrey

  209

  192

  198

  199

  176

  Thames Valley

  345

  335

  288

  268

  273

  England and Wales Total

  8,657

  8,421

  8,078

  8,142

  7,951

  Note:

  The Metropolitan Police moved from having 8 Areas in 1993–94 to 5 Areas from 1994–1995 onwards

  Traffic Offences
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been made by the Metropolitan Police in respect of(a) speeding, (b) dangerous driving, (c) drunken driving and (d) defective vehicles in each of the last five years. [61615]

  Kate Hoey
  The information is set out in the table:

  Prosecutions

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Speed limit offences

  14,376

  13,226

  12,629

  12,997

  14,348

  Dangerous Driving

  964

  1,406

  1,310

  1,254

  987

  Driving etc after consuming alcohol or taking drugs

  17,319

  18,312

  18,800

  18,699

  18,043

  Vehicle or part in dangerous or defective condition

  14,374

  18,636

  22,138

  23,092

  19,791

  Figures for 1997 are not yet available.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deaths occurred in each of the Metropolitan Police divisions in each of the last five years arising from(a) murder and (b) road traffic accidents. [61724]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner has provided the following information:

  Murder

  Area

  11993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1 Area—Central

  —

  22

  13

  20

  20

  2 Area—North West

  —

  55

  44

  32

  45

  3 Area—North East

  —

  31

  34

  27

  45

  4 Area—South Ease

  —

  27

  38

  19

  27

  5 Area—South West

  —

  26

  30

  35

  18

  Total

  147

  161

  159

  133

  155

  1 Breakdown by area not available for 1993

  192
  unrelated to traffic and that beat officers will also deal with traffic offences, thus contributing to more efficient ways of policing.

  Road traffic accidents

  Area

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1 Area—Central

  26

  28

  25

  21

  30

  2 Area—North West

  64

  72

  48

  76

  67

  3 Area—North East

  73

  68

  55

  61

  65

  4 Area—South East

  75

  58

  50

  52

  45

  5 Area—South West

  63

  65

  56

  54

  69

  Total

  301

  291

  234

  264

  276

  Firearms Compensation
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his latest estimate for the total compensation paid under Category C of the Firearms Compensation Scheme. [61684]

  Mr. Boateng
  Around £11,850,000 has so far been paid to claimants under Option C of the compensation scheme for large-calibre handguns and the ex-gratia payment scheme for small-calibre pistols. No payments have yet been made under Option C of the separate statutory compensation scheme for small-calibre pistols. The final total of Option C payments will not be known until all claims have been examined, but we expect this to be contained within the overall compensation figure of around £120 million previously announced.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department intends to reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Ashford of 16 July, 3 September, 14 October and 22 October on Category C firearms compensation. [61629]

  Mr. Boateng
  A reply was sent on 27 November. Because the emphasis is on processing compensation claims, I am afraid it is not always possible to respond promptly to inquiries about the progress of individual claims. We have, however, kept the House informed of progress on the compensation schemes generally, most
  193
  recently in my reply to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) on 28 October 1998, Official Report, columns 179–80.

  Speed Cameras
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many speed cameras have been installed in(a) the Metropolitan Police area, (b) Surrey and (c) Thames Valley in each of the last five years; and how many prosecutions have resulted from evidence from them in each area. [61617]

  Kate Hoey
  In November 1998, there were 258 sites for speed cameras in the Metropolitan Police area, 15 in Surrey and 250 in Thames Valley. Comparable information for 1993–1997 is not available. Cameras are rotated around a number of sites to maximise their use as a deterrent.

  The table gives the figures for prosecutions for speeding where the offences were detected by automatic cameras:

  The majority of speeding offences detected by cameras are dealt with by fixed penalty. The table gives the number of fixed penalty notices given, and paid, for speeding where the offences were detected by automatic cameras:

  Police authority

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Metropolitan Police

  283

  3,225

  1,658

  6,075

  9,426

  Surrey

  —

  —

  —

  18

  —

  Thames Valley

  —

  1,196

  4,102

  2,908

  2,716

  The majority of speeding offences detected by cameras are dealt with by fixed penalty. The table gives the number of fixed penalty notices given, and paid, for speeding where the offences were detected by automatic cameras:

  Police authority

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Metropolitan Police

  —

  3,804

  5,126

  15,910

  22,564

  Surrey

  —

  —

  —

  1,011

  8,883

  Thames Valley

  —

  11,547

  36,987

  36,923

  36,608

  Motoring Accidents
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many motoring accidents resulting in(a) death, (b) serious injury, (c) less serious injury and (d) vehicle damage but not injury were recorded in each Metropolitan Police district in each of the last five years. [61616]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner has provided the following information:

  Area

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Fatal accidents

  1-Central

  26

  28

  25

  21

  30

  2-North West

  64

  72

  48

  76

  67

  3-North East

  73

  68

  55

  61

  65

  4-South East

  75

  58

  50

  52

  45

  5-South West

  63

  65

  56

  54

  69

  Total

  301

  291

  234

  264

  276

  194

  Area

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Serious injury accidents

  1-Central

  705

  745

  548

  626

  642

  2-North West

  1,172

  1,137

  1,398

  1,545

  1,545

  3-North East

  1,389

  1,215

  1,313

  1,513

  1,523

  4-South East

  1,166

  1,209

  1,345

  1,211

  1,344

  5-South West

  1,484

  1,374

  1,551

  1,287

  1,433

  Total

  5,916

  5,680

  6,155

  6,182

  6,487

  Less serious injury

  1-Central

  3,735

  3,701

  3,677

  3,922

  3,840

  2-North West

  8,253

  8,542

  8,421

  7,878

  7,854

  3-North East

  7,625

  7,573

  7,503

  7,796

  7,626

  4-South East

  7,505

  7,556

  7,137

  7,097

  7,247

  5-South West

  7,460

  7,496

  7,166

  7,312

  7,260

  Total

  34,578

  34,868

  33,904

  34,005

  33,827

  Note:

  Figures for accidents involving damage but no injury are not collected

  Police Act 1997
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the timetable for implementation of Part V of the Police Act 1997; and if he will make a statement. [61614]

  Mr. Boateng
  As we have made clear in the past, we have decided to implement Part V of the Police Act 1997 and to establish the necessary arrangements to issue the three forms of certificate provided for under the Act. The timetable for implementation will be influenced by the very large number of certificates likely to be required. We are therefore giving careful consideration to the phasing in of certificates with priority given to the protection of children.

  Police (Unclassified Papers)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a list of unclassified papers produced in(a) the special interest series by the Police and Reducing Crime Unit, and (b) the technical series of papers from the Police Scientific and Development Branch since January 1997, indicating (a) the title of each paper and (b) the date on which it was produced. [62045]

  Mr. Boateng
  There have been two unclassified special interest series papers published by the Policing and Reducing Crime Unit, and eighteen unclassified papers produced in the technical series of reports by the Police Scientific Development Branch since January 1997. A list of these will now be placed in the Library.

  Police Grant
  Ms Blears
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to announce the allocations of police grant for individual police authorities in England and Wales for 1999–2000. [62483]

  Mr. Straw
  I have today put a copy of my proposals for the allocation of police grant for 1999–2000 in the Library. I intend to implement these proposals, subject to consideration of any representations I receive about them.
  195
  I announced in July, following the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review, that spending overall on the police service in England and Wales would be increased by £1.24 billion in the years 1999–2002. The increases will be 2.67 per cent. in 1999–2000, up to a further 2.8 per cent. in 2000–01, and up to an extra 4 per cent. in 2001–02. These sums represent a real terms' increase, albeit small, in police spending, as explained in my reply to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on 31 July 1998, Official Report, columns 829–30.

  The police service has indicated its support in principle for the continued distribution of police grant in accordance with a needs-based formula. I am therefore proposing to continue to allocate the greater part of police grant according to the police funding formula.

  I am, however, proposing several changes to the formula to reflect the latest data now available, and in response to the representations I have received. The principal changes I propose are: (a) to reduce from 20 per cent. to 10 per cent. the share of funding allocated on the basis of forces' past establishments; and (b) to increase from 13.2 per cent. to 14.5 per cent. the proportion of funding allocated on the basis of forces' pensions commitments.

  I am proposing that the Metropolitan Police should continue to receive additional funding in recognition of its distinct national and capital city functions. It has proved very difficult for the principal formula appropriately to take account of these special circumstances. I have proposed, therefore, that a special payment of grant will be made to the Metropolitan Police over and above that available through the principal formula. I have set the amount of this special payment at £176 million.

  In addition, I am proposing to make special payments of grant to the following police authorities in 1999–2000 in recognition of the additional costs which will be incurred in preparation for the proposed changes to the Metropolitan Police District boundaries:

  Essex—2 million

  Hertfordshire—3 million

  Surrey—7 million.

  Other police funding proposals within the local government finance system are being announced today by my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Wales. These proposals, and mine, would increase Total Standard Spending on the police in England and Wales by 2.67 per cent. or around £186 million over 1998–99.

  The settlement also takes account of my commitment to improve police efficiency. I have set a target of 2 per cent. efficiency gains year on year for the police service from 1999–2000. By achieving these targets, police authorities can re-invest the savings to help meet front-line priorities.

  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Audit Commission have published extensive advice to chief officers and to police authorities on many ways in which the efficiency and effectiveness of the police service can be improved within available resources. A detailed circular on this from my Department has recently been issued which, among other subjects, gives guidance
  196
  on savings to be secured in the areas of training, estate management, procurement, sickness and early retirements on medical grounds.

  Over the next three years, the Government will also be spending £250 million on their targeted crime reduction programme, £217 million on tackling drugs and £85 million on the Youth Justice Board's development fund.

  The Government have already announced their decision to abolish crude and universal capping of local authorities from April 1999. In previous years, the Government have announced capping limits on police authority spending at the time of provisional funding settlement. No such limits are being set for next year. Nevertheless, I expect police authorities in England and Wales to set budgets which are prudent and reasonable, and which do not impose an excessive increase in council tax next year. We shall be monitoring the position carefully.

  The effect of my proposals for each police authority for 1999–2000 is set out in the table. It also shows the allocation approved by Parliament for 1998–99.

  £ million

  Police Authority

  1998–99 Allocation1

  1999–2000 Allocation1

  English Shire forces

  Avon & Somerset

  164.3

  168.4

  Bedfordshire

  60.9

  61.4

  Cambridgeshire

  71.9

  74.8

  Cheshire

  104.7

  109.0

  Cleveland

  80.4

  81.5

  Cumbria

  59.0

  60.0

  Derbyshire

  97.7

  101.7

  Devon & Cornwall

  167.4

  174.4

  Dorset

  67.8

  70.1

  Durham

  78.1

  81.3

  Essex

  158.4

  163.0

  Gloucestershire

  61.5

  62.4

  Hampshire

  189.1

  194.6

  Hertfordshire

  94.1

  100.1

  Humberside

  110.6

  113.0

  Kent

  178.9

  183.2

  Lancashire

  174.9

  178.3

  Leicestershire

  99.1

  102.3

  Lincolnshire

  60.7

  63.4

  Norfolk

  80.9

  83.5

  North Yorkshire

  75.6

  77.6

  Northamptonshire

  62.8

  65.2

  Nottinghamshire

  123.0

  126.4

  Staffordshire

  111.1

  113.0

  Suffolk

  66.0

  68.7

  Surrey

  84.2

  92.0

  Sussex

  162.6

  166.4

  Thames Valley

  219.3

  224.6

  Warwickshire

  51.1

  52.0

  West Mercia

  110.0

  113.1

  Wiltshire

  63.4

  64.9

  English Metropolitan forces

  Greater Manchester

  364.8

  375.7

  Merseyside

  233.3

  236.3

  Northumbria

  205.4

  213.0

  South Yorkshire

  165.4

  171.3

  West Midlands

  371.9

  380.6

  West Yorkshire

  279.5

  286.3

  London forces

  Metropolitan police2

  1,715.3

  1,744.1

  City of London3

  57.1

  55.4

  English total

  6,682.6

  6,852.7

  197

  £

  Police Authority

  1998–99 Allocation1

  1999–2000 Allocation1

  Welsh forces

  Dyfed-Powys

  51.1

  51.5

  Gwent

  67.3

  69.3

  North Wales

  73.2

  75.1

  South Wales

  161.3

  163.1

  Welsh total

  353.0

  359.0

  Total

  7,035.5

  7,211.1

  1 Rounded to the nearest f100,000. The Allocation is the sum of: Police Grant, Transitional Grant, Police SSA, Capital Finance SSA, Reduction Grant and Central Support Reduction Grant.

  2 Figure for the Metropolitan Police does not include funding allocated to the Receiver under the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services SSA for school crossing patrols, Magistrates' Courts and the Probation Service. It does include its Special Payment.

  3 Figure for the City includes Police SSA, Grant and SSA Reduction Grant, but excludes other SSAs (eg Capital Financing) and Central Support Reduction Grant. These are allocated to the Common Council of the City of London as a whole in respect of all its functions.

  Confiscation and Money Laundering Legislation
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the performance of courts enforcing confiscation and money laundering laws. [61553]

  Mr. Boateng
  The third report of the Home Office Working Group on Confiscation, published on 10 November, identifies significant weaknesses in the enforcement of confiscation orders, including a number relating to the roles of the courts. The Working Group makes recommendations for improving performance in this

  Table 1: Drug trafficking confiscation orders (England and Wales) 1992–1996

  Year

  Amount ordered to be confiscated

  Downward variation on appeal

  Default sentences(DTOA 1986)1

  Amount available for confiscation

  Amount remitted to consolidated fund

  1992

  9,129,863

  2500,000

  1,271,000

  37,358,863

  5,180,900

  1993

  9,678,118

  594,000

  579,000

  8,505,118

  5,380,000

  1994

  425,373,426

  489,000

  2,537,000

  422,347,426

  5,135,000

  1995

  18,337,490

  1,201,000

  848,000

  16,288,490

  5,343,000

  1996

  10,471,336

  1,643,000

  1,342,000

  7,486,336

  7,415,000

  Total

  72,990,233

  4,427,000

  6,577,000

  61,986,233

  28,453,900

  1 Default sentences served under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 served to expunge the debt owned by the defendant

  2 Estimate—no figures available for 1992

  3 Estimate based on 2

  4 Includes one confiscation order made by Chelmsford Crown Court for £15,314,000

  £

  Table 2: Proceeds of criminal conduct—confiscation orders made under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the 1988 Act as amended by the Proceeds of Crime Act 1995 (England and Wales) 1992–1996

  Year

  Amount ordered to be confiscated

  Downward variation on appeal

  Default sentences(unamended CJA)1

  Amount available for confiscation

  Amount remitted to consolidated fund

  1992

  1,354,000

  2—

  1,000

  1,353,000

  481,600

  1993

  412,000

  44,000

  156,000

  212,000

  266,000

  1994

  3,042,000

  17,000

  471,000

  2,554,000

  1,318,559

  1995

  3,653,000

  355,000

  513,000

  2,785,000

  1,024,000

  1996

  6,070,000

  217,000

  82,000

  5,771,000

  1,343,000

  Total

  14,531,000

  633,000

  1,223,000

  12,675,000

  4,433,159

  1Default sentences served under the unamended CJA 1988 served to expunge the debt owed by the defendant

  2No figures available

  198
  area, and for remedying perceived gaps in the money laundering legislation. The Government have announced a consultation period until the end of February, and will take account of the responses received before making decisions on the report's proposals.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the involvement of the police in enforcing current confiscation and money laundering laws; and if he will estimate the cost to each police force in 1997–98 of this activity. [61555]

  Mr. Boateng
  The police have a specific role under the confiscation legislation in conducting asset tracing investigations, and under the money laundering legislation in receiving reports of suspicious transactions from financial institutions and other sources. Suspicious transaction reports are normally made to the Economic Crime Unit at the National Criminal Intelligence Service, while every police force in England and Wales has a Financial Investigation Unit, responsible for identifying assets for confiscation and investigating suspected money laundering. Information on the cost of this activity to individual forces is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the costs borne by the police and other relevant authorities in implementing confiscation powers will be one of the factors to be included in the study which the Government plan to initiate of the possibility of establishing a confiscation agency.

  Criminal Confiscation Orders
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the value of assets seized from criminals by courts in each year since 1992. [61554]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information about criminal confiscation orders is set out in the tables.

  Working Group on Confiscation
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what responses he has received to the third report of the Home Office Working Group on Confiscation. [61552]

  Mr. Boateng
  None, but we would not expect to receive responses so soon after the report's publication. The consultation period will continue until the end of February. There have been a small number of letters from the public prompted by press coverage of the report.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what actions he proposes to take on the allocation of visas to child refugees from Albania. [61628]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Applications for entry clearance have been received from Ms Sally Becker of Operation Angel for a total of 91 individuals, a third of which are in respect of children needing medical treatment. They have been referred to the Home Office from the British Embassy in Tirana.

  The applications fell to be considered under the Immigration Rules relating to persons seeking to enter the United Kingdom as visitors for private medical treatment or simply as visitors. Under these Rules, we have to be satisfied, among other requirements, that there is satisfactory evidence about the medical condition and its treatment, that the person will be able to maintain and accommodate himself or herself and any dependants without recourse to public funds and that the person intends to leave the United Kingdom at the end of the period of the treatment or visit. In the absence of satisfactory evidence from Operation Angel or any other source, we were certainly not satisfied that these requirements were met in the applications.

  We considered whether there were grounds for treating the application son a discretionary basis outside the Immigration Rules, but concluded that it would not be appropriate to do so. In reaching this decision, we took account of the fact that Ms Becker had not taken Government advice and guidance on how to bring such an evacuation within the recognised official procedures: she had not demonstrated the option of local treatment through the international agencies and had not made a proper case on medical grounds. We were also aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has in place a humanitarian strategy for former Yugoslavia (including Kosovo) and Albania. Furthermore, in the absence of adequate guarantees of funding from Operation Angel, we had to take account of the likely cost to the taxpayer in the almost certain event of recourse to public funds which, for a group of this size, would be of the order of £400,000 a year. We accordingly decided to refuse the applications. Ms Becker was notified of this decision by the British Embassy in Tirana on Friday 13 November.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  ME
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will grant core funding to the Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Association in Northern Ireland in 1999–2000. [61204]

  Mr. McFall
  I have received an application for core funding from the ME Association. No decisions have yet been taken in relation to voluntary sector funding for the next financial year. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will look sympathetically at this request.

  Decommissioning
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made on the decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives. [61206]

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when she expects the decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives to begin. [61225]

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress is being made in securing the decommissioning of weapons. [61227]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave to the hon. Members for Witney (Mr. Woodward), for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) on 2 December 1998,Official Report, column 865.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make it her policy that prisoner releases and the decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives should proceed in parallel. [61223]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Government's policy is to implement the Belfast Agreement in full. The accelerated release of prisoners and the decommissioning of illegally held arms are both integral parts of the Agreement and it is essential that they, like every part, are implemented in full. There is no direct linkage in the Agreement and the Government cannot rewrite the Agreement.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to review the conduct of specified organisations in co-operating with the International Commission on Decommissioning under section 3(9)(d) of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. [61226]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The organisations currently specified under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 are INLA, Continuity IRA and the Real IRA. None of them are co-operating with the International Commission on Decommissioning.

  The conduct of organisations, specified and not specified, is under continual review to ensure that those organisations which have not established or are not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire remain specified. All relevant factors, including the four factors set out in section 3(9) of the Act, are taken into account.

  School Examination Results
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment she has made of school exam results in Northern Ireland relative to the rest of Great Britain. [61207]

  Mr. McFall
  The Department of Education in Northern Ireland routinely compares school performance in examination with those in England and Wales. Comparisons with Scotland are difficult because of the different examination system. Standards in Northern Ireland have been improving each year and compare very favourably with the other regions. I offer my congratulations to pupils and teachers on their achievements.

  Industrial Development Board
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to reform the working of the Industrial Development Board. [61208]

  Mr. Ingram
  The structure of the industrial development bodies in Northern Ireland, including the Industrial Development Board, are being considered as part of the Economic Development Strategy Review.

  Peace Process
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the latest position in the peace process. [61209]

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on progress following the Belfast agreement. [61217]

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when she expects final implementation of the arrangements contained in the Belfast agreement. [61219]

  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made on the Belfast agreement; and if she will make a statement. [61221]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Considerable progress has been made in implementing the Belfast Agreement. Intensive consultations continue with a view to reaching early agreement on the number of Ministerial offices and on areas for North/South co-operation. I look forward to the full implementation of all aspects of the Agreement and to the launch of the various new institutions early in 1999.

  Parades Commission
  Mr. Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will abolish the Parades Commission. [61210]

  Mr. Ingram
  No.

  The Parades Commission retains the complete confidence of the Government in its ability to operate in an independent, impartial and even-handed way in the best interests of all the people of Northern Ireland.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action is being taken to encourage inward investment in Northern Ireland from(a) the United States and (b) elsewhere. [61211]

  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action is being taken to encourage inward investment in Northern Ireland from(a) the United States and (b) elsewhere. [61213]

  Mr. Ingram
  During October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State together with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) led a major initiative in North America. Through a series of executive briefings they very successfully promoted Northern Ireland as a world class investment location, building on the political progress following the Good Friday agreement. Similar briefings have been undertaken in Europe and are being considered for Asia Pacific.

  Farming (Government Support)
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what support the Government are giving to farmers in Northern Ireland in the current financial year. [61212]

  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what support the Government are giving to farmers in Northern Ireland. [61224]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Government announced on 16 November 1998 a special aid package for United Kingdom farmers amounting to about £120 million. This package is likely to be worth some £19 million to Northern Ireland farmers. A total of just over £1 million was paid earlier under a one-off Pig Welfare Slaughter Scheme and to suckler cow producers whose herds were badly affected by BSE.

  Victims of Violence
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what actions she is taking to help people who have been victims of violence in Northern Ireland. [61214]

  Mr. Ingram
  Following the publication of Sir Kenneth Bloomfield's report "We Will Remember Them", we undertook an extensive consultation to seek the views of those affected by the violence in Northern Ireland. I have already announced a number of significant initiatives to address the needs of victims, and others will be introduced when the outcome of the consultation is assessed.

  Public Transport
  Mr. Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many staff are currently employed by(a) Ulsterbus and (b) Northern Ireland Railways. [61215]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Ulsterbus currently employs 2,151 members of staff and Northern Ireland Railways employs 663.

  Prisoners (Early Release)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations she has received concerning the early release of terrorist prisoners. [61216]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have received a number of representations from various political parties, groups and individual members of the public concerning the early release of prisoners.

  Nursery Places
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps she is taking to increase the number of nursery school places. [61218]

  Mr. McFall
  The first year of our Pre-School Education Expansion Programme has increased preschool education provision by 20 per cent. and provided places for an additional 2,200 children. We expect to make further substantial progress over the next 3 years towards our long-term aim of providing a year of pre-school education for every child.

  Anti-drugs Strategy
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on progress with the Government's anti-drugs strategy in Northern Ireland following the appointment of the UK anti-drugs co-ordinator. [61220]

  Mr. Ingram
  The current strategy for tackling the drug problem in Northern Ireland was published in 1995. With the appointment of the UK anti-drug Co-ordinator and the production of a new 10 year strategy for tackling drug misuse, that strategy is currently being reviewed. A new strategy document is expected early in 1999.

  Security Situation
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland. [61222]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Members for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) on 2 December 1998,Official Report, column 870.

  Port of Belfast
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how expenditure incurred by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland on consultancy advice, to assist in its consideration of Belfast Harbour Commissioner's proposal to transfer the Port of Belfast to the private sector, will be funded. [62345]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Belfast Harbour Commissioners have brought forward their proposal to transfer the Port to the private sector under the terms of the Ports (NI) Order 1994. The legislation does not, however, empower the Department to incur expenditure in considering that proposal.

  Parliament's approval for expenditure on consultant's fees associated with this proposal in the current financial year will be sought in a Supplementary Estimate for
  204
  Department of the Environment Vote 1 (Roads, Transport and Ports). Pending that approval, expenditure will be met by repayable advances from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund.

  St. Angelo's Airport
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how planned expenditure incurred by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland on the runway strengthening and provision of storage facilities at St. Angelo's Airport, Co. Fermanagh will be funded. [62346]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  This was one of a number of projects to benefit from the Chancellor's Fund announced on 12 May 1998. Parliament's approval for the planned expenditure in the current financial year will be sought in a Supplementary Estimate for Department of the Environment Vote 1 (Roads, Transport and Ports). Pending that approval, expenditure will be met by repayable advances from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund.

HEALTH

  Adoption
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will assess the recommendations of the September report of the British Agencies of Adoption and Fostering; and if he will make a statement. [61028]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have taken note of the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering Action Plan which will help inform its own strategic plans for adoption, to be taken forward in the "quality protects" programme to improve children's services, announced on 21 September 1998.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps will be taken to ensure that local authorities implement recent ministerial guidance on adoption practices. [61026]

  Mr. Hutton
  "Adoption—Achieving the Right Balance" was published on 28 August 1998 under Local Authority Circular (98)20 and addressed to members and directors of local authorities and directors of voluntary adoption societies. The guidance raised a number of important issues for improving the adoption service including better strategic planning, avoiding delay in placing children for adoption and the introduction of measures to avoid children drifting in the care system. This guidance was prepared as part of our initiative "quality protects"; within this context therefore, we will be working closely with local authorities for the improvement of services for children, including adoption. The Department will monitor progress carefully to ensure that effective measures for achieving improvements have been introduced.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is given by his Department on appropriate maximum charges for home studies for inter-country adoption. [61023]

  Mr. Hutton
  Fees charged by local authorities and adoption agencies are expected to cover the cost of preparing and assessing prospective adopters, submitting a report on the applicant concerning their suitability to
  205
  become adoptive parents of children living abroad and any administrative costs. The Department has given no guidance about a maximum fee.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what criteria countries are selected for negotiating bilateral agreements for inter-country adoptions. [61021]

  Mr. Hutton
  Bilateral adoption agreements are essentially formal arrangements to enable citizens of the United Kingdom to adopt children from countries overseas meeting the requirements of the United Kingdom and the particular country concerned. Agreements are proposed by the Department in regard to countries which have little experience of intercountry adoption, with the aim of ensuring that the Department submits applications only for prospective adopters approved by the proper authorities in the UK. Also, the UK responds to requests for an adoption agreement where a country makes it a condition absolute before UK citizens are permitted to apply to adopt children from that country.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria are employed by the(a) Department of Health and (b) Social Services Inspectorate in cases where they have rejected local authority home study assessments for overseas adoption. [61027]

  Mr. Milburn
  In its consideration of overseas adoption applications which are supported by a local authority or approved intercountry adoption agency, the Department, acting on advice of the Social Services Directorate, applies the same standards and criteria as are applied for domestic applications. Since 1993, the Department has been unable to support 6 applications out of a total of approximately 1,100. In addition, the Department will not support applications which do not meet the requirements of the applicants' country of choice.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest estimate available of the number of children entering the UK for adoption following approval by his Department in the financial year 1997–98. [61025]

  Mr. Hutton
  Based on the number of adoption applications supported by the Department, the number of children entering the United Kingdom in the financial year 1997–98 for the purposes of adoption was approximately 220.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps(a) have been taken to date and (b) are planned, to involve public interest and advisory groups in discussion of future adoption legislation. [61024]

  Mr. Hutton
  A comprehensive review of adoption law culminated in the publication in March 1996 of the consultative document "Adoption—A Service for Children". We will consult widely on any proposed adoption legislation which differs substantially from the 1996 proposals.

  Food Provision (Homeless People)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to co-ordinate food provision for, and establish healthy eating initiatives among, homeless people. [61016]
  206
  Ms Jowell
  Local and voluntary schemes are best placed to meet the needs of this vulnerable but very mobile group.

  Proteus Syndrome
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) children and (b) adults are currently suffering from Proteus syndrome; what is their age profile; and what training is given to paediatricians and others in the NHS to recognise and treat the condition. [61619]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not held centrally. Paediatricians are initially in the lead in diagnosing this rare disorder and in working through the options available for treatment—which can range over a number of specialist services depending upon the severity and manifestation of individual cases. Diagnosis and treatment options for Proteus syndrome form part of paediatricians' education and training.

  Anti-convulsant Drugs
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the safety of epilim and other anti-convulsant drugs for use by pregnant women; and if he will make a statement. [61623]

  Ms Jowell
  Epilim and other anticonvulsant drugs, as for all marketed medicines, are assessed by the Department to determine their safety for use by pregnant women. Available relevant research is assessed at the time of granting a Marketing Authorisation for a product and continues to be evaluated on an ongoing basis by the Medicines Control Agency. Risks to the foetus are recognised for anticonvulsant therapies and information about whether and how to use medicines in pregnant patients can be found in the authorised product information for health professionals and patients. The risks of loss of epileptic control need to be weighed against the risks to the foetus of these treatments. General prescribing advice on the use of antiepileptic therapy in pregnancy can be found in the British National Formulary.

  Overhead Power Lines
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the health effects of emissions from overhead power lines, with particular reference to (i) electric and (ii) magnetic fields. [61465]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department has been supporting, in part, the United Kingdom childhood cancer study, which is expected to report next year. This large study is designed to investigate childhood cancer in relation to various possible causes including exposure to electric and magnetic fields. The Department is also funding a complementary study co-ordinated by the childhood cancer research group, in Oxford, investigating cancer incidence near power lines. Other work being supported by the Department are at Bristol University, on the effect of electric fields on pollutant aerosols, and a laboratory study at Brunel University. The Department is also contributing to the World Health Organisation electromagnetic fields project.

  The Department obtains advice on the health implications of exposure to electromagnetic fields primarily from the National Radiological Protection

  207
  Board (NRPB). The NRPB's advisory group on non-ionising radiation conducted an extensive review of the subject in 1992 and concluded that there was no firm evidence of a carcinogenic hazard from exposure that might be associated with residence near major sources of electricity supply. The Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment has endorsed the advisory group's report. Supplementary reports in 1993 and 1994 were published by the NRPB to take into account the results of new epidemiological studies from Scandinavia, France and Canada. Copies of the advisory group's report and the supplementary documents are available in the Library. A further comprehensive review by the advisory group is under way and will be published on completion of the UK childhood cancer study.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into aspects of exposure to pollutants under power lines, with particular reference to the work of Professor Henshaw and his colleagues at Bristol University. [61464]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department is supporting several studies of the possible health effects of electromagnetic fields. One of these studies by Professor Henshaw, investigating aerosol pollutants under power lines, has been under way for a few months. No evaluation has yet been undertaken.

  Vitamins and Herbs
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Medicines Control Agency has to review the guidance in Medicines Act Leaflet Number 8; and what is the status of that leaflet. [61618]

  Ms Jowell
  The Medicines Control Agency will review its Guidance Leaflet (Medicines Act Leaflet 8: "A Guide to What is a Medicinal Product") to reflect any changes to medicines legislation which are approved by Parliament following the conclusion of its present consultation exercise on proposals to place the classification process for "borderline products" on a statutory basis. The leaflet is for guidance only.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if a manufacturer of a blend of herbs and vitamins which is assessed by the Medicines Control Agency as medicinal by presentation is given the opportunity to review the presentation of that product prior to enforcement action being taken. [61639]

  Ms Jowell
  When notifying a manufacturer that it has determined a product is a medicine because it is presented for treating or preventing disease, the Medicines Control Agency requires compliance with the law by withdrawal of the product. The manufacturer may subsequently be able to comply with the law by placing the product on the market in a way which does not present it as treating or preventing disease.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans officials in(a) his Department and (b) the
  208
  Medicines Control Agency have to meet manufacturers of vitamin and herb blends to discuss the licensing of their products as medicines in the United Kingdom. [61669]

  Ms Jowell
  Officials of the Medicines Control Agency (MCA), an executive agency of the Department, regularly meet the associations representing manufacturers of these products. When necessary, officials of the MCA also meet individual manufacturers to discuss the licensing of their products.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what criteria the Medicines Control Agency assesses whether a blend of herbs and vitamins is medicinal by(a) function and (b) presentation; and if a manufacturer whose products are so assessed is given a written statement of the reasons for that decision. [61638]

  Ms Jowell
  The Medicines Control Agency (MCA) assesses products against the definition of a medicinal product in European Commission and United Kingdom law. It also has regard to legal precedent and its own published guidance (Leaflet MAL 8: "A Guide to What is a Medicinal Product"). Broadly, the assessment of a product's functionality focuses on the pharmacological effect of its ingredient(s) on human physiology, while the assessment of a product's presentation considers a whole range of factors, including any claims made for the product in promotional material or on its labelling and packaging (whether explicit or implied), its name, the form, and the consumers targeted. The MCA also considers the opinion of the product's purpose an averagely well informed consumer would gain from its ingredient(s) and presentation. It is normal practice for the MCA to explain to the manufacturer the grounds for a classification decision.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Medicines Control Agency consults independent scientific experts when considering whether a herb and vitamin blend is medicinal by function; and if the manufacturer of such a product is able to have access to expert advice obtained by the agency. [61637]

  Ms Jowell
  The Medicines Control Agency (MCA) generally relies on the objective and expert advice of its own medical and pharmaceutical assessors. However, there are occasions when taking advice from external experts is appropriate. The MCA informs manufacturers of the impact of expert advice when classifying their products.

  Vaccines
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what requests he has made to the manufacturers of MR and MMR vaccines for data on the possible side-effects of their products. [61612]

  Ms Jowell
  Since 1988 the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) has requested information from the manufacturers of measles, mumps and rubella vaccine about aseptic meningitis and idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura.

  Manufacturers have an ongoing obligation to provide to the MCA all serious suspected adverse reactions within 15 days of receipt, and to provide periodic safety update reports at specified intervals.
  209
  In addition, manufacturers may be requested at any time to provide further information necessary for the evaluation of the risks and benefits of a medicine.

  Medical Negligence
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many medical negligence cases have been settled out of court in each of the last three years; and how many of the medical practitioners who have accepted medical negligence through an out of court settlement have been referred to the General Medical Council. [61799]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Cardiac Disease
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been diagnosed with cardiac disease or illness in each of the last five years; and how many of those people have died as a result of that disease or illness. [61945]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of people diagnosed with cardiac disease or illness is not available. The Health Survey for England 1994 showed that, overall, 23.7 per cent. of men reported suffering from a cardiovascular disorder, as did 25.7 per cent. of women. However, this could include a wide range of conditions such as raised blood pressure, heart murmurs or irregular rhythms, angina, strokes and heart attacks.

  The numbers of Finished Consultant Episodes (which record how many people are admitted to hospital within each specialty) for cardiac illness in 1994–95 were as follows:

  Specialty

  Ordinary admissions

  Day cases

  Total

  Cardiothoracic surgery

  63,224

  3,066

  66,290

  Cardiology

  121,212

  27,757

  148,969

  Totals

  184,436

  30,823

  215,259

  The first national service framework on coronary heart disease includes the management of patients with all forms of heart disease. The emerging findings report, which was published on 20 November, contains draft standards which include the care of heart patients in hospital and in the community. The numbers of people who have died from heart diseases in the last five years are as follows: The data are presented for persons of all ages, in England (only).

  (a) Deaths from coronary heart disease (ICD-9 410–414)

  Year

  EASR1

  Deaths

  1990

  207.4

  138,154

  1991

  206.0

  139,961

  1992

  197.9

  136,118

  1993

  195.5

  136,160

  1994

  179.3

  125,962

  1995

  173.6

  123,886

  1996

  167.3

  120,792

  1997

  157.7

  114,849

  210

  (b) Deaths from coronary heart disease and stroke (ICD-9 410–414 and 430–438)

  Year

  EASR1

  Deaths

  1990

  292.9

  200,728

  1991

  292.3

  204,244

  1992

  279.9

  198,244

  1993

  270.1

  193,423

  1994

  250.3

  180,837

  1995

  244.2

  179,594

  1996

  237.6

  176,884

  1997

  225.0

  168,995

  (c) Deaths from all circulatory disease (ICD-9 Ch.VII)

  Year

  EASR1

  Deaths

  1990

  351.7

  242,205

  1991

  348.8

  244,778

  1992

  334.4

  237,982

  1993

  334.0

  240,609

  1994

  310.5

  225,561

  1995

  305.1

  225,511

  1996

  297.7

  222,695

  1997

  283.7

  214,104

  1 European Age Standardised Rate per 100,000 population (EASR) is the most meaningful illustration. However it helps to know what this represents in actual bodies so we have included numbers of deaths

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will issue guidelines to all health authorities requiring that patients should not be removed from waiting lists at the time that they are booked for an operation. [61843]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 1 December 1998]: Waiting lists should include both patients who have been given a date for admission and those waiting to be notified of one. This is set out clearly in NHS Waiting Times Guidelines for Good Administrative Practice, issued to health authorities and trusts in January 1996. Copies are available in the Library.

  Elderly Patients (Emergency Readmissions)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the first and second quarter figures for 1998–99 for the number of patients aged 75 years and over who were readmitted to hospital as an emergency within 28 days of discharge. [61872]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 1 December 1998]: The number of patients aged 75 and over who were readmitted as an emergency within 28 days of discharge in the first two quarters of 1998–99 is shown in the table. The table also shows this figure as a percentage of people over 75 who have been discharged from hospital in the previous 90 days.

  The number of patients aged 75 and over who were readmitted as an emergency within 28 days of discharge during 1998–99

  Number of readmissions

  As a % of discharges

  Q1

  29,506

  8.6

  Q2

  29,076

  8.1

  Source:

  NHS Executive Quarterly Monitoring Activity data 1998–99.

  VAT (Medicines)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the(a) financial and (b) other effects of the VAT order on the supply of certain renal and cancer drugs and on pharmaceutical products by retail pharmacists to residents of nursing homes. [61939]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 1 December 1998]: The financial effect of the Value Added Tax Order on the supply of certain renal and cancer drugs was estimated at £3.5 million per annum. The Order is not being implemented for these items until 1 April 1999, when the increased funding available to the NHS will be in place.

  The effect of the VAT Order on the supply of prescribed items by retail pharmacists to residents of nursing homes would be to make such items subject to VAT at the standard rate. However, there would be significant problems in altering NHS systems to comply with the Order and, as a result, Her Majesty's Treasury has decided not to implement this aspect of the Order.

  There are no other effects of the VAT Order on the supply of certain renal and cancer drugs and on pharmaceutical products by retail pharmacists to residents of nursing homes.

  Electro-convulsive Therapy
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding electro-convulsive therapy; and if he will make a statement. [62012]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have received a number of representations about electro-convulsive therapy (ECT) and, in conjunction with the president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Chief Medical Officer wrote to all National Health Service trusts and consultant psychiatrists in September reminding them of the need to ensure ECT is properly administered in accordance with the College of Psychiatrists' procedures and guidance described in the ECT handbook.

  Personal Social Services
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what capital resources he is making available to local authorities for the personal social services in 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02. [62351]

  Mr. Dobson
  Capital resources of £61.9 million will be made available to local authorities as follows:

  £million

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Secure accommodation grant

  6.2

  6.2

  6.2

  Basic credit approvals

  37.0

  37.0

  37.0

  Supplementary credit approvals:

  Mental Health

  15.6

  15.6

  15.6

  AIDS/HIV

  3.1

  3.1

  3.1

  Note:

  The figures shown for 2000–01 and 2001–02 are provisional amounts at this stage

  Asthma
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the rates of asthma among people living in the health authority areas covering(a) Gatwick and (b) Heathrow airports, relative to the national average. [61894]

  Ms Jowell
  There are no comprehensive data on the number of people with asthma. Asthma is estimated to affect 4 per cent. of adults and between 4 and 6 per cent. of children sufficiently severely to require medical supervision. Information is not available centrally on the rates of asthma in West Sussex and Hillingdon health authorities, which cover Gatwick and Heathrow airports respectively.

WALES

  Police Authority Spending
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are his proposals for police authority revenue spending in 1999–2000. [62482]

  Mr. Michael
  I propose to make £359.0 million available from total standard spending in Wales to fund police services in 1999–2000. This sum comprises £180.7 million in cash-limited police grant, to be paid by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and £178.3 million in standard spending assessments (SSA). Excluding capital charges, it represents an increase of £8.8 million. The increase including capital charges is £6.0 million.

  The sums for each police authority are set out in the following table.

  £ million

  Police authority

  Police grant

  SSA

  Total

  Dyfed-Powys

  25.9

  25.6

  51.5

  Gwent

  34.8

  34.5

  69.3

  North Wales

  38.0

  37.2

  75.1

  South Wales

  82.0

  81.1

  163.1

  Note:

  Figures may not add due to rounding

  My Department is today writing to each police authority in Wales consulting it on its provisional standard spending assessment for 1999–2000. The figures may alter slightly if the balance of funding between police authorities, which is determined by a joint formula for Wales and England, changes as a result of consultation.

  Copies of the consultation letter have been placed in the Library of the House.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  World Trade Organisation
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if reports from representatives of Her Majesty's Government who are members of the United Kingdom delegation to the World Trade Organisation in Geneva are made public. [61167]

  Mr. Wilson
  No.
  213
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to whom the representatives of Her Majesty's Government who are members of the delegation to the World Trade Organisation in Geneva report. [61165]

  Mr. Wilson
  They report to the relevant Government Department, depending on the issue in question, with my Department having the overall responsibility for the World Trade Organisation.

  Lear Corporation Facility, Colne
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to persuade the Lear Corporation to retain its manufacturing facility in Colne. [61643]

  Mr. Battle
  DTI officials at the Government Office for the North West have been in close touch with the company. I understand that the proposed closure is part of the company's planned reorganisation of its European operations, and that the company intends to retain the production capacity and jobs in the UK. I further understand that part of the plant will be sold to new owners which may safeguard some of the jobs. Officials from the Government Office, the Employment Service and TEC will maintain close contact with the local management to offer advice and assistance, and to work with the new owners.

  Textiles Industry
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he plans to respond to the BATC/GMB/KFAT/TGWU action plan for the textiles industry. [61647]

  Mr. Battle
  I met with representatives of the textiles and clothing industries and unions on 24 November to discuss their Action Plan for the industry. It represents a solid basis upon which the Social Partners can develop a more detailed strategy for addressing the competitiveness of the sector. I offered the services of my Department to facilitate the development of that strategy.

  Telecommunications Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the outcome of the Telecommunications Council held in Brussels on 27 November; and if he will make a statement. [62034]

  Mrs. Roche
  I represented the UK at the Telecommunications Council held in Brussels on 27 November.

  The Council reached unanimous political agreement in respect of common positions on two Decisions establishing a five year programme for the Interchange of Data between Administrations (IDA). No agreement was reached on a draft Directive on a framework for electronic signatures, and it was therefore agreed that this proposal should be referred back to the Committee of Permanent Representatives for further discussion.

  The Commission also made oral presentations on: a Communication on implementation by Member States of Community legislation in the telecommunications sector; a Green Paper on radio spectrum policy; and on a report to the European Council on job opportunities in the
  214
  information society. The Commission also provided an oral update on: the outcome of the OECD Conference on electronic commerce held in Ottawa in October; progress within the "Global Business Dialogue" on electronic commerce; and on internet domain name governance issues. The Presidency made an oral presentation on the outcome of the Conference "Coping with Convergence" held in Vienna on 3 November 1998.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to promote global standards on tobacco advertising. [61912]

  Ms Jowell
  I have been asked to reply.

  Government officials will fully co-operate in the planning, scheduling and information-sharing that would accompany the development of an international framework convention for tobacco control, intended to facilitate and encourage member states to strengthen their own national tobacco control policies. They will liaise with relevant organisations in taking this forward. We hope that the forthcoming White Paper on Tobacco Control will provide a model in the development and operation of a framework convention.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Awareness Training
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what disability awareness training is currently provided for his Department's staff, with particular reference to assisting partially-sighted or blind people; and what proposals he has for future training. [60999]

  Mr. Timms
  Each Agency develops its own programme of training. They have always included in their programmes training for awareness of disabilities which has included awareness of the difficulties faces by partially-sighted and blind people. The profile of this training was raised when the Disability Discrimination Act 1996 came into force.

  Although staff training in most of the Department's Agencies to assist partially-sighted or blind people is encompassed in their general disabilities training, for the future the Benefits Agency and Contributions Agency intend to commit themselves to the ten steps of the Charter "See It Right" issued by the Royal National Institute for the Blind.

  Benefits (Means Testing)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those benefits not currently means-tested which will be means-tested in future as a result of the plans he has announced to date. [61423]

  Mr. Timms
  The proposals in the consultation documents "A new contract for welfare: Support for Disabled People" published on 28 October and "A new contract for welfare: Support in Bereavement" published on 18 November do not cause any benefit which has no current means testing to become means tested. Contributory benefits already contain long-standing rules which take some account of income. Our plans to take
  215
  some account of occupational and personal pension income over £50 a week for future Incapacity Benefit claims are in line with previous practice in contribution-based Jobseeker's Allowance, and will strike a fairer partnership between State and private provision. No existing claimant at the point of change will be affected.

  Benefits Agency Medicals
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the current arrangements are for assessing and paying travelling expenses of those attending Benefits Agency medicals; and what the previous arrangements were. [61190]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of the Benefits Agency is a matter for its Chief Executive, Peter Mathison. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Ms Joan Walley, dated 1 December 1998:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking about the current arrangements for assessing and paying travelling expenses of those attending Benefits Agency Medicals, and what were the previous arrangements.

  The current arrangements are that a customer will be given the opportunity to complete a claim from for reimbursement of reasonable travelling expenses, incurred during their visit to the designated Medical Examination Centre, at the time of their medical examination. The claim form covers travelling costs incurred using agreed transport methods as well as car parking, subsistence and financial loss allowance where appropriate. Travel by private transport is paid at a standard rate per mile, whilst parking, bus, train and authorised taxis are also paid on production of a ticket or receipt.

  Since the provision of Medical Services was contracted out to Sema Group on I September 1998, Sema Group Finance is now responsible for the central payment of claims whereas previously all customer's expenses were paid locally by Disability Benefit Centre's finance sections. They have also increased the number of ways a payment can be made. Previously there were two methods of payment, direct to a bank account and by girocheque. Since 1 September, in addition to the above methods, payment can be made by ordinary cheque, and a limited number of outlying Scottish examination centres have the facility to issue cash payments.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in North Staffordshire are in receipt of Invalid Care Allowance. [61189]

  Mr. Timms
  The administration of the Benefits Agency is a matter for its Chief Executive, Peter Mathison. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Ms Joan Walley, dated 1 December 1998:

  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people in North Staffordshire are in receipt of Invalid Care Allowance (ICA).

  North Staffordshire is served by the Benefit Agency's (BA's) North Staffordshire District with offices situated in Hanley, Longton, and Newcastle-Under-Lyme. The District does not correspond to Constituency or Local Authority boundaries.

  On 25 November 1998 The ICA's computer system identified 3,650 people receiving ICA in the area covered by the BA District. This figure is provisional and subject to change.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.
  216

  Pensioners (Means-tested Benefits)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of benefit units where(a) more than 25 per cent., (b) more than 50 per cent., (c) more than 75 per cent. and (d) 100 per cent. of the income from occupational and personal pensions is offset by reductions in entitlement to means-tested benefits. [60925]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 27 November 1998]: The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  The number of benefit units where the income from an occupational pension is offset by reductions in entitlement to means-tested benefits

  Estimated benefit units in each category at 1999–2000

  Number

  (a) more than 25 per cent. up to 50 per cent.

  200,000

  (b) more than 50 per cent. up to 75 per cent.

  200,000

  (c) more than 75 per cent. up to 100 per cent.

  450,000

  (d) 100 per cent.

  300,000

  Notes:

  1. Figures are not available for personal pensions.

  2. These figures relate to Income Support, Working Families Tax Credit, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit only and are the estimated result of discounting occupational pension income entirely for the purposes of all benefit assessment.

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest 50,000 cases and are based upon the Department's Policy Stimulation Model of income-related benefits. This model draws data from the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey, uprated to 1999–2000 levels, and calibrates estimated income-related benefit results.

  4. Estimates from household surveys based on reported income holdings are subject to differing levels of response. Consequently these figures should not be interpreted as precise point estimates, but rather as indicative only of broad magnitudes.

  Centenarians
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what his policy is with regard to 100th birthday greetings; for what reasons he sends them; how his Department verifies the age of those claiming to be centenarians; what the cost is of such verification and delivering such 100th birthday greetings; and if he will make a statement. [61715]

  Mr. Darling
  Following the tradition of previous Secretaries of State for Social Security, a congratulatory message is sent to those receiving a Social Security benefit and celebrating their 100th birthday, 105th birthday and subsequent birthdays.

  Verification of age is obtained from Departmental records and the cost of this which includes checks on the well being of the claimant is incorporated into normal running costs. The estimated cost of collating the information and sending each telemessage is approximately £7.60. For the period 1 January to 30 November 1998, 3,192 messages were sent.

  Contributions Agency Computer
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects the NIRS 2 computer system at the Contributions Agency to be operational; and if he will make a statement. [61935]
  217
  Mr. Timms
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the hon. Members for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) and for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on 22 October 1998,Official Report, column 1187.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the reasons for the low number of initial interviews carried out under the New Deal for lone parents compared with the number of initial interviews requested. [62013]

  Angela Eagle
  The number of initial interviews carried out under the New Deal for Lone Parents is in line with expectations. Up to 23 October 1998, over 30,000 interviews had been booked and over 23,000 already carried out.

  The initial contact letter sent to lone parents under the New Deal for Lone Parents is not a request for them to attend an interview1. Participation is voluntary and lone parents may choose to get in touch with a New Deal Personal Adviser when its suits their circumstances.

  The report of the independent evaluation of the New Deal for Lone Parents, to be published next year, will include an examination of the reasons why some lone parents choose not to get in touch with a Personal Adviser when they receive an initial contact letter.
  1 Two of the eight prototype areas did experiment by sending out letters with a stated interview time and date; however, lone parents were advised that the programme was voluntary.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Vitamin and Mineral Supplements
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will announce the membership of the Ad Hoc Expert Advisory Group on Vitamin and Mineral Supplements. [61013]

  Mr. Rooker
  Details of the membership of the Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals were given in my replies to my hon. Friend for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) on 12 November 1998,Official Report, column 314, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) on 7 May 1998, Official Report, columns 456–57. The only change from the information given in those replies is that Professor Woods has stood down from the Group.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the guidance which he gave to the Ad Hoc Advisory Group on its terms of reference on vitamin and mineral supplements [61014]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Terms of Reference of the Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals are to:establish principles on which controls for ensuring the safety of vitamins and mineral supplements sold under food law can be based;
  review the levels of individual vitamins and minerals associated with adverse effects;
  recommend maximum levels of intakes of vitamins and minerals from supplements if appropriate;
  report to the Food Advisory Committee.
  The group will also be able to advise on the levels of vitamins and minerals in fortified foods, if it considers this is appropriate.
  218
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure that the new Ad Hoc Advisory Group on Vitamin and Mineral Supplements has access to expert opinion from Europe and the USA. [61015]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals will consider all relevant scientific information on the safety of vitamins and minerals through comprehensive searches of world-wide databases of information and by making a public call for interested parties to submit relevant information.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to require that the testing of fruit and vegetable products at supermarkets against excessive concentrations of pesticides takes place at depots. [61179]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have no plan to change current arrangements. Fruit and vegetables and other commodities are tested for a range of pesticide residues as part of the Working Party on Pesticide Residues annual surveillance programme. This programme is designed to sample foods typically available to the consumer from a range of retail outlets across the United Kingdom. Every effort is made by the Working Party to ensure the integrity of both its sampling and analysis techniques. In directing the sampling technique the importance of checking carefully the origin of the produce is stressed to the samplers. It would not be practical to ask them to sample produce direct from supermarket depots.

  Quarantine
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to reduce the quarantine period for pet animals from(a) North America and (b) Europe. [61478]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Advisory Group on Quarantine has recommended that quarantine should be replaced for cats and dogs leaving the UK and returning after visits to the European Union and European Economic area countries, and rabies free islands in the rest of the world; quarantine would also be replaced for cats and dogs entering the UK from such countries. Quarantine would be retained for cats and dogs coming into the UK from other countries. The Government are sympathetic to these recommendations.

  The Advisory Group recommended that further consideration be given to the risks arising from allowing cats and dogs from North America into Great Britain without undergoing quarantine. This study is underway.

  The Government will propose a specific way forward on the matters covered by the Advisory Group's report after the public consultation on the Advisory Group's recommendations ends on 31 December 1998.

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he plans to publish the draft bill to establish the Food Standards Agency; and if he will make a statement. [61467]
  219
  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 30 November 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on 25 November 1998, Official Report, column 10.

  I shall make a further announcement in the light of discussions with colleagues.

  Digestive Enhancers
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the use of digestive enhancers in the poultry industry. [61890]

  Mr. Rooker
  There are currently five antimicrobial growth promoters permitted by EC legislation for use in poultry or chickens for fattening. They are bacitracin zinc, spiramycin, virginiamycin, flavophospholipol and avilamycin. The European Commission has proposed a ban on bacitracin zinc, spiramycin and virginiamycin with effect from 1 January 1999. The proposal is due to be considered in the Commission's Standing Committee on Animal Nutrition today.

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Servants (Media Relations)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the rules governing relations with the media which apply to(a) special advisers, (b) press officers and (c) Government Information Service officials. [61620]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Guidance on relations with the media for all civil servants—including members of the Government Information and Communication Service and Special Advisers—is set out in "Guidance on the Work of the Government Information Service". Copies are in the Library.

SCOTLAND

  Rowett Research Institute
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Scottish Office has(a) had direct or indirect involvement in the personnel and recruitment policies of the Rowett Research Institute and (b) made representations or recommendations to the Institute in relation to the early retirement or dismissal of staff. [61721]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The Rowett Research Institute employs staff under terms and conditions laid down by the Joint Negotiating and Consultative Committee of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. The Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department, as the major funder of the Institute, has a limited involvement in the Institute's general policies on personnel, recruitment and retirement of staff, but that involvement does not extend to individual cases which are a matter for the Institute's Governing Body.

  Private Finance Deals
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what monitoring he undertakes of the sale price 220
  achieved for land and capital assets transferred to private companies as part of private finance deals and then sold on. [61702]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 1 December 1998]: My Department does not maintain a central register of information on such disposals. It is the responsibility of the disposing public body to ensure that value for money is obtained. The National Audit Office as external auditor has authority to report to Parliament on the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of such contracts.

  Non-domestic Rates
  Mrs. McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the non-domestic rate poundage for Scotland will be in 1999–2000. [62354]

  Mr. Dewar
  It will be 48.9p, the same as in England.

  Trees
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact on indigenous species of trees of the import for planting of seeds of those same species. [61898]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Seed and planting stock of many indigenous tree species, including oak, have been imported into Britain from continental Europe for several centuries. Much of this material is well adapted to British conditions with the result that it can be very difficult to identify trees which are truly of native origin. Scientists are developing methods for identifying the origin of indigenous species. For example, analysis of the chemical constituents of native Scots pine has identified seven distinct areas of pine in Scotland.

  Our advice to woodland owners reflects the importance of using suitable seed sources for planting trees in Britain, and particularly for regenerating and extending semi-natural woodlands. The UK Forestry Standard states that landowners should use suitable local provenances if they are available, and the Forestry Commission has published guidelines which emphasise the value of using natural regeneration or plants derived from local seed sources. The Commission is also drawing up a scheme to encourage foresters to grow planting stock from locally sourced indigenous species of trees and shrubs.

  Lead Pipes
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to reintroduce a local authority programme to enable more domestic water lead pipes to be replaced. [61536]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Under the repairs grant system local authorities may give assistance at up to 90 per cent. of the cost of works to home owners replacing lead plumbing. It is for authorities to set their own budgets for repairs grants and decide the priority they give to lead pipe replacement. As regards council housing, it is for local authorities as landlords to determine their priorities for works to their own stock.

  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been spent by each Scottish council in grants for the replacement of lead water pipes in domestic property in the most recent years for which figures are
  221
  available; and how much was spent by the previous district and islands councils for the last full year before these grants ceased to be ring-fenced. [61556]

  Mr. Macdonald
  This information is not held centrally.

  Open Learning
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to support open learning courses as an alternative to existing training schemes. [61540]

  Mr. Dewar
  The Opportunity Scotland consultation paper, published in September set out the Government's commitment to the promotion of learning in all forms, throughout life, and detailed a number of initiatives which will be used for that purpose. Training courses are a particular form of learning and are complementary rather than alternative to any other forms.

  Examinations
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to persuade professional bodies and the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council to co-operate in creating a single set of exams in each field which will satisfy both the professional body's and the universities' requirements. [61542]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Many professional bodies already recognise university courses for the purposes of entry to the professions and the whole are of higher education qualifications has recently been the subject of many recommendations by the Dearing and Garrick Committees. These include recommendations on the development of programme specifications and an integrated credit and qualification framework. The implementation of these recommendations should improve articulation between professional qualifications and degrees.

  Water Charging
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total value of the water rates relief allowed to the various categories of properties entitled to it in the latest year for which figures are available. [61546]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The exact information requested is not held centrally and could be collected only at disproportionate cost. However, the water authorities estimate that the total value of reliefs given on water and sewerage charges in 1997–98 in Scotland was some £14 million.

  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide assistance to the water boards to enable them to change from a system of charges to commercial properties based on rateable value to one based on volume. [61548]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The water authorities are responsible for developing appropriate charging arrangements. Each of the authorities has recently completed consulting its non-domestic customers about proposals to alter the basis of charges to reflect more closely the level of services actually used rather than using rateable values as a proxy for use. Following this exercise the water authorities concluded that there is overall support in favour of a change to the charging basis. Each is now discussing the 222
  detailed implementation of changes for their area with Scottish Water and Sewerage Customers Council. Domestic properties are unaffected by this proposal.

  Overall, the new arrangements will not alter the total income raised from the non-domestic sector, though its distribution amongst customers will be affected. The water authorities propose to phase in the changeover to ensure that individual chargepayers have sufficient time to adjust to the new arrangements.

  Given that there will be no reduction in income to the water authorities and that the impact on chargepayers will be phased in, there is no case for giving financial assistance to the water authorities.

  Domestic Sewerage
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will extend the domestic sewerage transitional relief beyond the three years originally specified. [61557]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The Government do not intend to extend domestic sewerage relief grant beyond the three year period initially envisaged.

  Care in the Community
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what plans he has for an early review of Care in the Community funding levels; [61537]

  (2) if he will ensure that funding levels for Care in the Community meet the economic charge per room which housing associations and other providers have to charge to meet the registration standards set for staffing, food and buildings and their loan charges. [61538]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Following our Comprehensive Spending Review on 14 July we announced substantial additional resources for Scottish Councils over the next 3 years. These include significant extra provision for community care. However, it is for each council to decide how to allocate its funds.

  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the expenditure on Care in the Community in each council area in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98; and what is budgeted for 1998–99. [61539]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Net council expenditure on Social Work excluding that implicitly on services for children is set out in the table.

  £000

  Provisional Outturn

  Councils

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Aberdeen, City

  37,384

  38,029

  39,687

  Aberdeenshire

  32,395

  32,010

  33,419

  Angus

  17,065

  18,199

  19,409

  Argyll and Bute

  13,653

  14,627

  14,954

  Clackmannanshire

  6,651

  6,972

  7,656

  Dumfries and Galloway

  22,037

  22,642

  23,346

  Dundee

  28,813

  24,245

  26,208

  East Ayrshire

  18,403

  18,826

  20,090

  East Dunbartonshire

  11,278

  11,946

  13,337

  East Lothian

  14,184

  15,223

  14,809

  East Renfrewshire

  8,807

  10,088

  10,713

  Edinburgh, City

  68,334

  70,537

  72,966

  Eilean Siar

  8,967

  8,546

  8,792

  Falkirk

  20,218

  20,914

  21,359

  Fife

  57,800

  59,578

  61,918

  223

  £000

  Provisional Outturn

  Councils

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Glasgow City

  151,551

  149,831

  149,478

  Highland

  32,053

  32,187

  34,031

  Inverclyde

  15,587

  14,271

  15,691

  Midlothian

  11,411

  11,889

  12,622

  Moray

  12,343

  12,795

  13,564

  North Ayrshire

  19,374

  19,758

  20,128

  North Lanarkshire

  46,692

  50,204

  52,127

  Orkney

  4,201

  4,426

  4,570

  Perthshire and Kinross

  16,971

  17,917

  18,548

  Renfrewshire

  23,242

  25,414

  26,956

  Scottish Borders

  17,698

  17,460

  18,526

  Shetland

  6,079

  6,191

  6,382

  South Ayrshire

  16,884

  17,843

  19,768

  South Lanarkshire

  38,575

  45,826

  42,276

  Stirling

  12,048

  11,333

  11,756

  West Dunbartonshire

  17,609

  18,561

  19,465

  West Lothian

  20,287

  21,637

  21,804

  Scotland

  828,594

  849,925

  876,355

  All figures are net of loan and leasing charges.

  Employment Creation
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to assist councils, universities, colleges and development and training agencies in the North East of Scotland to invest in employment creation in order to offset the future decline in the North Sea oil and gas industry. [61541]

  Mr. Dewar
  Economic development assistance to the area is channelled through Grampian Enterprise and the local authorities. Grampian Enterprise and the local councils have been working with the further and higher education institutions in the area to promote the diversification of the local economy to counteract job losses in the oil and gas industry.

  Learning Difficulties
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will require councils to provide in-service training to train teachers to identify children with learning difficulties as quickly as possible and to adopt systems which achieve an early follow up in respect of each child identified. [61545]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The provision of in-service training for teachers is a matter for authorities to determine in the light of local needs and circumstances. We have no plans to change this arrangement.

  The Government support authorities provision for in-service training of staff working with children with special educational needs through specific grant. From April 1999, Government resources available for special educational needs in-service staff development and training will more than double to £5 million per year.

  Sewage Discharges
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact of the current 224
  system of licensing private and industrial sewage discharges by the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency on the Government's efforts to meet its pollution targets. [61547]

  Mr. Macdonald
  One of the targets which we set for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency was to improve the level of consent compliance for sewage and industrial discharges to 80 per cent. by 2001–02. A copy of the Agency's Annual Report 1997–98 has been placed in the Library of the Houses of Parliament. As mentioned in their report, the Agency achieved that level of compliance in 1997–98, four years ahead of target. The Agency are to be congratulated on this achievement. However, it is clear that a minority of SEPA's other targets were not met. This is certainly disappointing and we have asked the Agency how they intend to improve performance in these areas.

  Millennium Experience
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussion he has had with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry regarding the Scottish contribution to the Millennium Experience. [62256]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Scottish Office officials are in close contact with officials of the New Millennium Experience Company in Scotland on the development of the Millennium Festival and the Millennium Experience in Scotland, and on the Scottish contribution to the Millennium Experience nationally.

  Pesticide Tax
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received and what consultation he has undertaken regarding the imposition of a pesticide tax; what assessment he has made of the effects and levels of pesticide taxes in other European Union states; and what plans he has to introduce a pesticide tax. [61892]

  Mr. Macdonald
  In November 1997, the Government issued a consultation paper entitled 'Economic Instruments for Water Pollution'. One of the options on which the consultation paper sought views was a possible tax or charge on pesticides.

  Research is currently underway into whether a tax or charge on pesticides would be an effective way to reduce pollution. There is evidence to suggest that pesticides have harmful effects on wildlife, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, and on human health. The Government are committed to minimising their use. The current research study is focusing on various design options for a tax or charge.

  The Government will evaluate the findings of the research, and the results of other on-going work, in considering how best to proceed.

  Decisions on the possible introduction of such a tax would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  India
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of India about sectarian atrocities committed against(a) Muslims, (b) Christians and (c) members of other minority communities. [61487]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have made clear to the Indian authorities our concern over attacks on members of minority communities. During my meeting with the Indian Home Minister on 12 November I urged that steps be taken to restore the confidence of religious minorities in India.

  British Consulate, Yemen
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for the future of the British Consulate in Aden, Yemen; and if he will make a statement. [61476]

  Mr. Fatchett
  As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary stated in the House on 27 November 1998,Official Report, column 443, we have recently conducted a review of the network of British representation overseas and there will be no change in the present representation in Aden. However, we will continue to keep the network under review.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications of the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review for the United Kingdom's diplomatic presence abroad. [61477]

  Mr. Fatchett
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary described the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) in his speech during the foreign affairs debate on 27 November 1998,Official Report, column 443. In essence, the uplift in the FCO budget will allow a significant programme of reform to modernise FCO operations world-wide. The aim is to adapt the network of overseas posts in response to changing priorities and to deploy staff and resources so as best to meet future objectives. 200 more members of the Diplomatic Service will be appointed; and 375 more staff in total.

  The distribution of staff will reflect foreign policy priorities, particularly in commercial work. A further eight new overseas posts have been approved; commercial representation in China, Japan, India and Sweden will be strengthened; five Posts will close where the resources could be better deployed elsewhere. Britain's representation in the Caspian region will increase by 50 per cent., and be augmented significantly in member states of the EU and in countries aspiring to join the EU and NATO.

  East Timor
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent military operations in the sub-district of Alas in East Timor. [61791]
  226
  Mr. Fatchett
  We are concerned at reports of recent killings in Alas in East Timor. We are working closely with EU partners and others to establish the accuracy of the reports.

  Ottawa Convention
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he(a) has had and (b) plans to have with the Government of the United States of America regarding the Ottawa Convention. [61828]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We regularly press the United States to sign the Ottawa Convention. I welcomed the American announcement in May that they would sign the Convention. We hope they will make every effort to do so soon.

  Bulgaria
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from his Bulgarian counterpart concerning the visa requirement for Bulgarian nationals wishing to visit the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [61818]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Bulgarian authorities have made regular representations to us about their inclusion on the EU Common Visa List, CVL. We have noted their concerns and explained that decision on the CVL are taken collectively by EU Member States acting on proposals made by the Commission.

  Alcohol
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much was spent by his Department on the purchase of alcoholic drink in the United Kingdom in 1996–97. [61697]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 1 December 1998]: The information requested is not readily available.

  Mordechai Vanunu
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the occasions on which the case of Mordechai Vanunu has been discussed with the Israeli Government. [62055]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have raised Mr. Vanunu's case with the Israelis on many occasions. I did so during my last visit to Israel in January.

  General Pinochet
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the meetings held with(a) General Pinochet and (b) his staff by the British Embassy in Santiago, Chile, in each of the past three years. [62057]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  In respect of meetings with Senator Pinochet while he was Commander-in-Chief of the Army, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 12 January 1998,Official Report, column 23. In the course of its normal work, the British Embassy in Santiago has had regular contact with the Chilean military, both before and

  227
  since the Senator retired from the Army in March this year. Since the reply given in January, Embassy staff have had no meetings with the Senator or his private staff.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what official facilities were afforded to General Pinochet during his current visit to Britain. [62059]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  A VIP suite at Heathrow Airport was made available to General Pinochet on his arrival.

  Diplomatic Posts
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral statement of 27 November 1998,Official Report, column 443, if he will list the five diplomatic posts he is closing. [62060]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The five diplomatic posts to be closed are: Chaing Mai (Thailand); Cleveland (USA); Kuching (Malaysia); Pusan (S. Korea); and Seville (Spain).

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on which date the consulate in Lyons will be closed. [62063]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Consulate in Lyons will not be closing.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the diplomatic posts that he has expanded since 1 May 1997, indicating the(a) number and (b) grades of the diplomats in post (i) on 1 May 1997 and (ii) currently. [62061]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The posts which have seen a net increase in jobs between 1 May 1997 and 30 November 1998 are listed.

  Post

  1997

  1998

  Additions to the UK establishment

  Abuja

  7.00

  10.00

  DS9, S2, S0

  Ashgabat

  2.00

  3.00

  DS9

  Baku

  3.00

  4.00

  DS9

  Bogota

  11.00

  12.00

  DS7M

  Brasilia

  12.00

  13.00

  DS9

  Brussels UKDEL NATO

  36.00

  38.00

  SEO, DS7M

  Casablanca

  4.00

  5.00

  DS9

  Dusseldorf

  10.00

  11.00

  DS9

  Ekaterinburg

  1.00

  2.00

  DS9

  Geneva (UKDEL)

  5.50

  6.50

  DS5

  Guangzhou

  3.00

  5.00

  DS7D, DS9

  Jakarta

  21.00

  22.00

  DS9

  Jerusalem

  6.00

  7.00

  DS7M

  Karachi

  13.00

  16.00

  DS9, EA, HPTO

  Kiev

  13.00

  14.00

  DS7M

  Kinshasa

  3.00

  5.00

  DS9, S2

  Ljubljana

  3.00

  4.00

  EA

  Madras

  5.00

  8.00

  2 x DS7M, DS9

  Minsk

  3.00

  4.00

  EA

  Paris (UKDEL OECD)

  6.00

  7.00

  EA

  Peking

  47.00

  48.00

  DS7M

  Quito

  5.00

  6.00

  DS9

  Riga

  3.00

  5.00

  DS9, EA

  San Francisco

  2.00

  3.00

  DS7M

  Shanghai

  6.00

  7.00

  DS9

  St. Petersburg

  5.00

  6.00

  EA

  Taipei

  6.00

  7.00

  DS7M

  Tallinn

  3.00

  4.00

  DS9

  Tirana

  3.00

  4.00

  DS7M

  Tunis

  11.00

  12.00

  DS7M

  Yerevan

  2.00

  3.00

  DS9

  228
  Between those two dates there was an overall reduction in our UK based manpower, so a greater number of slots were deleted elsewhere to provide these additions. It would be disproportionately expensive to list all of the grades of all the diplomats in post between these times.

  Foreign Office Properties
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all(a) overseas and (b) UK properties (i) owned by his Department and (ii) leased. [62064]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office occupies the following properties in the United Kingdom.

  Owned

  Leased

  Old Admiralty Building, London SW1

  1 Palace Street, London SW1

  Old Public Offices, King Charles Street, London SW1

  Cromwell House, London SW1

  22–24 Whitehall, London SW1

  4 Matthew Parker Street, London SW1

  Hanslope Park, Buckinghamshire

  Apollo House, Croydon

  Creslow, Buckinghamshire (Wireless Station)

  8 Cleveland Row, London SW1

  Gawcott. Buckinghamshire (Wireless Station)

  1 Carlton Gardens, London SW1

  Poundon, Buckinghamshire (Wireless Station)

  20 Victoria Street, London SW1

  To provide the information requested on overseas properties would at present involve a disproportionate expenditure of public funds. However, the Department has recently acquired an electronic property data base which will soon be operational. I shall write to the hon. Member shortly with the information requested and shall place copies of the letter int he Libraries of the House.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral statement of 27 November 1998,Official Report, column 443, if he will list his Department's (a) owned and (b) leased properties that are being sold. [62062]

  Mr. Fatchett
  All FCO properties are being reviewed against a set of Key Performance Indicators designed to assess their fitness for purpose, the returns they offer on capital and the costs of alternative provision. Properties proposed for sale include the Ambassador's house in Dublin, the Embassy in Bonn and the former Consulate in Casablanca.

  Iran
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representation he has made to Iran concerning(a) the six Baha' is who are under sentence of death, (b) the persecution of members of the Baha'i faith and (c) the recent execution of Mr. Ruhu'llah Rawhani. [62065]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have on many occasions raised with the Iranians our desire for an improvement in their human rights record, not least with regard to the plight of the Baha'i community. An EU Troika of Heads of Mission in Tehran (UK, Austrian Presidency, and Germany) called on the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) on
  229
  4 October to press the Iranian Government on the cases of Mr. Dhabihi-Moqaddam and Mr. Najafbadi, two Iranian Baha'is who had death sentences confirmed at the end of September. They were informed that both men had been convicted for acting against national security, but that the sentences were subject to review by the Supreme Court. Even if the Supreme Court upheld the sentences, that would not necessarily be final. Representatives of a number of other countries have also made similar representations to the Iranians.

  We are aware of further arrests of Baha'is in Iran, and continue to look into these. We are determined to impress upon the Iranians the seriousness with which their behaviour is viewed by all EU countries. The plight of the Baha'is formed a prominent part of the EU-sponsored UN human rights resolution on Iran, adopted on 18 November.
  230
  We were very disturbed by the execution of Mr. Rawhani in July. The FCO Regional Director for the Middle East, summoned the Iranian Chargé on 28 July to protest. I myself saw Barney Leith, Secretary-General for the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is in the UK on 5 August to express the Government's condolences about the execution of Mr. Rawhani and to discuss what more we could do to maintain international pressure on the Iranian Government to end the discrimination against the Baha'i community. Later that same day I tackled the Iranian Chargé on Mr. Rawhani's execution. I also warned him that we would be strong in our condemnation if there were further executions. The EU also reacted, including by a formal demarche to the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Tehran on 5 August. Some EU partners followed our example by summoning local Iranian diplomatic representatives to protest.

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

European Union: Tax Harmonisation
Lord Waddington Lord Waddington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will use their veto to block moves to harmonise taxes in the European Union.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on the timing of his Question. He will have been reminded by today's news that decisions in this area are subject to unanimity. As we have made clear, we will not agree to any action at the European level which would raise business costs and harm investment and jobs in Britain or Europe.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, while I thank the Minister for his reply, can he assist me on the following matter? Having spent the weekend asserting that tax harmonisation was not a serious issue but was a scare story created by the press, following yesterday's events are the Government now taking seriously the real threat to our national interest posed by the determination of France and Germany in particular to get rid of the principle of unanimity in tax matters and press ahead with tax harmonisation as part of their plan for a more economically integrated Europe? While the Chancellor of the Exchequer blusters about using the veto, is it not plain that by signing the document The New European Way drafted by his adviser Ed Balls a few weeks ago he committed himself to deeper European integration, including more tax harmonisation, and put the issue of tax harmonisation firmly on the agenda?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I simply do not accept the noble Lord's premise; nor do other noble Lords, judging by the reaction of the House. We have made it clear that tax proposals require unanimity. A change to that means a change in the treaty, which in turn requires unanimity, and that simply will not happen.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, does my noble friend find it as sad as I do that a serious and important topic such as this should be treated in this way? Does he accept that there is a great danger of using the veto for everything and throwing out the baby with the bath water? Does he also agree that currently the Germans are seeking to deal with what they describe as tax evasion—we call it tax avoidance, which is legal—and stop the use of the Channel Islands, for example, to
488
establish trusteeships to save huge amounts of tax? Would we not support that? Perhaps even the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, would agree with that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not quite as good as my noble friend at righteous indignation. I agree that there are elements of European Commission proposals that may be helpful to this country and we will support those. If there is a proposal to reduce or eliminate harmful tax competition that is for the benefit of this country as well as others we shall support it. But the personal views of the German Finance Minister, which is what all this row is about, do not amount to European Commission proposals. They do not even amount to something that we have to veto, although we would do so if we had to.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that there is general agreement in this House that, for example, proposals on a universal withholding tax without exemptions are to be resisted? But will the Government continue to judge the matter on a case-by-case basis? Does the noble Lord agree that not only are there cases of tax harmonisation that may be beneficial to this country, but also other examples in the field of excise duties? In particular, does the Minister agree that there may be great advantage in the harmonisation of tax provisions to enable the promotion of pan-European pensions that will become increasingly important for a large number of people whose employment takes them to different countries within Europe?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, that a withholding tax is not the Government's preferred solution to the problem that it is meant to address. We much prefer the exchange of information, as we have made very clear. I have also made clear that there are occasions when common action between member states is to the benefit of this country. We shall take advantage of that when appropriate.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, while I welcome the assurance that the Minister has given the House that there is no way in which the Government will agree to any change in the unanimity rule governing fiscal decisions, is he aware that this is not a purely economic issue? Does he agree that not only would this be economically very damaging to this country but that, politically and historically, on many occasions the debate between the parties in this country has been about whether levels of public expenditure and taxation should be higher or lower and to remove that from this country would be a total denial of our democratic rights?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, for his reaction to what I, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary have said. An important reason why we are opposed to tax harmonisation is that it is bad for business and bad for competitiveness in the economy. However, I recognise the point that the noble Lord makes.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, we are not dealing with an off-the-cuff remark by a German Finance Minister, as my noble friend suggested. Is he aware that the joint declaration signed by the German and French Governments and their Finance Ministers at Potsdam yesterday pledges both countries to the progressive and rapid harmonisation of taxation in the European Union? The matter has to be taken very seriously indeed. While we welcome the Minister's assurance that we shall exercise our veto to prevent these matters applying to us, what has my noble friend to say about the possibility under the enhanced co-operation procedures of the Amsterdam Treaty of the other European countries coming together to agree on tax harmonisation and then making that a condition of Britain's further move to entry into the single currency—if we were so foolish as to adopt that course?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know how I can make the Government's position clearer than I have. It is not just Britain which is opposed to tax harmonisation. A number of other European countries have expressed the same view. Some are going into the single currency on 1st January. After all, the United States, with 300 million people and 50 member states, has a high degree of federalism and no tax harmonisation.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, while we understand and appreciate the assurance given by the Minister, will the noble Lord accept that circumstances can change, and that the gathering strength of the Franco-German axis, changed as it has been by Mr. Lafontaine's arrival in high office in Germany, may well mean that the Government's position may not remain as strong as they now believe it is.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord should get too excited. The Government's position is absolutely clear and unequivocal.

Mature Students:Admission to Higher Education
2.45 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action is being taken to increase the number of mature students at universities.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, we are focusing more than half of the expansion in higher education next year on part-timers who are mostly mature students.
[Interruption.]
Baroness Blackstone: We have also announced that tuition will be free next year for part-time students on benefits, as well as those who lose their job during their
490
course. We have doubled access funds and asked universities and colleges to give priority consideration to mature students, whether they are studying full-time or part-time.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the Minister will not be surprised that I did not hear much of what she said. I am sure that it is all good stuff.
Will my noble friend confirm that the Government are still as concerned about mature full-time education students as they are about students who enter university at about 18? Is she aware of the figures issued by the universities and colleges admission service? The number of students aged 21 and over has decreased by no fewer than 10,000 since the figures issued a year ago. In those circumstances, will she ensure that there is a thorough investigation into the reasons why that decline is taking place?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I can confirm to my noble friend that what I said, which he did not hear, was all good stuff. Yes, the Government are committed to lifelong learning and to ensuring that we have the maximum number of mature students in our universities and colleges. In order to ensure that that happens, as I indicated earlier and perhaps should repeat, we have decided that we shall increase the number of places for part-time students—and 94 per cent. of part-time students are mature—and have made it clear that those part-time students who lose their jobs while they are studying will not have to pay tuition fees. Moreover, we shall also make it possible for all part-time students who are on benefits to have their fees remitted.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, is the Minister aware that over a quarter of the students in full-time education are mature? That is a trend which I understood had been welcomed by all. If the present drop in student applications continues next year, we shall revert to a system of full-time higher education which is restricted only to students aged 18-plus.
Will the noble Baroness confirm that that is not the Government's intention? Can she also explain how the drop in access and opportunity for mature men and women meshes with the Government's commitment to access and opportunity for all in the population? Are all students to be driven to part-time study?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am very much aware of the fact that a quite substantial number of mature students study full-time. There has been a small fall in the number of mature students taking up places this year. The figure is about 10 per cent. However, statisticians in my department who have been evaluating and monitoring this situation have made it clear that a substantial part of that fall is due to demographic decline. There has been a big drop in numbers in the age group 21 to 34 from which most mature students are drawn. The number has decreased by about 3 per cent. which explains 3 per cent. of the fall. Between 3 per cent. and 4 per cent. of the fall is explained by the rush last year of applications by those students who wanted to beat the fee system. That leaves a small unexplained part.

491
Of course the Government will evaluate the situation to see whether it continues next year. However, I believe that a long-term levelling off in the number of mature students derives from the fact that the pool from which they are drawn is smaller as a result of the expansion in higher education for younger students.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is there an upper age limit for mature students? If not, how mature can they be?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, there is no upper age limit. This year, the Government decided to allow students between the age of 50 and 55 to become eligible for student loans. If any Members of your Lordships' House would like to take up a loan when they have a little more time on their hands the Government would be delighted.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I welcome the fact that the Government are to help part-time mature students, but may I press the Minister a little further? Is it not time that we offered such students the income contingent loans for which there is provision in the Teaching and Higher Education Act?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am sympathetic to the needs of part-time students. Anyone who knows anything about my background will be aware of that. The Government are considering a variety of different ways of supporting them. One way might be to make available, perhaps in a pilot scheme, some aspect of the new student loans regime.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Minister sounded sanguine about this year's fall in the number of mature students. It is not all explained by demographic change. Many universities are suffering greatly from the fall in the number of mature students; the problem for them is acute. The move to waive fees for part-time students would disadvantage the full-time mature students. When we talk about mature students, we mean those aged 21 to 24-plus for whom a higher education is very important.
The combination of the introduction of tuition fees and the abolition of maintenance grants is causing great pain. As the academic year ends, it will be materially important to universities to keep their students, not, as my noble friend said, to lose them by their becoming part-time rather than full-time.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am not sure what the question was. One was not put. However, I am clear, and I thought I was earlier, that the Government will not be sanguine about a serious long-term decline in the number of full-time mature students. Perhaps I ought to explain to the noble Baroness that the vast majority of full-time mature students do not pay fees. They are categorised as independent students because they have no income, unless they have a large private income. Because they are full-time and not working they will not have to pay tuition fees.

Residential Children's Homes: Services
2.53 p.m.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that all local authorities now employ in their residential children's homes staff and management of a calibre, and with training, appropriate to the needs of the children in their care.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman)My Lords, the Government are determined to improve the quality of services offered to children in residential homes. We recognise the need to improve the training and qualifications for staff employed in such homes and to ensure that they have the appropriate knowledge and skills for this very important work. We have put in train a number of initiatives to achieve this.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that encouraging Answer. Does she agree that it is an absolute scandal that, more than seven years after the implementation of the Children Act, fewer than one-third of childcare staff working in children's homes have any relevant qualifications whatever?
As regards the present training for the Diploma in Social Work, does she agree with the view expressed by the Residential Forum, which in a recent report stated that:
"Courses leading to Dip. Social Work often fail to provide residential childcare workers with the range of skills and knowledge that they need to undertake the work of residential childcare"?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that we need to take action in order to improve the number and proportion of staff working in children's homes who have qualifications. That is why we are funding the development of post-qualifying training in childcare for professional social workers and for other residential childcare staff to NVQ level 3. We are doing so specifically in order to improve the skills of those working in this sector.
As regards the content of the courses, I know of the report to which the noble Lord drew my attention and will consider it carefully. We have launched a national training strategy with a training organisation for personal social services. We are seeking to ensure that in the early days it concentrates on childcare as one of its priorities.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that only about 100 newly qualified staff enter residential children's homes each year and that about the same number of staff leave? Can she tell us what qualifications the new entrants have?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I cannot answer my noble friend's question about the qualifications of the new entrants. I shall certainly write to her on that point. It is important to state that through the residential childcare initiative we have made progress in relation to officers in charge of children's homes. Now 89 per cent. of officers in charge have a qualification.

493
It is important to recognise that the Government are supplying additional funding—£2.5 million in the first instance, rising to £3 million after three years—particularly for residential childcare workers to attain NVQ level 3. We are also providing funding to train top social service managers, which should have tangible benefits for residential childcare and help to implement the Quality Protects programme.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is it not a fact that it takes considerable time to train sufficient people? Although qualifications may be very important, some people may have relevant past experience. Is anything being done to bring back those who used to work in this sector in order to fill the void?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes the important point that we must look at the range of skills which are necessary to fulfil these important tasks. Because of the emphasis which is being put on the issue in the wide debate, I would not wish to diminish the importance of a level of formal training. However, an NVQ is employment-based training and there is no reason why it should not apply to people who are returning to this kind of work, perhaps after a career break.
Lord Peston: My Lords, my noble friend used the word "funding" on a number of occasions. Will she clarify her answer? Are your Lordships to understand that the funds being made available are dedicated or, in the common parlance, ring-fenced? In other words, will they be used precisely for the purpose of training people to work in respect of the needs of children in care?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, an overall £39 million training support grant for the next three years will be ring-fenced. Within that, the initiatives for childcare training will be separately ring-fenced. Inside that, the money for NVQ level 3 training for residential childcare has another barrier around it.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, if bad things go on within a home will staff be able to take those problems beyond its management so that something can be done without their losing their jobs?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the experience of recent years, the Utting Report and the Government's response to it have shown that it is important that staff who have concerns about serious issues regarding the welfare and safety of children in their care should have the opportunity to raise them.
The noble Baroness will be aware also that in the White Paper on social services launched this week, we announced our plans to set up new independent commissions for care standards in every region of the country which in future will register and inspect all children's homes, whatever their size. Each one of those independent commissions will have a children's rights officer with a specific responsibility for safeguards in that area.
Baroness Linklater: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the needs of looked-after children are extremely
494
complex and difficult, especially in the case of young adolescents whose behaviour, needs and problems may be particularly challenging? Therefore, the training, in terms of the quality and experience of people in the profession, is of the highest importance. Does the Minister agree therefore that every effort should be made to increase the recruitment of mature and experienced staff?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as I said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, we must look at the experience of staff who work in this field because, as the noble Baroness points out, they may have very challenging and difficult roles to fulfil. There is a proper balance to be struck between those who have had particular sorts of life experience and formal training needs. We shall look to the NTO—the training organisation for personal social services—to work with employers and others. We need to look at what is the right content and profile of the people we need to undertake that work.

Income Tax Yield
3 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn Baroness Castle of Blackburn asked Her Majesty's Government:
What would be the yield in tax revenue if the highest rate of tax were to be increased from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. on taxable income of £150,000 a year and £100,000 a year respectively, and how many taxpayers would be involved in each case.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the top rate of tax was increased from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. for taxable income over £100,000 a year, then this would yield £2 billion at 1998–99 income levels and 160 thousand people would pay more tax.
If the top rate of tax was increased from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. for taxable income over £150,000 a year then this would yield £1.5 billion at 1998–99 income levels and 80 thousand people would pay more tax.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Have I heard the Minister aright, that there are only 80,000 people in this country with a taxable income of £150,000 or more and 160,000 people with a taxable income of over £100,000? Does that not show how wealth in this country is accumulating in a few hands? Is it not true that the previous administration, under the chancellorship of the now Lord Lawson, in 1988 gave these people a great tax hand-out? Has not the DSS itself, in its recent statistics, pointed out that the gap between rich and poor in this country is continuing to widen even under this Government? Will not the Government therefore consider at least taking back some of the disastrous largesse which the previous government gave to those rich few?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend has a valid statistical point. It is true that the figures for the number of people earning more than those thresholds has increased over the past year, although we believe that is much more because of

495
self-assessment of income tax and better figures more readily available than actual riches. However, I hope that my noble friend is not inviting the Government to break their clear manifesto commitment; namely, their pledge not to raise the basic or top rates of income tax throughout the next Parliament.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, I apologise to the House for intervening a second time on a single Question time but the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, mentioned me. May I put another statistical fact into the pot which may be of some relevance to this issue? As a result of the reforms which I introduced as Chancellor in 1988, over the past 10 years, both the proportion of total income tax yield and the absolute amount paid by the top 10 per cent. of income earners has increased and not diminished.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that historical apercu. It does not change our determination to carry out our manifesto.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree, without quite putting it in the same way as the noble Baroness, that, notwithstanding the Labour Party's pledge at the last election, were the amounts concerned to be raised in the way that the noble Baroness is suggesting, they would make a contribution towards fairness in our society and would make a contribution to the public expenditure aims which the noble Lord and I share?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is an entirely hypothetical question. Our commitment is very clear. The noble Lord can speculate as much as he likes. Over a drink, I might speculate with him. But it is not an issue of government policy.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Is it not a fact that the manifesto commitment to keep the Conservative taxing and spending plans related merely to the first two years of this Administration? Has it not been somehow magically extended in the minds of Ministers to avoid them embarrassment?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the greatest respect, I believe that my noble friend is confusing spending plans with income tax. We said that we should not change the previous government's spending plans for the first two years. As my noble friend knows, the comprehensive spending review announced this summer shows what significant changes are to be made in the following three years. But our commitment not to raise the basic or top rate of income tax was made explicitly for throughout this Parliament.
Lord Peston: My Lords, my noble friend used the expression "statistical point". Perhaps I may ask him to clarify another statistical matter. I take it that he is referring to what one might call income tax units as declared to the Inland Revenue in this country. Therefore, to revert to one of our favourite topics this
496
week, all those engaged in tax avoidance in the Channel Islands are not declaring their incomes over £100,000 per year for the 40 per cent. rate, or, therefore, for that matter, a 50 per cent. rate.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the figures which I gave are based on an excellent survey of tax returns as submitted in this country and only in this country. They are based on 75,000 tax returns. It is a one in 10 sample of incomes over £100,000 and an even bigger sampling fraction of the very largest incomes. The figures are highly reliable for tax returns made in this country. They do not apply outside.

Business
3.6 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Farrington of Ribbleton will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement being made in another place on the local government finance settlement.

Access to Justice Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to establish the legal services commission, the community legal service and the criminal defence service; to amend the law of legal aid in Scotland; to make further provision about legal services; to make provision about appeals including cases stated and applications for habeas corpus and the reporting of court proceedings; to amend the law about magistrates and magistrates' courts; and to make provision about immunity from action and costs and indemnities for certain officials exercising judicial functions. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
3.7 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Tuesday last by Lord Clinton-Davis—namely, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament".
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the Government are committed to renew and modernise the institutions of Britain. This Queen's Speech represents a major step

497
forward in meeting this objective, not least in its proposals for home and health affairs, which we shall concentrate on today.
In my opening remarks, I intend to focus on health issues and my noble friend Lord Williams will deal in more detail with home affairs when he closes the debate. The whole House will look forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Warner from whose wide experience in these fields I am sure we all have much to learn.
This summer we celebrated the first 50 years of the National Health Service. Its enormous achievements are acknowledged. But today it faces formidable challenges: advances in medical technology, changes in demography, work patterns and family life and growing public expectations. Our pride in the achievements of the past 50 years should not make us wish to stand still but rather should reinforce our determination to ensure that the necessary changes take place to ensure the equal success of the National Health Service in the next century as it has enjoyed in this.
It is now one year since the Government published their plans to replace the internal market and rebuild the health service. Substantial progress has already been made to implement those plans and the NHS Bill will build on that work.
The plans begin a 10-year programme that the Government have now backed with the biggest cash injection that the NHS has seen in 50 years, amounting to an average real terms growth of 4.7 per cent. for the next three years. That is investment for lasting success which will bring demonstrable improvements year on year.
We have made good progress across the board in implementing our plans to build a modern and dependable NHS; for example, in developing the new primary care groups. Their establishment is not dependent on new primary legislation. There are 481 groups already in place and they will become live from April 1999.
Primary care groups are borne out of the experiences of what general practitioners, nurses and managers have been doing over the past few years, despite the obstacles provided by the internal market. Their three key functions are to improve health, commission high quality care by developing long-term service agreements with trusts, and develop high quality primary care services. Primary care groups will cut bureaucracy by abolishing thousands of commissioning and fundholding groups. They will put local doctors and nurses in the driving seat in delivering services.
The NHS Bill will end GP fundholding. It will also take the primary care group model further. Primary care groups who want to be independent and are capable of being so will be able to apply for primary care trust status. Those trusts will allow for the integration of community and primary care services in a way never possible before—they will shatter the old boundaries between services.
498
Raising standards in the quality of NHS care is at the heart of the Government's drive to modernise the NHS. Our proposals are set out in the consultation document A First Class Service, published in July, and have been warmly supported.
All patients who are treated by the NHS want to know that that they can rely on receiving high quality, safe and effective care when they need it. And, overwhelmingly, they do receive it. But as we have all seen, when things go wrong the consequences can be appalling.
The NHS Bill will place a duty of quality on NHS trusts and PCTs to support clinical governance. It will also establish a new external body, the Commission for Health Improvement, to tackle organisational failures as well as ensuring that a system of clinical governance develops in a way that will prevent many of today's problems from repeating themselves in the future.
The Bill will also include measures to strengthen existing systems of self-regulation of the healthcare professions by ensuring that they are more open, responsive and publicly accountable. The Government are discussing the detail of the measures with the professions. Perhaps I may make it clear right now that we will work with the professions not against them, to ensure that the protection of the public is at the forefront of changes to the law. The professions cannot provide effective self-regulation without continued responsibility for the register; the standards of education for entry to the professions; guidance on standards of conduct and professional performance, and for the fitness to practice procedures.
The Government are committed to renegotiate the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme with the pharmaceutical industry and are currently conducting negotiations with representatives of the industry. The Government regret that there is increasing non-compliance with the voluntary agreement. The Bill will contain powers to ensure compliance with the new agreement when reached. Those powers will not affect those companies committed to complying with the PPRS but are necessary to secure compliance from other companies that might choose not to abide by it.
Partnership is key to the Government's plans for modern health and social services. Instead of the fragmentation and bureaucracy of the internal market, the Government are building a system of integrated care, based on partnership. Services should be built around the needs of those who use them, but all too often the traditional boundaries that exist between services can be a major obstacle to this. In the discussion document Partnership in Action, we set out our plans to make partnership a reality by removing barriers in the existing system and introducing new incentives for joint working. Those plans go with the grain of what the NHS and local authorities are seeking to achieve. They have been warmly received.
The Bill will include a substantial package of measures to promote partnership. It will place a new duty on NHS bodies to co-operate with one another and with local authorities. Development of the first health improvement programmes is on track and these will be

499
given statutory underpining. Section 28A powers from the 1977 National Health Services Act will allow for the extension of powers to transfer money from health authorities to social services—within the context of the health improvement programme—to include a wider range of local authority services, and allow for reciprocity. The Bill will also make permissive provision to allow the NHS to enter into pooled budgets, lead commissioning and integrated provision, and the powers in the local government Bill will enable those arrangements to be extended across all local authority functions.
We are committed to create modern and dependable social services. On Monday, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health outlined proposals in another place to ensure that we have social services which are convenient to use, can respond quickly to emergencies and provide top quality services for those who need them. Those proposals reflect the priorities within the local government Bill—to which my noble friend Lord Whitty alluded on Monday—so that a duty of best value on local authorities will secure continuous improvement in the delivery of services.
The White Paper, Modernising Social Services, proposes to lay down new standards of delivery and performance, so that people who need help from social services are treated with dignity and provided with what they need in a way which promotes rather than diminishes their independence. As a result of the comprehensive spending review, £1.3 billion will be made available over the next three years to support the modernisation which is necessary to take those changes forward.
This Government are committed to attack the root causes of ill health, improving lives and saving the NHS money in the process. Early next year we will publish a public health White Paper developing the proposals contained in the Green Paper Our Healthier Nation, which we published in February. Those proposals will be informed by the results of the independent inquiry into inequalities in health, which published its findings last week.
Smoking is the leading cause of preventable illness and premature death in the UK today. The Government plan to publish a White Paper before the House rises for the Christmas Recess. The proposals will announce how we intend to implement the EC directive on tobacco advertising to deliver our manifesto commitment to ban such advertising. The White Paper will set out a package of measures designed to reduce smoking—a key component in achieving our wider public health goals.
A short Bill will be introduced with the intention of helping hospitals in England, Scotland and Wales better recover the costs of treating the victims of road traffic accidents. The present system can trace its origins back to the 1930s, pre-dating the National Health Service. Under the current scheme when a patient, who has received treatment following a traffic accident, makes a successful claim for personal injury compensation against the holder of a motor vehicle insurance policy, then hospitals have the right to seek payment of part of the costs of treating the victim from the compensator's motor vehicle insurance policy.
500
Although hospitals currently have the right to seek payments, problems arise because there is no agreed administrative procedure for undertaking the recovery of those charges. The results, not surprisingly, are patchy. We estimate that the NHS undercollects the amount which is due by a very large margin.
The Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Bill will introduce centralised collection of NHS charges by using the system already established for the recovery of state benefits from compensation payments. That will relieve hospitals of the administrative burden, while at the same time giving the insurance industry a single point of contact and an administrative system already familiar to them.
Turning to home affairs, the Immigration and Asylum Bill will implement key elements of the comprehensive strategy for reform set out in the recent White Paper. For far too long, changes in immigration legislation and policies have been made in a piecemeal fashion. The result is a system which is slow and outdated and in which huge backlogs have been allowed to develop. This is unfair to genuine applicants and encourages others to exploit the system. The Bill is vital to deliver the fairer, faster and firmer system to which the Government are committed.
The Government made a manifesto commitment to bring forward a Freedom of Information Act, which will lead to more open government and form a key part of our constitutional reform programme. A draft Bill will be published early next year for public consultation and for scrutiny by the House of Commons Select Committee on Public Administration.
The Government will also bring forward a Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill to create a new form of sentencing for young offenders and to provide measures to protect vulnerable or intimidated witnesses when giving evidence in criminal trials.
We shall also introduce a Bill to provide a free vote to equalise the age of consent, and to provide provisions to protect children from abuse from those in a position of trust. In response to concern expressed in both Houses during the previous Session, the Bill will also provide a limited criminal offence to protect young people when they are particularly vulnerable or the position of trust particularly strong, for example in education or residential care.
The Government strongly welcomed the fifth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Neill, on the funding of political parties. The report provides a valuable framework for implementing the Government's manifesto pledges to require disclosure of large donations and to ban foreign funding of political parties.
A draft Bill will be published before the Summer Recess next year. The Government then intend to put robust rules on the funding of political parties into place before the next general election.
The European Parliamentary Elections Bill is familiar to Members of your Lordships' House. It provides for elections to the European Parliament to be conducted using the simple regional list system. Great Britain will be divided into nine large regions, each returning

501
between four and 11 MEPs. Registered parties will be able to put forward a list containing up to as many candidates as there are seats to be filled in a region. The elector will cast his vote either for a party's list of candidates, or for an independent candidate. The votes are then counted and the seats allocated in such a way to reflect each party or independent candidate's share of the vote. In the case of parties, seats are allocated to candidates in the order in which they appear on the party list. For example, if a party wins two seats in a region, they will be allocated to the first two candidates on the list.
As I said at the introduction of this speech, the Government are committed to renewing and modernising the NHS and social services and to bring in this process with the investment necessary for reform. The measures identified, along with the measures we shall take on home affairs, will help us to make considerable progress this Session in delivering our specific manifesto pledges relating to health, but also to the Government's wider agenda to modernise and renew our National Health Service.
3.23 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I should like to begin by expressing my appreciation to the Government and the usual channels for allowing time for a fifth day of debate on the gracious Speech and for giving the House, in the process, the opportunity to direct its attention to issues relating to health and home affairs.
While there are obvious areas of convergence between those two subjects, one cannot pretend that the potential field of interest is not a wide one. Looking at the list of speakers—including, I am pleased to say, the noble Lord, Lord Warner—I have little doubt that today's debate will reflect that fact. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, to whose lot it has fallen to sum-up all five days of the debate, has my good wishes and a measure of sympathy, although not too much of the latter.
By contrast, on this Front Bench matters are delightfully clear cut. My own contribution will be devoted exclusively to health issues. My noble friend Lord Henley, who will wind-up the debate from these Benches, will concentrate on home affairs. I shall not anticipate his remarks but I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that we await with interest the three Bills promised from his department: that is, the asylum Bill, the age of consent Bill, and the Bill relating to criminal justice. As always we will, in this House, give those Bills the thorough examination they warrant. I dare say that some will prove more controversial than others.
The Government's reform of the health service was heralded a year ago in the White Paper, The New NHS. At the time of the original announcement I remember describing the proposals—in so far as I then understood them—as being bold. But I think that everybody recognised, perhaps not least the Government, that much needed to be done to flesh out the proposals and prepare the ground for their implementation within the health
502
service before they could be considered fit and ready to be brought to Parliament. In the intervening months, that preparatory process has been occurring, enabling us all to appreciate rather more fully the shape of things to come. Now, in the gracious Speech, we are promised a Bill which will usher in proposals for reform which are not simply bold but also some of the most far-reaching that the NHS has seen in its 50-year history.
I have always said that we, from these Benches, have no antipathy to change in the health service. Indeed, we stand ready to support and encourage the Government in introducing new ideas which will work to the benefit of patients and make the NHS more efficient. So I start from a base of wanting to be positive about the Government's plans. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House referred in her speech to,
"decentralised arrangements based on partnership, quality and efficiency".—[Official Report,25/11/98; col. 26.]
In the abstract, these are unexceptionable aspirations. But how are they to be achieved?
I want to focus my remarks today almost entirely on primary care. As the Minister explained, the Government's intention is to bring to an end the system of GP fundholding and in its place establish a structure of GP collectives or primary care groups. The Government's main criticisms of fundholding, if I am not misrepresenting them, are twofold: that it is bureaucratic and administratively costly; and that it has created a two-tier system of patient care. Those propositions merit close examination in their own right, but to assess the way fundholding is actually working it is surely right to look at it in the round.
The rationale for fundholding, when the previous Government introduced it in 1991, was to give GPs greater financial and clinical autonomy, and in so doing deliver a better standard of care to patients. Today, I do not think there is much dispute that that approach has been vindicated. Fundholding has enabled GPs to secure shorter waiting times for their patients' operations; to develop new specialist services; to develop surgical procedures within the practice itself, so avoiding the need for hospital visits; and to improve surgeries and waiting rooms.
The BMA stated that:
"fundholding is a good model for encouraging consumer accountability in the NHS".
The Audit Commission, in a report of March this year, pointed to:
"more services for patients at practice premises, improved communication with hospitals and more cost-effective drug-prescribing".
The OECD has reported that:
"fundholders have been more prepared to diversify providers, challenge hospital practices and to demand improvements".
GP fundholders are enthusiastic proponents of the system. Even The New NHS White Paper concedes that:
"GPs … have used the fundholding system to sharpen the responsiveness of hospital services and to extend the range of services available in their own surgeries".
I was glad to see that in the White Paper because, if one were to judge solely from the public pronouncements of Ministers in another place, one would be forgiven for

503
supposing that the advantages and benefits which fundholding has unquestionably brought, in terms of quality of care and access to care, have been overlooked or ignored by the present Government.
The issue, therefore, is whether those manifest advantages are outweighed by the perceived disadvantages—bureaucracy and two-tierism. A great deal of academic time and effort has been devoted to securing answers to that question. I cannot hope to traverse the entire scope of such work—even if I knew it!—but it is perhaps interesting to look at the views of one particular authority, Professor Howard Glennerster, who was, incidentally, at one time an advisor to the Labour Party. The professor has examined the extent of the bureaucracy in fundholding and, not surprisingly, he has found that there are indeed management costs associated with it. But his conclusion was that any extra administrative costs are outweighed by the efficiency improvements which the system produces. In simple terms, he is talking about value for money. That is why I believe it is quite wrong, as the Government now seem to be doing, to point an accusing finger at the administrative costs of fundholding and completely ignore what it achieves in the round.
The other criticism of fundholding—that it has created an unfair, two-tier system in primary care—is, I think, rather a strange one. It amounts to saying, "Never mind the 60 per cent. or so of patients who are reaping the benefits of fundholding; there are the 40 per cent. who are still looked after by non-fundholders, and for their sake the only thing to do is to sweep away the entire system". I might be able to warm to that argument, illogical though it is, if the prospect on offer as an alternative to fundholding amounted to a general levelling up of standards as opposed to a levelling down. I should like to spend a few moments looking at primary care groups, or PCGs, to see whether they seem likely to pass that test.
Primary care groups, to remind your Lordships, will consist of groups of 50 to 100 GPs in pre-defined regions, supported by nurses, social service professionals and others, including lay representatives, who will be able to commission health services for their patients from hospitals. Unlike fundholding, the system will not be voluntary and PCGs will, therefore, cover the whole country and all patients. When primary care groups were first announced last year there were those who thought that they amounted to a sort of "fundholding writ large". That is a misconception. The first difference is that a GP will no longer be able to act individually for his patient in commissioning hospital services, as in fundholding. He can only take action as a member of a PCG, in conformity with the arrangements laid down by the PCG management board and the health authority. Noble Lords may think that this is not a very significant point. But, in practice, PCGs will not have a meaningful choice when it comes to the selection of trusts to commission services for their patients. They will be locked into long-term service agreements with local hospital trusts, which will virtually dictate where referrals are to go.
504
The other important feature of PCGs is the way in which resources will be allocated. At the moment, a fundholder has every incentive for efficiency, because efficiency savings can be ploughed back into more and better services for patients. But in a PCG a doctor will have almost no incentive to generate savings at a practice level, because any efficiency gains will simply be swallowed up by the whole group. Not only is that a retrograde step in itself; it also gives rise to the problem of the free rider. If one practice within the group is inefficient, then the entire group will suffer the financial consequences.
All this will serve to do several things. Practices will no longer have the flexibility they now have to be innovative and to refer patients to a wide choice of hospitals and consultants. They will be less efficient. They will much less easily be able to,
"sharpen the responsiveness of hospital services"—
to use the phrase in the White Paper—so as to drive forward improvements in hospital performance. Moreover, as a patient living in a particular area, you will have no choice but to register with the PCG which covers the area where you live. At the moment, you are almost always able to choose your fundholding GP if you believe that will improve the level of service that you receive. However, under the Government's proposals, you cannot.
There is another aspect of primary care groups which resonates, I have to say, with a particular irony. The Department of Health envisages a four-point scale of PCG responsibilities. The first point in the scale, at the basic level, is a PCG which is merely an advisory body to the health authority. It would have no devolved responsibilities and no decision-making ability. The next point upwards would be a PCG which would have a devolved responsibility for managing the budget, but only as a part of the health authority, which would retain overall control. The third level of PCG would be one with structural independence from the health authority, but which would still be accountable to it for everything it did. The fourth, fully adult version of the PCG is the primary care trust—independent, and able to commission or provide community health services for patients.
So there will be four possible levels of PCG. Each successive level will have a progressively greater ability to manage its own affairs. I believe that if the experience of fundholding has demonstrated anything, it is something very simple: namely, the greater the autonomy of a GP, the better the patient care. It seems to me to follow from that those PCGs which are merely advisory bodies to health authorities will not be able to provide levels of service that are equivalent to the more advanced and autonomous PCGs. Certainly, PCGs can aspire to climb up the ladder of seniority over time, but the practical result of the structure that I have described will be a patchwork quilt of primary care groups, in four colours—if you like—spread over the country with an unequal distribution of colours. You as a patient, living in a particular area, will have no choice but to register with the PCG covering your home area. Never mind if in the next village there is a practice belonging to another PCG which you like the look of rather better. If

505
it is the wrong side of the boundary line, too bad. So much for the much-trumpeted criticism that fundholding has created a two-tier system for patients. Whatever the validity of that criticism—and I am bound to say that I think it has been overplayed—the reality is that the Government's own proposals will create a four-tier system, with the quality of care determined, in the final analysis, by postcode.
In brief, the measures that we shall be asked to consider are not really about building on the best of what we have at the moment. They are, I fear, about a levelling down of standards; an erosion of choice; and a curb on efficiency. That is quite a heavy price to pay for some of the features of PCGs which, in fairness to the Government, do represent a step forward: the closer involvement of nurses in commissioning health services, for example; and the promise of greater integration between healthcare and social services.
If I express this fear about the quality of care differing by postcode and choice being eroded, I am simultaneously conscious of not having done the question full justice. The whole issue of clinical governance is unfortunately too huge for me to cover today, and must wait for another occasion. But there are features of the Government's proposals in that area which suggest a very much greater element of control on GPs exercised from the centre than anything we have seen hitherto. The treatment guidelines from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will need to be enforced with a very light touch if they are not to erode a doctor's freedom to decide what treatment is in the best interests of his or her patient—a freedom threatened in any event by the arrival of something else that is new; namely, cash-limited prescription budgets. These are the reasons why the other much talked-about justification for PCGs—that they will facilitate better strategic planning in the delivery of healthcare—has, to me, more than a ring of newspeak about it.
Unfortunately, these are not the only problems. Primary care groups will command enormous budgets which will need managing. Who will manage them? At the moment the answer seems to be that it will be the GPs and nurses themselves who will be in charge of this money. Are they adequately trained to do this? I should like to ask the Minister what the total cost of that management input is likely to be. Can he confirm that the figure calculated by both the King's Fund and Professor Alan Maynard of York University that the administrative cost of PCGs will be about £150 million per year? Perhaps I may suggest to the noble Lord that that is rather more than the current cost of running fundholder practices. We hear a lot about the need to reduce bureaucracy in the NHS, but what seems to be happening at the moment is the worst of all possible worlds: large numbers of professional managers being made redundant, at considerable cost, in anticipation of the changes to come; and the prospect of doctors, many untrained for the task, being paid a fee to manage PCGs. Every day that a GP spends round a board table is a day spent away from his patients. At a time when there is a nationwide shortage of GPs, primary care groups will
506
dilute the time that doctors have available to devote to patient care. That cannot be a sensible ordering of priorities.
The future shape of primary care in Britain is a sine qua non for a successful NHS. The Bill, when it comes before us, will reveal whether and to what extent we can be confident of that success. From these Benches, we shall wish to ensure that, for the Government to carry the day, they will do so on the merits of their arguments.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, addresses the House, your Lordships may have noticed that my noble friend Lady Hayman is not at all well. She means no discourtesy. I am sure that we wish her a speedy return to reasonable health as well as to your Lordships' House.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords. I join the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in expressing our appreciation for this opportunity to debate health and home affairs issues today. My noble friend Lord Dholakia and I will be dividing our responsibilities in similar fashion. I am sorry that the noble Baroness is not present. I was going to suggest a controlled experiment because I noticed that she was battling with a heavy cold. Professor Warburton of the University of Reading has carried out some experiments and has found that enjoyment even in small doses boosts the effective of the immune system. We do not yet have any evidence of what effect speeches in this House have on the immune system but I was going to suggest that if the noble Baroness sat through the debate she might feel better at the end of it. It would depend on the quality of course.
It is significant that in the 50th anniversary year of the NHS we should be facing a major Bill to reform it. My own celebrations of the golden anniversary of the health service took place slightly early, in March this year, when at St. Thomas' Hospital across the river my wife Jean gave birth to our first child, Harry. As noble Lords will imagine, I felt very much at home at the National Childbirth Trust lobby across the way in Westminster Central Hall only today. I very much hope that Ministers will listen with some interest to what it has to say.
Especially in this anniversary year we need to be clear about what kind of health service we want to see for the next 50 years. This Government use the word "modernisation" at every opportunity. My noble friend Lord Rodgers pointed out earlier that the word of itself is entirely value free. We must be clear, therefore, about the underpinning values that will inform the NHS for the next 50 years. We can say "yes" to modernisation, but only if it leads to better patient care and a diminution of health inequalities. There needs to be greater public accountability over the commissioning of services, improvement of standards and greater consistency, but throughout, I believe, retention of the human side of medicine. Those will be the tests for my party of any proposals that come before the House.

507
We welcome many of the Government's intentions, particularly in the face of some of the disastrous 1991 reforms introduced by the previous government. In particular, we support the drive for quality with improved clinical governance and a new clinical emphasis on evidence-based medicine. We welcome the recognition that health inequalities must be tackled, leading to a focus on public health and preventive as well as hospital medicine.
We also welcome further resources being made available for the NHS, but we do not fool ourselves that Christmas for the NHS has arrived in quite the same way as the Secretary of State would have us believe. He is keeping extremely tight control over the purse strings, not least with the so-called modernisation fund. The Government's obsession with waiting lists has meant that more than £1 billion—10 times more that originally anticipated—is being spent on relatively minor operations. In addition, what the Government are failing to do is to look at the whole picture. There are still huge delays in people waiting for a consultant's appointment. Only after they have been seen, and it has been confirmed that they need an operation, do they actually appear on those waiting lists.
We welcome change in commissioning away from competition and towards co-operation, although in our view this does not go far enough. We will want to look carefully at the legislation. We believe that primary care groups and primary care trusts should be part of an integrated social services and health authority commissioning structure going beyond the partnership proposals produced by the Government. We are concerned about the cost of PCGs and PCTs and how they will operate. Management costs have been cut in health authorities at the same time as they are supposed to give support to setting them up. Will the PCGs and PCTs become too GP dominated? How will new patterns of care involving nurses and pharmacists evolve with this level of control? As it is, we are concerned about the timetabling for setting them up. In addition, much more clarity is needed over commissioning of tertiary care in areas such as mental health and oncology.
The new Bill will also deal with several aspects of clinical governance in the NHS. This is clearly a vital area if we are to avoid further Bristol cases. The Secretary of State has talked about,
"an integrated approach to the raising of standards".
Yet there is considerable uncertainty, particularly among the medical profession, about the balance to be achieved between "clinical governance" and self regulation. There seems to be considerable potential overlap between the respective roles of the General Medical Council, the new commission for health improvement, the National Institute for Clinical Effectiveness, the hospital trusts, the Royal Colleges and the Audit Commission.
The medical profession is beginning to take the question of clinical governance extremely seriously. I welcome the profession's acceptance of the concept of revalidation for specialist hospital doctors. However, the GMC as a body needs to ensure that appropriate
508
mechanisms are implemented as soon as possible. What of NICE itself, too, in terms of determining best clinical practice? I wish Professor Rawlins well, but so many hopes and expectations have been piled on NICE that it is difficult to see quite how he will do his job. How will he operate with a budget of only £9 million, the figure which has been widely quoted? I note Professor Rawlins' distinguished background but I hope that NICE will have a wide remit well beyond drugs and technologies and that it will also include other aspects of health, including the whole area of equity of access.
One of the great disappointments of this Government is their failure to grasp the rationing nettle and admit that rationing takes place in the NHS. As a result, there is a large hole in the middle of the NHS reforms. Viagra and Zenical are but recent examples which have made it quite obvious that the NHS cannot fund every form of treatment. But any clinician or health manager will tell you that rationing exists in all kinds of ways in the NHS. I am personally acutely aware of what difficult choices have sometimes to be made, but these should not simply be laid at the doors of doctors or local managers. We need to install a transparent system, such as a standing conference, which can openly debate priorities on a national basis.
We know of the huge problems involved with nurse recruitment. I welcome the assurance given on training places by the Secretary of State in his speech in the other place. He highlighted that new nurses are not necessarily as well equipped with the practical skills as they would like to be and he has asked the UK Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting to look at this. The technical quality of our nurses, as a result of Project 2000, is, I am sure, excellent, but it is in the area of practical management and caring skills where I agree that the Secretary of States's initiative is needed. However, I feel that a highly skilled cadre of people who were persuaded that nursing was to have a more academic and technical content and an improved status have in many ways been sold a false prospectus. Any hospital doctor will tell you that nurses' pay is a disgrace. One said to me only last week that if pay was not raised substantially he doubted the future of the health service. I urge the Government to recognise in all their actions in the NHS the reality of that fact.
On the medical side, I can see a different set of problems. There is a massive shortage of doctors. The combination of the Calman training reforms and the new deal restricting junior doctors' hours to 56 means that continuity of care is provided only by consultants. The problem will be exacerbated by a reduction to 48 hours under the working time directive. Yet there is a bow wave of trained hospital doctors coming through the service for whom there are no consultants' jobs. The NHS urgently needs to increase the numbers of consultants but at the same time to re-define their role. This needs to be done ahead of the absurdly slow evaluation being conducted over three years. We may well need different categories of consultants to reflect the training that has been received as many of the new consultants may not be qualified to "stand alone" after full training.

509
On the public health side, we welcome the Government's acceptance of the link between income, family, social environment and health, and their commitment to health improvement plans and a partnership between local authorities and health authorities. The excellent Acheson Report has also tackled the priorities to be pursued. However, there are questions surrounding health improvement programmes and involvement of the voluntary sector and how primary care groups will relate to them. As Sir Donald Acheson pointed out, health improvement programmes will be the key way in which priorities and objectives for reducing inequities will be agreed. It is vital that the way in which these are drawn up includes input from the widest possible range of sources at local level.
In public health generally we need to recognise the realities of devolution to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. If we have a mechanism through health improvement programmes, and perhaps, as Sir Donald has suggested, a new duty on public health directors to produce "equity profiles" for combating health inequalities, we also need to have new methods for co-ordinating information on best practice and standards across the whole of the UK, for example through a public health commission.
As regards the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme, this is an area where we shall look closely at the detailed proposals of the legislation. Is what is being proposed simply a stick to beat any recalcitrant pharmaceutical company in negotiations, or will a detailed scheme be proposed? We back the creation of a fourth hurdle in the existing scheme so that clinical effectiveness must be demonstrated; but there may well be a case for going further—while still recognising the contribution that UK pharmaceutical companies make to employment and the economy—and moving towards a price per product formula.
There will be debated on Second Reading in the Commons next week, and thereafter in the Lords, the NHS charges Bill referred to by the Minister. We are not yet convinced of the validity of this proposal. We believe that it is important at least to establish that those charges levied on behalf of the NHS by the CRU will not simply be clawed back by the Treasury. We need to establish how the bureaucracy of collection will operate. We believe that the estimate of costs for collection may well be optimistic. But if the new mechanism is being set up by the CRU, why not follow the logic of the Law Commission's consultation paper issued in 1996 in full? Why should not the Bill include reference to occupiers' liability insurance, employers' liability or product liability? Why simply stick to road traffic? Is not this a lost opportunity?
What of some of the non-events of the Government's legislative programme? Let us take the food standards agency. It is no secret that the Government's failure to include legislation in the Queen's Speech is a massive disappointment to many of us. My party fully supported the White Paper, its aim to provide proper protection for the public and its recommendations for proper enforcement powers for the new agency, which would be independent but subject to overview by the
510
Department of Health. My party awaits a full statement from the Government on their intentions now that there is no prospect of a Bill in this Session.
A further blow for those of us who are passionate about food safety is the delay in bringing forward freedom of information legislation. Your Lordships may recall Sir Donald Acheson—the former Chief Medical Officer I have mentioned already—telling the BSE inquiry that information about possible BSE contamination of medical products such as vaccines had been withheld from him while he was Chief Medical Officer because of secrecy imposed by the present medicines legislation. It is clear that delay in bringing forward a freedom of information Bill will allow this dangerous kind of secrecy to continue. In the midst of a number of positive proposals for reform by the Government in the area of health, that is a serious blot on the Government's record.
3.54 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, in rising to make my maiden speech, I am only too aware of Shakespeare's rather gloomy remark that,
"crabbed age and youth cannot bye together".
Nevertheless I will risk making some remarks on the measures relating to children and young people in the Government's legislative programme.
I should at the outset declare an interest. Recently I became Chairman of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, established under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. It will come as no surprise if I say that I support strongly the measures in that legislation for reforming the youth justice system. The board has begun the task of focusing hard on the new statutory aim of preventing offending by young people. Our emphasis will be on earlier intervention with youngsters who offend and trying to change their behaviour for the future. But the 1998 Act left some unfinished business. At present the youth courts do not do enough to help change offending behaviour by young people. In my view, the Government are right to want them to do more. I welcome the decision to bring forward legislation in this Session which will create a new sentence for youngsters convicted for the first time in a youth court; namely, a referral to a youth offender panel. These new panels will work with young offenders by drawing up a contract to include programmes and activities that will address the causes of offending behaviour.
This change is completely consistent with the new approach the Youth Justice Board is encouraging and that will be a feature of the local youth offending teams now being established across the country. I am confident that by the time these youth court changes are enacted, the local structures and programmes will be well advanced through youth offending teams to make these changes work well on the ground.
But these further legislative changes are only part of the wider reforms needed to tackle the problem of social exclusion presented by many of the troubled and troublesome youngsters who are the concern of the Youth Justice Board and youth courts. Social exclusion,

511
of course, is not a topic that one immediately associates with this House, although perhaps familiarity with the concept will increase as this Session progresses. Indeed there has been a recent example in this year's State Opening of Parliament, when people turned their backs on Silver Stick in Waiting and the Gentleman Usher to the Sword of State and told them they were no longer wanted. That is the problem for many of the youngsters I am talking about. The world has turned its back on them. Typically they have been excluded from school, placed in public care or are homeless. Nearly 40 per cent. of young prisoners have been in public care. About two-thirds of young prisoners were unemployed and most of them have no educational qualifications. Your Lordships may occasionally trip over some of these youngsters as they sleep in shop doorways. Many have been victims of abuse and crime themselves. Many will form a large part of tomorrow's resident population of our prisons and our psychiatric hospitals.
It is to the enormous credit of this Government that they are trying to tackle the problems that many of these disadvantaged young people face. Initiatives such as the New Deal, behaviour support plans in schools, the anti-drugs strategy, the work of the Social Exclusion Unit and a more coherent family policy that supports parents and tackles children living in poverty do much to help. So, too, will the improvements, backed by extra resources, that are to be made for children in public care and the improved support they will get when they leave public care.
A former Member of this House, the late Lady Faithfull, was a formidable champion of the interests of children and young people. Today I would like to acknowledge her contribution. If she had been with us today, I am sure that she would have said that many of the disadvantaged young people I have been talking about need help and support as well as having their offending behaviour checked. This help and support has never been more necessary than when children are themselves the victims of crimes, sometimes within their own families.
That is why I welcome the Goverment's intention to legislate in this Session to provide more support and protection for children who are witnesses. As a former director of social services I have seen what some children involved in sexual abuse trials have had to endure in the courts. Too often, our pre-occupation with protecting the rights of defendants has caused the courts to treat children as witnesses very insensitively and to repeat through the judicial process the very abuse that they have already suffered. The result has often been that too many offenders go scot-free because prosecutions fail when children cannot face the ordeal of being a witness.
In conclusion, I hope that when this House comes to consider the youth justice and witnesses Bill in more detail, noble and learned Lords will give full weight to the needs of children as witnesses and the importance of reforming youth courts so that offending behaviour by young people can be tackled more effectively.
4 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Warner, on his admirable maiden speech. He has wide experience, having worked in the Home Office and in social services departments. In the past he worked in the office of the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, who is in her place to welcome her protègè, if I may, with no disrespect, put it that way. I believe that when he worked in her office he was known as one of "The Three Musketeers"; the other two being the Home Secretary and Janet Anderson, MP. The noble Lord has a wide background of experience and I have no doubt that he will make some signal contributions to your Lordships' deliberations in the future. We offer him a very warm welcome to the House.
I must now apologise most profoundly. I regret that I shall not be able to stay until the end of the debate. I have a long-standing engagement with some people from abroad, and I shall have to leave before the end. However, I shall read Hansard most carefully to see what has been said.
I was disappointed that the gracious Speech contained nothing about the role and importance of the traditional family. The Government's recent consultation document entitled Supporting Families starts with these words:
"Families are at the heart of our society. Most of us live in families and we value them because they provide love, support and care. They educate us, and they teach right from wrong. Our future depends on their success in bringing up children. That is why we are committed to strengthening family life".
I must declare an interest. I am chairman of the Lords and Commons Family and Child Protection Group, a Back-Bench group of parliamentarians from both Houses, formed some years ago because MPs and Peers were worried by attacks on the traditional family and the erosion of family values.
We strongly support the initiative of Her Majesty's Government in stating their support for marriage. Indeed, paragraph 8 of the introduction to Supporting Families states:
"But marriage is still the surest foundation for raising children and remains the choice of the majority in Britain. We want to strengthen the institution of marriage to help more marriages to succeed".
It is in the family that we learn the virtues of self-discipline, selflessness, loyalty, moral discrimination, hard work, planning for the future, integration and socialisation. So the traditional family is not a lifestyle option but the fundamental building block of society. A stable society needs strong families centred around the marital bond. Even more importantly, the family is a vital line of resistance against totalitarianism. So I am disappointed that Her Majesty's Government are reluctant to defend the traditional family unit more robustly.
The gracious Speech ends with a prayer that the blessing of Almighty God might rest upon our counsels. I hope, trust and pray that Almighty God will answer that prayer. I pray that He will continue to give this House the courage to stand up to the Government when they are wrong. That is our constitutional duty before God, the monarch and the people of this land. It is a duty from which we must not shrink.
4.4 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Warner, on his maiden speech and on his important observations, made from his considerable experience. I had hoped to be able to invite your Lordships to join me in welcoming the right reverend Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and his party, but he has just left the seats below the Bar.
I want to refer to two paragraphs in the gracious Speech, both the remit of the Secretary of State for Home Affairs. First, there is mention of a Bill to modernise the law on immigration and asylum, following the White Paper, Fairer, Faster and Firmer. Like the Church of England Board for Social Responsibility, and following a debate in the General Synod last November—the results of which were notified to the Secretary of State—I welcome many of the Government's principles and intentions. I welcomed also many of the proposals set out in the White Paper, including the points clearly made at the beginning and throughout concerning the strengths and benefits that this country has received from immigrants and those who have been granted asylum over the years, especially in recent years. I welcome the recognition of the injustice and cruelty of many aspects of the present system which is admitted to be chaotic and to compromise a network of unsatisfactorily linked arrangements. I welcome the sense of the need to take steps to make the arrangements less open to abuse, some of which undoubtedly is professional and systematic. I welcome the commitment to make the whole range of procedures fairer and faster. That is urgent. Although it would destroy the alliteration, I would prefer to use a phrase like "more just". The word "firmer" smacks uncomfortably of populism.
However, there remain deep concerns about the White Paper among many organisations active in this area, including the Church of England Board for Social Responsibility and the Churches Commission for Racial Justice. I want to highlight a few of those.
A crucial point is that clearly all the processes should be undertaken faster. The enormous backlog has to be dealt with—and dealt with as quickly as possible on every possible ground. However, will sufficient staff be provided, especially in the next few years, to enable that backlog to be dealt with properly, on which so much else in the White Paper hangs? Will the staff be trained sufficiently in many respects, including the recognition of trauma, and even torture, and in racism awareness? Will the staff be of the appropriate gender? When "faster" is the watchword—and justifiably so—are there points at which the procedures may have to take place so fast that it may be difficult for those concerned responsibly to gather the material that will be needed, especially when those at the heart of the matter may be traumatised?
We need to look hard at the conduct and process of the first interview on arrival, about which many of those working in that area have the greatest anxieties
514
at present. We need not only accuracy and efficiency, but also compassion and justice in what, understandably and yet often destructively, remains a culture more of disbelief than of open-mindedness.
What happens if those most in need of asylum, as well as those most abusing the system, have been turned back by more and more efficient airline liaison officers at points of departure? It matters not only where the airline liaison officers are located, but also where they are not. There are some countries where it would be regrettable if such people were located and worked too efficiently.
I appreciate the reasons for proposing in the White Paper a largely cashless system, one that runs on benefits in kind. I appreciate, too, the wish to spread those awaiting consideration under these processes around the country, out of London. However, I wonder whether the White Paper has taken sufficient heed of the administrative costs of the new procedures and, still more, their possible effects on the welfare, self-respect and just treatment (and the speed and accuracy of that treatment) of those who will be the subject of asylum and immigration procedures. There are potential difficulties in regard to access to lawyers who are unreasonably congregated in London. There are difficulties in the locating of vulnerable people in out-of-the-way localities, in estates and areas already under pressure for other reasons, where there is not adequate support and from which people may easily drift back to London and become vulnerable through exploitation, or worse.
Lastly, in relation to this section, there is a range of questions surrounding detention. The White Paper speaks admirably of a presumption in favour of temporary admission or release. But there remains, especially in Chapter 12, a strong emphasis on detention. More than a whiff of that emphasis is caused by a continuing sense that detention has to be there as a deterrent and for a wide range of categories of asylum seekers. There are founded, documented anxieties about how deeply unsatisfactory are the present regimes in detention centres, firmly fixed as they are within the prison system, even if some are not strictly speaking prisons. I shall not go into detail, but those who know most about this aspect are very discouraged, particularly by Chapter 12.
There is a great deal to be supported in regard to the Government's will, intention and principle in this matter and many of their proposals. However, there are serious questions to be raised, especially in regard to the resources to be made available for the education and training that will be offered to the human elements in those resources. It is important to state that if those resources are not made available, the cost, which will be considerable, will continue to be suffered by those who are caught up in the system, many of whom are profoundly and multiply vulnerable.

515
I note the paragraph in the gracious Speech:
"Parliament will be given an opportunity to vote on the age of consent. The Bill will strengthen the protection of young people from abuse of trust".
I warmly welcome the latter in principle. I am grateful for the opportunity given to many organisations and individuals, in the Churches among others, to participate in the Government's two linked studies which will inform this section of the Bill. I look forward to being able to study it in detail.
The Church of England, along with the other Churches and major workers with children and young people, recognises the deep seriousness of this range of questions. It has done a great deal of work on its own processes in recent years, and continues to do so. I regret, although I was expecting, the former leg of that paragraph relating to the reintroduction of the Bill to lower the age of consent. I anticipate that I am by no means the only Member of this House who is no more convinced now than I was in July that this is a wise or caring proposal. I do, however, appreciate the Government's difficulties following the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in the Sutherland case. Nevertheless, I ask that when this part of the Bill comes before both Houses, those who bring it forward and support it take the trouble to argue their case and respond to the arguments and concerns that I and many others have raised.
When the matter came before the other place and this House in June and July, there was much use of admirable and important words and concepts such as "justice", "discrimination", "anti-discrimination", and "modernisation". All are critically important concepts and activities. However, it is extremely important that we do not allow our minds and critical faculties to be numbed when certain words which have become slogans on many sides of our society are used. I hope that we and those bringing forward the legislation will not allow our senses to be relieved of the need to weigh and respect evidence in these matters, to respond to argued cases and to recognise and evaluate social trends and influences upon our society, particularly in relation to those growing up within it.
Finally, notwithstanding the criticism of the Bishop of Edinburgh in the November edition of the Parliamentary Monitor, I do not believe that either your Lordships or the public would want those who are called to sit on these Benches to retreat from our responsibility, in this or any other matter, to seek to offer advice, whether on the side of change or on the side of the status quo, on what we discern to be, as the Prayer Book puts it, godly government.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, before we move to the Statement on local government revenue finance, I should like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords.

Local Government Finance Settlement
4.17 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, with permission, I shall now repeat a Statement on local government finance revenue for 1999–2000 that has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the Local Authority Revenue Finance Settlement for England for 1999–2000.
"The services local councils provide are vital to economic success and to making Britain a better place to live in. We are working with local councils through our Central Local Partnership to modernise and support local government.
"On this occasion last year, I set out the Government's programme for the renewal of local democracy—an ambitious and long-term programme—and I have further progress to report.
"In July, we published our White Paper on modernising local government. Yesterday we published our Local Government Bill to sweep away the wasteful and unfair system of compulsory competitive tendering and replace it with Best Value—so that local people can get the quality of service they expect, at a price they are willing to pay.
"The Bill abolishes crude and universal capping of council budgets, and in its place provides more flexible reserve powers to prevent excessive increases in council tax, as we promised in our manifesto. These measures give local authorities greater responsibility for managing their own resources, whilst providing protection for the local community.
"Madam Speaker, today's announcement on revenue funding should not be seen in isolation. We are tackling problems in a co-ordinated way, with extra resources to help local communities tackle deprivation and improve housing and transport.
"Our spending plans for local government offer the most generous council tax settlement ever; extra spending and extra protection for the taxpayer; a fairer distribution of grant; three years of funding stability. These are the key elements of our approach to this year's local government settlement.
"Total Standard Spending: total standard spending is the total amount of local authority spending to which we are prepared to contribute. Next year this will be £50.62 billion. This is £2.6 billion more than this year—an increase of 5.4 per cent.
"Education and health are our main priorities. Next year, we are investing an extra £1.4 billion in modernising education, an increase of 7.2 per cent. And there will be over £500 million extra for social services, where the Government's reforms are set out in Monday's White Paper.
"We have announced further increases in the following two years. Over the three-year period, total standard spending assessments or SSAs will increase by about 7 per cent. more than expected inflation.

517
This new certainty helps councils plan ahead with greater confidence. Better forward planning and greater flexibility mean better standards of service and better value for money.
"Support from government grant and business rates: about half of the money to fund total standard spending will continue to be funded by the Government. I propose that the revenue support grant should be £19.9 billion. In addition, some £5.9 billion of specific and special grants will be available to councils. The revenue support grant figure may need to be altered slightly, following consultation. The business rate poundage will be increased by the September retail price index, to 48.9 pence in the pound. We will redistribute £13.6 billion to local authorities next year. I am publishing the basis for the distribution today.
"Council Tax: Madam Speaker, we are asking the council taxpayer to contribute a fair share to the cost of providing local services, no more, no less. We will increase funding from the government grant and the business rate broadly in line with the overall increase in SSAs. If local authorities increase spending in line with the increase in their own SSA, then, on average, council taxes will go up by 4.5 per cent.
"As I told the House last December, this is the last year of crude council tax capping. So I am the first Secretary of State not to set capping criteria in advance criteria since the council tax was introduced seven years ago, after the disaster of the poll tax. But I would make it clear: we expect local authorities to exercise self-restraint. We are providing substantial real increases in funding. Local authorities should be concentrating on securing greater efficiency in the delivery of services and financial management, to increase their spending power further.
"There is no justification for excessive council tax increases. If we are faced with such increases, we shall not hesitate to act, as I have made clear to this House before. We have to protect the country's interest as a whole. We will not pick up the cost of excessive council tax increases through higher council tax benefit subsidy payments. We announced our intention to tackle this problem in the July White Paper.
"We are setting a guideline figure, which will be a 4.5 per cent. increase in council tax or a higher increase if needed to allow a council to budget in line with the cash increase in its SSA. A council which keeps within this guideline figure will have its council tax benefit subsidy payments reimbursed at the full rate. But a council which exceeds the guideline will have to make an extra contribution to the cost of paying for the extra benefit. The council's contribution will increase gradually for each half a percentage point that the council tax increase exceeds the guideline.
"I would make absolutely clear that this does not impact on people in receipt of benefit. And those councils with a higher than average proportion of income from council tax benefit will be treated as
518
though they had the average proportion. This means that poorer areas will be treated no worse than the average.
"Standard spending assessments: the national totals are important. But what every council wants to know is how much they will get, and to be assured that the distribution is fair. Last year, I announced a number of changes to the SSA formula to make it fairer. For example, I brought up to date the formula for elderly residential social services, and ended the fundamentally unfair assumption that visitors and commuters were as deprived as local residents.
"This year, along with the Local Government Association, we considered many possible changes. I should like to mention three areas where we are proposing change and a couple of areas where we have not reached a satisfactory conclusion. First, the children's social services. After three years of discussion and research, we now have a new formula that is well-founded. It is undoubtedly an improvement on the formula that has been used for the last few years. Secondly, I have introduced an allowance for sparsity in the part of the SSA that allows for the extra cost of providing social services for the elderly in their own homes. So there will be more for rural areas in that part of the SSA. Thirdly, we are taking account of deprivation in the part of the formula that deals with what are called 'county services', such as libraries and probation.
"Sometimes the search for an improvement is unsuccessful. This year, we did a great deal of work, with the local authorities, on two other big issues. One was the additional educational needs of some children. The other was the area cost adjustment which deals with the fact that pay costs vary significantly from region to region. In both cases, there are some valid objections to the current formula. And, in both cases, we had many alternative proposals for reform to choose from. For instance, we had 21 detailed options on the area cost adjustment. But there was no clear front-runner, either on merits or on its support within local government.
"It would not have been right to take decisions on area cost adjustment and additional education needs now, when it was clear that there were unresolved issues raised by local government which need further work during the period of SSA stability.
"Phasing in SSA changes: I recognise that councils need time to adjust to these changes in SSA. So I shall pay a grant that limits the impact on council tax for those authorities where the amount they have lost through changes in the SSA formula go beyond a threshold. In fact, I will go further than the traditional 'damping' arrangements. I make this guarantee for next year. No local authority will receive less government grant support than they did this year. It follows that there is no case for steep council tax increases.
"The future: this Government understand that the uncertainty created by an annual review of the SSA formula is unhelpful to local authorities who are trying to plan ahead. So we now have a three-year

519
period of funding stability for local government, during which we shall seek to find a long-term solution to the continuing difficult issues in the local government finance system.
"We need to look at the scope for reform within the existing SSA system; for example, whether we can find solutions to the area cost adjustment and additional educational needs problems. We also need to look at the case for more radical reform, to produce something which is clearer and more robust than the existing system. We need a system which is more easily understood by the voter, and accepted as fair and stable.
"Local authorities must use this period of stability in their financing to concentrate on increasing efficiency and improving services, not fighting their corner in the annual battle over their share of grant, but developing best value services for their community.
"In conclusion: my department is today writing with details of the settlement to every local authority in England. That package includes papers setting out how we propose to distribute central government support between authorities, including my proposals on SSAs and phasing in changes. It also includes details of how council tax benefit subsidy will be reduced above the guideline increase in council tax. Copies of that package have been placed in the Vote Office and in the Library.
"Madam Speaker, the proposals I have outlined today represent a break from the kind of annual ritual that we have witnessed in the past: they represent the best settlement for seven years; they include changes to distribution to give a fairer and more stable system; they ensure that no one loses grant; and they protect council tax payers from excessive increases in their bills. It is the best deal for years for local people and I commend it to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made in the other place. No doubt she, like me, having had a previous incarnation before this House, feels that attendance on this day when we are discussing the rate support grant settlement indicates that there is no remission for reasonably good conduct!
The subject is complex and not one which is easy to understand. I note from reading the report of this occasion last year that in another place the Secretary of State said that he would review how the process might be simplified while ensuring that each authority would be subject to the same methodology. Given that statement and the repeated Statement this year to simplify the process, and given that the accompanying papers for this year appear to be as complex as ever, if the Minister were able to tell the House what real progress was being made in that regard, I am sure that we should all be very grateful.
520
Of course we welcome the additional money for local government and particularly for education, but a number of questions arise. The settlement indicates that the average council tax increase is estimated to be 4.5 per cent. if councils spend within the guidelines. I wonder whether the noble Baroness is able to tell the House, on the basis of the information which her department must have, what she believes the real levels of council tax increases are likely to be across the country.
Turning to the standard spending assessment, a number of questions also arise here. Is it not the case that the standard spending assessment for fire has been increased by 3.6 per cent. but the staffing costs which form 85 per cent. of the cost of the fire service have risen by 5.6 per cent? That surely must mean cuts in the fire service and difficulties, particularly for those fire authorities that are single purpose authorities.
Secondly, can the noble Baroness confirm that the settlement includes no moneys to compensate local authorities for losses to their pension funds following the Chancellor's abolition of advanced corporation tax? Indeed, if it does contain any money, perhaps she would be kind enough to tell the House how much is involved. It is my understanding that the Government have agreed a figure of £130 million as the loss to local government, but at this time last year in another place the Secretary of State said, in reply to my right honourable friend Sir Norman Fowler, that if extra costs were incurred they would be taken into account. The message from local authorities is that extra costs have been incurred; they have to make a provision now and it is prudent to make a provision now. I submit that it is not good enough for the Government to say, "wait for the revaluation of your fund."
The Statement refers to the end of the abolition of crude and universal capping, but there is no indication in this Statement of the capping criteria. I acknowledge that in the early days of capping under the previous government this was done, but that process soon changed. I would say to the House that, as a consequence of what is being said this afternoon, there is neither abolition of capping nor any transparency about the level of increased expenditure that the Secretary of State is prepared to countenance. I submit that the Secretary of State must have formed a view about these matters and that the House, local authorities and, more importantly, the council tax payers should be told what that view is if the budgeting process of local government is to have any meaning at all.
Turning to council tax benefits, central Government currently meet all the costs of these. The Government's proposals announced yesterday mean that those who actually pay the council tax from their own resources will be faced in some instances with increased levels of council tax. This seems to be an additional tax imposed upon them by central Government. I would in no way wish to deny help to those in need, but there is a real question to be decided and discussed here as to whether that help should be provided by local council tax payers. Although there are some safeguards in the Statement, a particular burden may be placed on council tax payers in particular areas. I think there is a real subject for

521
debate as to whether or not that help should be provided through those council tax payers or through the national taxation system.
Turning to distribution, last year there was a major change, with some £50 million being taken away from London and £100 million being taken away from the shires and given to areas towards the north. Apart from the specific change on the sparsity factor for the care of elderly people in their own homes in the social services block, this settlement appears to contain nothing to reverse that very unfortunate trend. I am sorry to put so many questions to the Minister, and I do not intend any criticism of the Minister or of the Government, because the method of dealing with this announcement of the settlement has been the same for many years. However, I do believe it raises questions.
This Statement is different in many ways from statements on other matters which are made to Parliament from time to time, frequently about a particular policy. This Statement is supported by a mountain of detailed figures which really ought to be given proper time for consideration before questions are asked. Given the limited time involved, I suggest that it is difficult for your Lordships to do real justice to this important topic. Therefore I ask the noble Baroness—as I say, this is not a criticism as she has suffered from this system, with me, in other places and at other times—to consider whether or not there is a better way of making this announcement.
4.38 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement this afternoon. I only wish I could say how much more encouraged I and my colleagues are this year compared with last year. Almost everybody who has ever been involved in local government will welcome the fact that we now have three-year funding proposals. That must be an improvement.
Two other points that the Government were singing loudly about at the beginning of the Statement concerned extra spending and protection for local tax payers and fairer distribution. When one looks more closely at the figures they are not quite as they seem. One area where I am particularly disappointed concerns area cost adjustment, where we seem to have made little progress. I welcome the frankness of the Statement regarding this. I appreciate it, but this is a problem which has been going on for many years and we really ought to be able to get to grips with it. I campaigned about this endlessly when I was in the other place and I think it indicates the urgency with which we need to deal with reform here. From the statements made last year, I think we were hopeful that this year reform would have gone a little further than it has. Perhaps the Minister might be able to indicate some sort of timescale as to how she sees the progress of reform in the future.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, has already said, we have a problem in the way in which this is presented and it may be that some of the figures I shall produce may not be exactly right, in the light of the figures
522
which have just been produced in the Statement. I apologise and I will say more about that and about how I think we might proceed in just a moment.
The Local Government Association has estimated the revenue increases that it believes are needed to meet inflation and the spending pressures on councils—particularly the fact that there are more elderly people and more children in schools, and so on—to be in excess of £3 billion. The Government have said that it is £2.6 billion. However, I believe that the extra government funding does not meet it and that there is a shortfall of about £1 billion. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that point. Clearly, any bridging will have to come from council tax.
We have heard from the Minister this afternoon, and from the Minister in another place, Hilary Armstrong, on the radio this morning, that council tax rises should not be more than 4.6 per cent. There are all kinds of reasons why it would be rather dangerous if councils increased it by that amount. Having regard to the Red Book, I and others who have studied the figures believe that there is a need to increase council tax by about 8 per cent. to bridge the gap. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that this afternoon.
I move on to council tax benefit subsidy payments which are all tied up with this area. For some authorities this will pose a problem. The words of the Statement remind me very much of the approach of another government—dare I say—who expected local authorities to exercise self-restraint and said that there was no justification for excessive council tax increases. Later on they spelt out clearly what would happen if councils did that: they would be capped. We have already heard that it is not known how that will work. It would help if the Minister could clarify this area.
Another area about which I have a particular concern is education. Figures put forward before the Statement this afternoon indicated that the Government expect to spend about £19 billion extra on education over three years. The figure for England is £16 billion. However, those figures include the whole of education: the funding of colleges, universities, inspections, special grants, capital expenditure and so on. When one considers what is to come via the settlement today the figure is nothing like it; it is about £1.5 billion. There are great pressures on local authorities. The percentage of pupils in classes over 30 rose again this year. Although the growth in pupil numbers is slowing down, it is likely that there will be another 60,000 pupils in our schools in the next three years.
There are all kinds of other drains on education budgets, particularly in rural areas. One particular area of which I am aware is Dorset, part of which I represented in the past. Such areas have tremendous problems in funding school transport. The total cost of the school transport budget is about £6.4 million but the grant from the Government meets only half of that sum. That illustrates the kinds of problems that councils will face in trying to keep their council tax increases to 4.5 per cent. I hope that this year the Government will spend more time on the difficult question of how to deal with these inequalities. Perhaps a timetable can be provided.

523
Capping has gone. The bottom line is that what is now proposed may still force councils to recalculate their budgets and reissue council tax bills. That is fairly disappointing in view of the fact that in the past year the Government have signed the European Charter of Local Self Government. I do not believe that the capping procedure is exactly in line with that. How do the Government believe that local authorities will deal with the ever-increasing demands on social services? If I have the figures right, the funding of social services is predicted to rise by less than inflation. In the past two weeks a number of good intentions have spelt out how local authorities should run their social services. This will be a problem.
In the past year one has seen increases in the cost of some of the social services provided by local authorities, particularly those for elderly people. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that my worst fears will not materialise.
I end by reiterating the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, about the method. At a quarter past three we are presented with huge wadges of paper. In this country we pride ourselves on strong government and strong opposition. I am not sure that I am in total agreement with it. Yet the manner in which we run our Parliament means that the Opposition is very weak on days like this. Ministers have the assistance of hundreds of civil servants and many days to prepare their proposals. We do not even have a Dispatch Box on which to put our papers. We have a few people working for us and must do our best. The fact is that the headlines on the news tonight will be about the ballpark statements that have been made today. I do not believe that that is a fair way to do it. I know that the Government are committed to modernising the way in which we run our democracy. Here is a golden opportunity. I hope that we shall hear something positive from the Minister this afternoon.
4.46 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, with whom I have worked for many years in local government, complained that he was unable to come up with sufficiently well thought out questions and pleaded for more time, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. All I can say is that I prefer to be here given the high quality of the questions that have been asked this afternoon. However, the point is a very serious one and I note it. I shall take it back and look at whether something can be done. Perhaps a three-year period of stability will allow us to look at the process for consideration of the details during that time.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, asked about stability and the need for simplification. As he recognises, this is a very complex issue. As he is aware from his great knowledge of local government, while everyone wants the system to be more transparent it remains the case that when looking at area cost adjustments and additional educational needs consideration must also be given to whether more fundamental changes are worthwhile. In that context one would want to look at
524
the timing of such changes. It is important for people to understand the circumstances in which their councils spend public money.
I have been asked by the noble Lord to predict the amount by which council tax will rise. That is a matter for local authorities. We have made a proper assessment on the basis of what is a very generous settlement—I welcome the fact that noble Lords have recognised that—compared with previous settlements. It is important that councils concentrate very hard.
We are looking at the creation of fairer standard spending assessments. We have announced a number of changes in children's social services and have taken account of deprivation in that part of the formula that deals with services such as libraries and probation. We have sought to mitigate the need for large council tax increases by ensuring that no one loses grant. That should help to protect people.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, referred to rural services. She cited Dorset, the authority with which she is most closely connected. I am sure that she, too, will be delighted that its education SSA has increased by 7 per cent. That is the highest increase for any of the counties. Additional money has been provided for rural transport. We have given general levels of support to meet rural needs. If those needs are not met, many of the costs will fall directly or indirectly on the local authority. The rate relief for village shops, extra protection for rural schools, the essential small pharmacy scheme, all combine to recognise the many needs of the rural areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, referred to the north-south factor. We have sought to treat all authorities fairly in whatever part of the country they are. In general, London and the south-east has done less well than the remainder of the country; and the northern region has done best. One of the main reasons for that is the change to the children's social services formula. We are convinced that the new formula is fairer. In response to concerns raised by authorities in London, it also takes account of uneven costs in foster care around the country.
We have said that when setting their budgets local councils should consider carefully their local circumstances and the scale of the SSA increases. We reserve the power to cap authorities if necessary. It would be unhelpful to speculate about councils' behaviour. That might give the impression that there is some assumption about a "going rate".
The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, raised the issue as to whether the education SSA increases pass through to the education service. During the current year, 86 per cent. in total of the additional resources for education went through into the education service. It is for each authority to make decisions on its budget level and to be answerable to its electorate. The noble Lords who spoke from the Opposition and Liberal Democrats Front Bench are fully aware that school governors these days are extremely well informed and will be studying the figures almost as avidly as Members of your Lordships' House.

525
A question was asked about the council tax benefit subsidy limitation. We believe that it is extremely important for councils to face up to the fact that there is a consequence if they wish to raise their council tax above the guideline figure of 4.5 per cent. However, we believe that that is fair. We have sought to mitigate against unfair pressure on those authorities with a greater than average number of beneficiaries of council tax benefit. They will have their subsidy abated only to the average level and not to the higher level which may apply in those authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, asked about the effect of the abolition of advance corporation tax. We met our commitment to provide for the effects of the abolition of ACT on the local government pensions scheme. I can confirm that we took account of the best estimate available to us and to the Local Government Association—£l30 million—of the effect of the ACT change on employers' contributions. We shall not revisit this year the total level of provision announced under the CSR. The actuarial valuation may suggest that the net effect of the abolition of ACT may be less than estimated at the time of the CSR. Were that to be the case, noble Lords will be pleased to learn that we do not intend to claw back the money from the local government settlement.
The noble Lord asked about the fire service pay settlement. The settlement takes account of pressures facing local government services as a whole, including pay and prices, as well as the opportunity for them to make savings. We believe that best value will help to identify areas in which savings can be achieved.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, asked whether the council tax benefit subsidy limitation was in some way a form of capping. It is extremely important to distinguish between capping and the changes which my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced today, and the council tax benefit subsidy limitation. We believe that the council tax benefit subsidy limitation is justified by a Government who wish to control and to use their own resources wisely.
The Government have responded to the majority view of the Local Government Association in not wishing to see capping limits pre-announced. One of the most vicious flaws in the crude and universal capping which pertained was that it did not allow the Secretary of State to have regard even to year on year planning so that an authority could bring its budget into line in a measured and well thought out way.
I hope that I have answered all the questions. If I have not done so, I shall write to noble Lords.
4.58 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for those reassurances, in particular, the period of stability which the announcement gives. I support the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, on the cost of transport in rural areas. I represent a diocese which has areas of deprivation in the countryside. Although the local authority seeks to improve social
526
services and educational provision, it is frequently crippled by transport costs. It is important that the cost of transport in rural areas is acknowledged. Some three years ago a number of us spoke about the bias of the standard spending assessment towards the south-east, and made a plea for the East Midlands, in particular my own area. I hope that the Government will use the stability provided by the three year period to review carefully and rigorously cost adjustment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for the points he raises. He is aware that the additional money for rural transport will include a further £5 million to be distributed later this year after consideration of bids from local authorities for innovative schemes under the rural bus challenge. Funding of £4.2 million will be devoted to the community based transport initiative under the rural transport partnership scheme administered by the RDC. That is within the overall increase of £50 million.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I have been looking with some curiosity at two sentences on page six of the Statement on the phasing in of SSA changes. It states:
"No local authority will receive less government grant support than they did this year. It follows that there is no case for steep council tax increases".
First, I wish to know whether the reference to no authority receiving less is in money terms or in real terms. Assuming a hopeful answer to the first sentence, if the second sentence follows from the first, the Minister must be assuming, first, that no local authority will suffer a major emergency or major change of demand; and, secondly, the regular government belief that any spending allocation is sufficient for its purpose, which is a tautology. Does the Minister defend both those assumptions?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the figure is in money terms and is applicable to those authorities in which there have been sharp changes. The authorities were aware that the money which was being used to protect them from a loss in money terms of grant year on year was part of the planning process in which they were involved. They would be aware of such changes in the funding.
It is difficult to speak about major emergencies in terms of local government. I admit to the noble Earl that I cannot remember the details of the Bellwin formula and emergency funding and the point at which money is returned to a local authority. However, with regard to smaller scale emergencies, local authorities with responsibilities for those services are expected to budget.
With regard to his other point, I note the issue he raises. There must be a balance between the responsibility of government to be involved in how much people pay in taxation and the right flexibility at local level. I know that my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister will listen with interest and sensitivity if particular cases are made.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the information she has provided. I am

527
concerned that from some of the contributions she may have gained the impression that there is widespread anxiety that no changes have been made to the area cost adjustment. As someone involved in London local government, I make no apology for reminding my noble friend of recent widespread concern in London about the possibility of further major grant changes shifting resources away from London. I hope that she is aware that many London local authorities will be delighted that the Statement indicates that the worst possible adverse changes have been avoided and the needs of London have been recognised; in particular, that 13 of the 20 most deprived local authority areas in the country are within London, that there is more unemployment in London than in Scotland and Wales combined, and also—and this is particularly relevant to the area cost adjustment—that there are reasons why costs are higher and must be met by London authorities.
Can my noble friend give information about the extra money provided for education services? I am conscious that she has given some information about rural areas, but, in the light of the high priority given to education within the capital, I should be grateful if she could say how much extra money is being provided by the SSA system for education and schools within the London area.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey for recognising the importance of achieving balance and sensitivity in examining the area cost adjustment. I would expect the Local Government Association and the Association for Local Government to continue to indicate a link between recognising additional educational needs and examining the area cost adjustment. The two interconnect.
I thank my noble friend for the opportunity to point out that there are additional resources for London. For example, the single regeneration budget has made available £105 million for London bids. The New Deal for communities is offering opportunities to Newham, Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Southwark.
The 7.2 per cent. (£1.4 billion) for education, in addition to the extra £5.4 billion over three years, was capital investment in modernising our schools and was announced by David Blunkett on 25th November. In addition to SSA funding, there will be £767 million of specific education grants. Some of those will be subject to matching contributions from authorities. In total, the main standards fund will provide more than £900 million, including matching funding, which is £400 million more than the current year's programme. The standards fund continues to reflect the Government's central priority of raising school standards, in particular targeting literacy and numeracy.
In addition, there will be a change towards a new system of discretionary awards for students. I hope that those involved in local government will recognise that it is a tribute to the work being pioneered by local government that this is be extended nationally.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I apologise most sincerely to my noble friend for asking a question
528
when I was unable to be present the hear the whole of the Statement. I mentioned to her this morning that I had a meeting which I could not miss and I hope that she will accept my apology.
Can she comment on what might be done about the former coalfield communities? I congratulate the Government on what has been done already, but as regards the subject of her Statement nothing could be more important. Will she say whether anything has been done for the former coalfield communities?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I offer the deepest apologies to my noble friend. I have the answer, but I do not have it at my fingertips. I will write to him. He did me the courtesy of letting me know of his question and I made sure that I had the answer. At the moment, my paper shuffling is not providing me with the answer.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
5.7 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, in picking up the threads of the gracious Speech, I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Warner on a knowledgeable maiden speech. I am sure that he will bring his great experience to bear on your Lordships' House.
It is my intention to concentrate on two main themes emanating from the gracious Speech, as well as briefly touching on the investigation of complaints against the police. Two topics on which I shall touch are youth justice and the protection of witnesses.
I recall last week reading the obituary of a former distinguished Chief Constable of Merseyside, Sir Kenneth Oxford, who knew a thing or two about fighting crime. He was quoted as saying in 1978:
"If we cannot prevent the dreadful increase in crime, or at least contain it, the freedom and way of life we have been accustomed to enjoy for so long will vanish".
Those words are as true today as they were then, and we have a duty on behalf of all our people, together with the defence of the realm, to fight crime on every front. The consequences of not doing so are graphically illustrated by the tragic events in the emerging democracy of Russia over recent months. They culminated in the contract killing of Galina Starovoitova, a distinguished democratic spokeswoman.
Perhaps I may deal first with juvenile crime, which was touched on by my noble friend Lord Warner. I remember well as a police commander in the early 1990s in the north east of England, and before that as a detective, being increasingly frustrated by what we called "revolving door justice." That was the phenomenon whereby juveniles were arrested time after time for serious offences of car theft and burglary and put before the courts who promptly placed them in the care of the local authority. The law provided no other

529
remedy. The social services put them in insecure community homes from which they immediately absconded to continue reoffending with impunity.
Those circumstances give the lie to those who keep insisting that it is not the threat of punishment which deters, but the certainty of being caught. Those youths, through being caught time after time, knew the charge room procedures far better than the custody officers.
We all remember the vivid pictures on television of the youngster in Hartlepool, with the balaclava helmet, effectively putting two fingers up at the police, the courts and the community. There was no fear of being caught there. I have some good news to report on that front. That was eight years ago. The youth, having just attained 17 years of age, was only last week named and, one hopes, shamed as well as being imprisoned for two years for a string of burglaries. It may not deter him in the future. However, of one thing I am certain: it affords some respite for the hard-pressed victims of Hartlepool. Therefore, I welcome the undertaking in the gracious Speech to further reform the youth court system.
I have never been more convinced in my life that those people who commit anti-social acts of a criminal nature—and I include despotic dictators in that—should be challenged and made to account for their conduct and if found culpable, punished in accordance with the law. Appeasement has never worked and will be seen as a sign of weakness by the bullies and thugs who form a minority in our society.
Swift and effective intervention with juvenile offenders to divert them from the path of criminality in the first instance as suggested by my noble friend Lord Warner, is to be applauded and the Home Secretary's endeavours to speed up juvenile justice is an essential first step. Juvenile crime is the seedbed of adult criminality. Policies to reduce it will surely lead to a reduction in the prison population in later years.
The gracious Speech also promises measures to encourage vulnerable and intimidated witnesses to come forward and give evidence. Witnesses and victims are essential to our judicial system. We have made progress, of course, with the provision in the Crime and Disorder Act dealing with anti-social behaviour. Witnesses are protected from intimidation by the police being allowed to give evidence, in certain circumstances, on their behalf.
Neighbours from hell were becoming a blight on some of our communities and had to be dealt with. The measures, extreme as they are, will be welcomed by all right-thinking people.
In a normal trial it is important to remember that in the event of intimidation, while you can always change a member of the jury, counsel or even the judge, you cannot substitute the witness. It follows that the justice system should protect and nurture victims and witnesses far more than it does. In my 35 years' police experience I have lost count of the times that victims have said to me, because of their treatment in court, "That is the last time I report anything to the police."
530
Nowhere is this more important than in the area of personal attack, particularly sexual assault. As a detective for many years, I dealt with my fair share of rapes, indecent assaults and child abuse. In those days we treated such offences pretty much the same as we did any other offence. But they are not the same. Give victims or witnesses a hard time and you will forfeit their co-operation or that of their friends and relatives on another occasion. Justice demands that we protect our witnesses.
The police now are far more professional. They go to extraordinary lengths to provide special training for interviewing rape and child victims. Special suites are provided away from police stations and there is no doubt that police attitudes have changed for the better.
I only wish courts and advocates dealt with victims as sensitively as the police. I used to think it ironic when comparing the restrictions which rightly apply to police questioning under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and the sarcasm, forcefulness, oppression, venom and severity used by some lawyers against innocent witnesses.
Similarly it was absolutely disgraceful that the accused rapist was personally allowed by the judge to cross-examine his victim, Julie Mason, for days on end and force her to relive her rape ordeal all over again. I am delighted that this will be put right in the new Bill.
It is to be hoped that the forthcoming legislation will also place restrictions on the dragging up of the victim's irrelevant, previous sexual history with no other purpose than to embarrass or shame her and perhaps paint a picture of promiscuity or easy virtue.
Finally, I make a plea for police officers doing a difficult and demanding job in a police service, which, with all its faults, I believe to be the finest in the world. An accused police officer is also entitled to speedy and fair justice. I know that in a recent Written Answer the Minister indicated that improvements to discipline regulations are to be made in the not too distant future.
The problem at present is that once a complaint inquiry falls into the hands of the Police Complaints Authority, justice for the police officers involved appears to be the last consideration. I remember a case when, following the acquittal of the officers involved, the supervising complaints authority member, who is independent, promptly went on television and criticised the result. How is that for impartiality?
A case in Humberside took six years to investigate and cost some £4 million. Suspended officers had retired and even died before it finished. Eventually the files were sent to the DPP and no action at all resulted against anyone.
How can that happen? It happens because the Police Complaints Authority is not accountable for the money it spends. The Bill for its investigations is picked up by the ratepayers of the police force being investigated.
It seems to me bizarre that when we have given police authorities budgets for which they are accountable we allow another public body to dip in and spend the money with impunity and no questions asked. It is time we started to ask a few questions. The PCA should have an

531
operational budget and be accountable for spending it. It should buy in the investigative skills from police forces at the going rate.
As with murders and other serious investigations of any length, there should be an independent review at between three and six months to act as a check and a balance to determine if the inquiry is on the right track and within the original terms of reference. That would concentrate the minds of the budget holders and prevent long fishing expeditions.
Obviously, it is important to investigate serious allegations against the police seriously. But justice is non-negotiable and the same efficiency and accountability that rules in murder inquiries should apply to serious complaints against the police. I commend my comments to the Minister for a future Queen's Speech.
In conclusion, I remember sitting through a civil case in the United States following a road accident where a man had been knocked from his motor cycle by a horse which had reared up and trampled a dog which had run on to the road. The plaintiff was suing for traumatic shock and stress injury caused by the accident.
Cross-examined by the defence attorney, the plaintiff was asked if he told a policemen at the scene that he had never felt better in his life. "Yes", said the plaintiff. The defence naturally rested their case.
The plaintiff's attorney then re-examined his client and asked him to elaborate. "Well", said the plaintiff, "I was lying dazed on the ground when a police officer arrived at the scene. He went over to the injured dog, put his revolver to its head and shot it. He then went over to the lame horse, put his gun to its head and shot it. He then came over to me and asked how I felt. I told him that I had never felt better in my life!"
Your Lordships can determine from that that the answers to questions need to be seen in the context of the circumstances in which they are asked. I look forward to your Lordships' deliberations on criminal justice issues in the forthcoming months.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, it is all too easy to criticise a legislative programme for what it has left out; but omissions do tell us something of a government's priorities and the longer it takes any government to respond the more justified the criticism may become. I want to focus on three areas, in two of which I acknowledge that the present Government have responded in ways in which their predecessors failed. Those areas are criminal law, discrimination and family law, particularly adoption.
I welcome the intention to give effect to the report on vulnerable and intimidated witnesses which was debated in this House on 22nd June. I certainly support all that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie. In particular, I agree with his observation that we can change everybody in a court except for the witnesses—though hardly a day goes by when I do not wish that were otherwise.
It was said on 22nd June that 26 of the 78 recommendations in the report required legislation. I am conscious that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of
532
Mostyn, is expected to reply not just to this debate, but to all five days of debate and do not expect specific responses to points raised this afternoon. Nevertheless, I hope that at some stage the Government can confirm that all those 26 recommendations requiring legislation will be in the Bill, including implementation of the Pigot Report.
In paragraph 10.3 of the Home Office's report Speaking Up for Justice there was reference to further research work into the admissibility and sufficiency of evidence in child abuse prosecutions which was to be completed this summer and in the light of which further proposals for changing the law may be made. I hope that the Government can give an indication of what more has emerged.
There are differing views as to whether or not unrepresented defendants should be allowed to cross-examine alleged victims in rape cases. But in terms of priorities for reform of the criminal law it should be remembered that that problem arises in perhaps only one or two cases a year and that the Court of Appeal has given clear guidance to judges on how to handle those difficult but rare cases. The main protection for witnesses will still come from judges and through judicial training.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, referred to bad behaviour by some lawyers. But I hope he will agree that it is only "some" lawyers and that the judges and professional bodies are increasingly intolerant of the unpleasant treatment of witnesses which he described. It therefore remains a great pity that, despite all the talk of modernisation, the hard work of the real modernisers of the law—the Law Commissions—is still generally given so little parliamentary time, even with the arrival of the Jellicoe Committee in this House.
Earlier this year the Home Office, to its credit, breathed life back into the reform of the antique Offences Against the Person Act with a consultation process, which is now over. It is unclear what is to happen next. There has been a draft Bill in existence at least since that produced in a Law Commission report in 1993. That is relevant to far more than one or two cases a year. It concerns every criminal court every day. That is really part of a much wider question which was posed in an article in October's Criminal Law Review reproducing a speech by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice entitled "A Criminal Code: Must We Wait Forever?".
One of the pleasures of criminal law is reading the annual diatribe in the preface of Archbold—the practitioner's text book. For example, in 1997 the preface said that,
"the government appears to be deaf to pleas from the judiciary and others to stem the flow of piecemeal legislation".
Two years before, in 1995, the preface said this:
"If any government really wanted to improve the quality of the criminal justice, it would announce a moratorium on criminal legislation for five or seven or, even, 10 years; within the specified time-frame, there should be produced and enacted codes of criminal law, criminal procedure and evidence, and sentencing. In the meantime, practitioners must do their best with the latest package of ill thought-out expedients".

533
Most recently, in 1998, the preface referred to the support given by the Lord Chief Justice in an earlier lecture to the idea of a Royal Commission on crime and punishment and regretted that the Government appeared to be intent on carrying on where the previous government left off; and with legislation promised in countless different areas, the prognosis remains extremely gloomy.
In the real world governments feel that they have to have a criminal justice Bill almost every year. But that should no longer be at the expense of the comprehensive overview which is now required. In that respect I hope that the Minister can confirm that the absence in the gracious Speech of any proposal to alter further the right to a jury trial means that the Government have reached a considered decision to abandon the idea.
I wish to turn to an area of law which, by contrast, has had too little attention in recent years. That is discrimination. This country is fortunate in having an established, relatively modern framework of anti-discrimination legislation, interpreted and operated purposively by employment tribunals and by the higher courts. Most large organisations responsibly declare themselves to be equal opportunity employers with appropriate policies and specialist staff. But glass ceilings remain. Centrally directed anti-discrimination policies do not always reach or influence line managers who do not understand, nor implement, such policies. Almost every year the EOC and the CRE have called for changes to the law to make it more effective, recommending both fine-tuning and more wide-ranging changes. The last government did not heed those recommendations, but I understand that more recently the Home Office invited comments on the CRE's recommendations for reform with a deadline of 6th November last.
While I understand that before matters can be dealt with comprehensively, the Government should know the outcome of the Lawrence inquiry, it would be reassuring to know that at last this Government are preparing for an overhaul of discrimination legislation.
Finally, I mention the omission—yet again—of any adoption Bill. That is causing increasing concern to family law practitioners and to other informed groups. The British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering—BAAF—published new research assisted by Department of Health statistics on children adopted from care. That research demonstrates, among other things, that a declining number of children are being adopted from care. It took an average of four years for children to be adopted after starting to be looked after; 36 per cent. of the children adopted had experienced three or more moves; 16 per cent. of the children freed or relinquished for adoption two years previously had still not been placed with new families. Those are demoralising and damaging statistics.
We are still awaiting new adoption legislation following the implementation of the Children Act 1989. At that time the government set up a major review of adoption law culminating in the publication of a draft adoption Bill for consultation in March 1996. That
534
achieved broad cross-party support, yet still has not received priority from the Government and there is no plan to introduce it. The previous government apparently were nervous of introducing it because of the unpleasant reaction they received to the domestic violence reforms introduced towards the end of the last administration.
Everybody involved in the provision of adoption services believes that new legislation, with its emphasis on the paramountcy of the welfare of the child would reduce delay, give greater clarity to planning by social services departments and strengthen an authority's ability to provide post-adoption support. It is worth noting that in December 1996 Mr. Chris Smith, then Shadow Health Secretary, said that the new Labour government would be committed to introducing adoption legislation without delay.
I suggest that investment in adoption services and updating legislation will not remove the problems of children in care, but will mitigate them significantly providing a long-term and cost-effective benefit to society.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, in my capacity as President of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, RoSPA, I was pleased to see, in the gracious Speech, the emphasis on partnership in the proposed reforms of the National Health Service.
That is particularly important in relation to prevention of accidents which remain the leading cause of death for people under 35 in this country. When I refer to accidents, I am sure that most people immediately think of the daily carnage on our roads, or the efforts we make to ensure safety at work. But today I should like to concentrate on the Cinderella area of accident prevention—home safety—which needs all the help it can get, and would benefit in particular from partnership working.
For many years, through its home safety liaison service, RoSPA has sought to bring local authorities, trusts, and other organisations together to promote accident prevention in the home. In some areas this has been highly successful and partnerships are thriving. Sadly, there are not enough of those success stories.
In some areas, health service personnel do not appreciate the scale of the accident problem, or that anything could contribute to its reduction. They seem content to leave the responsibility for prevention work to others. Some make an isolated attempt to tackle the safety problem issue without reference to local authorities and voluntary organisations already working in the same area, thus duplicating effort and wasting precious resources. There is sometimes a marked reluctance to take an active role in a positive partnership with a wholehearted sharing of resources, both human and financial.
RoSPA feels that that is short sighted and it welcomes the encouragement now being given to the health service to be more responsive to joint working and resource pooling in the future. Too often, this hidden epidemic of around 3,800 deaths and 3.5 million injuries at home has been overlooked when public health issues are under

535
discussion. Those practitioners who undertake work in this field often have budgets as small as £200 per year. That is clearly insufficient for effectiveness.
Just over a year ago, RoSPA took the initiative and launched the first national strategy for home safety. Copies of the document called Home Safety - Making it Happen have been distributed to around 2,000 key people, including chief executives of all health authorities. Working groups, including representatives of the DTI, are now developing its 20 recommendations, among which are pleas for a more holistic approach to accidents from government departments, as well as local authorities and the health service and for better collection of useful data in a standardised format. That would allow comparability—which is essential to aid prioritisation—and assist in target setting and subsequent evaluation. Information also needs to be much more accessible to those who need to use it. Good national data are critical but thay are not enough to facilitate local action. Information must be available at local level as well.
It is laudable and natural for those from a health background to focus effort on the reduction of severity of injury. They often forget, however, that if the original accidental incident were to be prevented, neither death nor injury could ensue. RoSPA makes accident prevention, not injury reduction, its prime objective. RoSPA's mission states
"RoSPA's purpose is to enhance the quality of life by exercising a powerful influence for accident prevention".
More willingness to tackle the root causes of accidents could ultimately pay higher dividends. Some of these may be addressed by the proposed health action zones. RoSPA will be watching the effectiveness of those with interest. The society also keenly awaits details on the role of the new regional development agencies which could be useful additional partners in the drive to prevent accidents. Perhaps the Minister could provide some information on that.
A substantial portion of the 12,000 deaths and 9 million accidental injuries a year in the UK could be avoided. If they were, think how much more the health service could do to help the sick. A modest investment in accident prevention now would reap handsome rewards for years to come. I look forward to that day.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I should like to touch very briefly on a subject mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I want to concentrate on one issue with regard to health and the health service. It is a matter which did not feature much in the Queen's Speech and which I think is worthy of attention because I fear there are problems looming ahead. I speak of my concern for the training of young doctors, post-graduate training and the Calman specialist training scheme.
I do not believe that it is unreasonably chauvinistic to say that medical education in this country is without parallel anywhere in the world. People talk of the NHS as being the envy of the world. That may or may not be true. That may be, to a certain degree, hyperbole. However, there can be no argument about our medical
536
education. It is based on an extraordinary university system and the ability to project the best medical science. It has a solid clinical base of bedside teaching, which is so traditional in Britain. There is that wonderful mix of science and understanding of how the patient works.
I remember, when in training, the privilege of having great clinical teachers; for example, the great Donald Hunter, who used to jump into a ward full of students. They looked terrified at the bear of a man striding towards them with an extraordinary grimace on his face.
On one occasion he picked up one of my colleague's charts, looked at it and said, "This patient has pain in the abdomen, but where is the pain?". A student tried to describe where the pain was. Donald Hunter was not impressed. He said, "Old Chinese proverb, 'one picture worth a thousand words'. Where's the body stamp, Sister?". Sister was deputed to go out of the ward to collect the stamp, which was normally used to stamp a picture of the abdomen in the notes of the patient. Donald Hunter took the body stamp and placed it on the ink pad. He took the student's white coat and stamped it on one lapel. He stamped him on the other lapel and then on the forehead, the abdomen, the back and the sides. He stamped him 50 or 60 times. We never forgot that drawing a picture of the abdomen was the thing to do when trying to explain where the abdomen is.
I should like to refer to one of the problems with our medical education at present. I say this with care because, as an academic from Imperial College, I have an interest. It happens that Imperial College School of Medicine has one of the most adventurous training programmes for students. It is a daring, bold programme and one about which I believe there may be some concerns. However, it is innovative and it will be interesting to see how it works out.
Within two weeks of entering the medical school, the young students are put out into general practice. That may be a good thing and certainly may be a way for them to get an understanding of how people communicate. But it may also run the risk of damaging the formalisation of teaching that we had of the structures within the old anatomical system. Not all the universities have gone down that route. My son, who is at Cambridge, is studying traditional medicine, which I believe is quite outmoded. To my mind, the accent on two years' anatomy is largely a waste of time.
I have to say that I learnt my anatomy by cutting people open, but I do not believe that I did that much damage in the process. There are ways around that and I shall return to that aspect in a moment. However, there is a need for that systemisation. The old clinical clerk system is one which is important and one which follows the student right through his whole training and then through specialised medicine.
While I greatly endorse and totally support the Government's commitment to primary care, we have to be careful not to get the balance too far in one direction. It is absolutely right there should be a service which is more controlled by primary care groups and by GPs, but there are problems with that system. For one thing, it does not entirely control the fragmentation that we have

537
seen in the health service. One of the problems with the recent reorganisation is that patients have not always been able to go to the best specialist centre; they have been forced to go where the contract is. I hope that that is something that the Government will consider in terms of the primary care groups. That is a real problem which may still arise in our health service.
In a major teaching hospital there is a unique research base, a unique clinical base and the ability to get those complex patients together to provide the best treatment. That combination is the example to everyone in the country and actually promulgates the best medicine. One of the problems that we have found in the old Royal Post-Graduate Medical School is that, with the fragmentation that has taken place, we have had far too few patients coming through in our speciality. Consequently, the young members of staff have not had the experience in looking at these varieties of complex patients.
There is nothing like a single complex disease to understand the simple basis for medicine. It used to be said, "Know syphilis and you know the whole of the human body". Nowadays we say, "Know diabetes and you know the whole of medicine". The reason for that is that those two diseases actually affect pretty well every organ in the body in a variety of ways. One of our concerns is that, with the more specialised areas, there may be a real loss as regards the way that we are going with the continued fragmentation and the failure to concentrate. While I totally approve of what the Government are saying about decentralisation, I must utter a word of caution: it must not be at the cost of those great institutions which actually lead our medical practice. I believe that that would be a grave error. Indeed, it is one that we are already at risk of seeing.
I turn now to the Calman training scheme. There is a major problem at present. I am not entirely sure whether this is the fault of the Government or the fault of the profession itself as regards how it is handling those recommendations. Perhaps we should, for example, consider my own general speciality of obstetrics and gynaecology. Although I do not practise the latter, I am still an obstetrician and gynaecologist. At present, there are 128 specialist trainees who have completed their training but who are without a consultant job. That is a terrible waste. Admittedly obstetrics and gynaecology is the worst case, but it is a major and important specialty. To some extent that is also true in some of the other surgical specialties. These people have to go back to basic jobs. It is understandable that there will be an elution of good people away from that important specialty. Oddly enough, it will not control the other problem; namely, that in order to staff posts we shall have to import people from overseas who are not necessarily always of the standard that we would like to see.
The other problem with the Calman system is that I do not believe that it is capable of promoting the best research activity. To have this year outside doing research is too limited. In my own career, there is no questioning the fact that, had I not had the ability to take three years and do decent research, I would not be a
538
useful academic. The problem with the Calman system is that you have to get on to the gravy train. You have to start the system because of the competition. However, once you have started it, you cannot do a long period of research very easily.
I turn finally to the question of surgical training. We are at risk of promoting people who are deficient in surgical skills, both in obstetrics and gynaecology, and, indeed in general surgery. It is a major problem because they are not getting enough surgical practice. There are several reasons for that: first, there is the fragmentation of the health service which has meant that fewer cases have been coming through to the specialist centres; and, secondly, because there are often very long waiting lists many patients are electing to go for private treatment, which means that they are not available for younger doctors to operate on.
There are serious concerns that that situation combined with the statutory reduction of hours to which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred, will create a major problem. Whether we like it or not, you cannot have a well-trained service and actually reduce the number of hours of work below a certain level. It simply is not possible. If the training scheme is shortened to five years, I believe that that will result in major deficits; indeed, the edge that we have in our medical practice will be lost.
The key factor at present is the risk of litigation. If we continue to have too few consultants, there will be more litigation in the health service. It is becoming increasingly costly. Noble Lords may be aware that only two or three weeks ago someone received a settlement from my own trust in west London of half-a-million pounds for a trivial injury. What is happening with litigation in the health service is really quite extraordinary. There are real risks that it will escalate. The Government could solve the problem by recognising that there really is a need for a bigger consultant led service. That will be essential if we are to maintain the quality and the excellence to which we have become accustomed.
5.47 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, this is probably my last contribution to a debate in your Lordships' House as Chairman of MENCAP. Next week I follow in the hallowed footsteps of my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in becoming president instead of chairman. Those two noble Lords have made distinguished contributions both to wider public affairs and to MENCAP and that satisfies me that there is indeed a rich life after vacating the chair. I have studiously avoided any reference to moving up as in this country and in this life I am not sure that further elevation beyond your Lordships' House is constitutionally possible.
Before I turn to the gracious Speech, perhaps I may reflect for a moment on the reference by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, to the training of the medical profession. I believe that this also applies to other professions; for example, the nursing profession, dentistry and those working in hospitals, especially in regard to people with

539
a learning disability. It is true to say that when the majority of doctors, GPs, specialists, nurses and dental surgeons go out into the world of work they have little knowledge of the 1.2 million people with a learning disability and of how their often complex needs have to be met. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, will agree that we have to make some advances in that direction.
To that end, we have been in touch with the Department of Health in the recent past, in collaboration with the Royal Society of Medicine, many of the Royal Colleges, including the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Physicians and so on. We are attempting to set up a seminar and further operations which will impinge upon the training of the medical profession and ancillary professions in the years to come as to how to look after, treat and welcome people with learning disabilities.
It is not only to learning disability that this applies. It also applies to disability generally. There are some horrendous stories which are current about people being admitted to hospital and not receiving the immediate attention, care and nursing which they require. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, who unfortunately is not in his place, could underline that with a story which he recently told to me after meeting the All-Party Disablement Group. I hope that attention will be paid to the wider field of training of the medical, nursing and dental professions in the near future.
In addressing the gracious Speech, I want to pursue the theme of rights, particularly rights within the justice system, but, briefly, other rights for people with learning disabilities affected positively or negatively by the Government's programme. The gracious Speech marked an historic turning point for people with learning disabilities. It promises a disability rights commission to assert the rights of those who, lacking a voice, have lacked the basic rights that others better placed take for granted. I am less enthusiastic about the changes in social security rights which the Government propose. I do not know at quite what point the curate's egg becomes so addled as to be inedible, even with the Bishop watching, but I do note, with regret, that the benefit savings envisaged substantially exceed the cost of those changes in incapacity and disability costs benefits, which otherwise we welcome.
I turn now to the rights enshrined in the youth justice and witness Bill. The Government have announced under that heading measures to give greater protection to vulnerable witnesses. This implements recommendations in a report, Speaking Up for Justice, which reviewed the treatment of vulnerable or intimidated witnesses in the criminal justice system. The report's 78 recommendations may be taken as indicating how far that system has been falling short of delivering justice for people with learning disabilities.
It is a basic test of a civilised society that justice should be accessible to those with the least natural advantages in assessing it. I see the new justice Bill as moving substantially closer to enabling our society to satisfy that test. While giving evidence in court about things that are personal and painful is likely to be a
540
stressful experience for most of us, for people with learning disabilities it can be a particularly traumatic experience.
Their vulnerability in that situation stems from some, or all of, limitations of social and emotional maturity, communication difficulties, dependence on those whose conduct they are challenging, misunderstanding of what is at issue, anxiety to please, a misplaced sense of guilt and lack of experience of anyone willing to listen to their opinion. People with learning disabilities have often been denied even the opportunity to get as far as the witness box, the view being taken that they are not capable of giving evidence. However, if there is difficulty in this regard, the Government's own recommendations—the use of video interviews, video recorded cross-examination, evidence by live television link and the use of screens—are all special measures which can form part of the youth justice and witness Bill. These special measures can also apply to youthful witnesses, as already hinted at by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, in his most excellent maiden speech, and dwelt on by the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate.
MENCAP'S research report, Barriers to Justice, published in 1997, suggested that people with learning disabilities are twice as likely to be victims of crime as other people. The research also showed that many crimes against people with learning difficulties go unreported to the police, particularly when the victim is living in residential care. The victim himself or herself may not recognise that a crime has been committed and there is a tendency to disguise criminal acts by labelling them as "abuse" and tackling them as professional or staff disciplinary problems. Offences of violence are described as "abuse"; theft is described as "financial abuse"; and rape or sexual assault is described as "sexual abuse". We need to ensure that acts which have been dealt with as abuse but which were in fact criminal offences are properly recognised for what they are. Violence is violence, theft is theft, rape is rape. This involves better education—not in terminology but in ways of thinking—for people with learning disabilities, but also for their carers and other professionals.
Rights, of course, depend not only on what the law says and on knowledge of what the law says: they depend on those who manage the various parts of the justice system being trained to work with people with learning disabilities in securing their rights, rather as I have just suggested for the medical profession. This extends from the police recognising that someone has a learning disability and knowing how to work with that person, and what help they need in working with them, to members of the Crown Prosecution Service, solicitors and barristers, and judges themselves. There is currently little or no training in learning disability for members of the legal professions. I express the hope that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will lend his considerable clout to securing full implementation of the training recommendations in Speaking Up for Justice. Without such training, the right to justice would be like the right to cycle in the fast lane of the M.25—on days when the M.25 has such things as a fast lane.

541
Your Lordships will have read with growing horror, as I have done, the accounts of abuse in children's homes and in homes for adults, such as the Longcare homes in Buckinghamshire. Those of us who remember the Nuremberg trials remember the consolation, albeit slender, that the horrors described in graphic detail had not happened here in the United Kingdom. We cannot say that of the pain, humiliation and torment inflicted on our fellow citizens in the "house next door". One such house was tellingly described as "The Snow Queen's Castle". We are pleased therefore by the Government's commitment to increase care standards, as set out in the social services White Paper, stressing the need for action on the deployment and training of inspectors and others who can monitor and enforce the standards of decency we expect for our fellow citizens and who will actively seek the views of residents as to the quality of care offered.
We look to the youth justice and witness Bill for the training, structures and procedures which will pave the road to equal justice with something more substantial than good intentions. I would hope that we might also look for a switch from the namby-pamby penalties of the Mental Health Act applied in the Longcare case to the fivefold more punitive provisions which could be secured through a mainstream criminal offence of harming or exploiting a vulnerable adult.
It will be the highlight of my MENCAP chairmanship if I can have the assurance that my daughter, who is 47 tomorrow, and all those other sons and daughters with a learning disability, will have the same protection through the criminal justice system that I enjoy myself. I know that others of your Lordships entertain the same fervent wish.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I apologise for missing the speeches of some noble Lords but I had a meeting within this building which I had to attend. I shall be here for the rest of the debate. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rix, whom I heard on the wireless this morning giving, with great aplomb, a preview of what will happen on Monday night. I was told at lunch today by a person from the BDA that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has brought in a rule that there now has to be a properly qualified sign language interpreter for deaf people who have to go to court. I give full credit to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for bringing in that rule.
On this the fifth and final day of debate on the gracious Speech I shall focus my remarks on a vulnerable group in society: deaf and profoundly deaf adults and children who have mental health problems. If this group of people have been born deaf—as opposed to becoming deaf in childhood, in adolescence, or as adults—in many cases they do not have a voice of their own. They communicate entirely by sign language.
In speaking on this subject and asking questions about what implications there are for this category of disabled people in our society, I must first declare an interest. I have a deaf half-sister in her thirties who relies on sign
542
language to communicate. She lives in a semi-sheltered situation in Blackburn with a Royal National Institute for the Deaf outreach team who provide back up when required. I cannot speak highly enough of the vital support which they provide for my sister.
I also have a profoundly deaf stepsister who has already gained a degree at university and is now studying law at a university in London. She requires a note taker when attending lectures two days a week and has been unable to obtain a grant of any kind to help towards the cost of the note taker which amounts to a not inconsiderable sum. It costs about £14.75 an hour. The position at the moment is that, while undergraduates who are deaf are entitled to receive a disabled student's allowance to enable them to pay for communication support, postgraduate students are not able to apply for any allowance. This does not seem right. Deafness and the disability it brings do not stop when someone stops being an undergraduate.
I am also a trustee of a charity called SIGN which campaigns for the deaf with mental health problems. This has started up and supervises a growing number of residential homes for deaf people with mental health problems, some on a low support basis and others on a high support basis.
The Government propose in the recent White Paper that as far as possible there should be an all-inclusive education system for all children. I believe this could have a detrimental effect on deaf children who are sign language users. It will be difficult for this group of children to meet their linguistic and social needs in mainstream settings. They have a greater need for a specialist school setting. The number of such schools has fallen in the past 20 years. There are in the order of 20 in England now. The Government's proposals for total inclusion can only put these remaining specialist schools under threat, with local authorities under pressure to educate this group in all-inclusive settings. This will have the knock-on effect of putting these deaf children at greater risk of developing mental health problems.
All options in education should remain open so families can choose the best for their child, which may mean a specialist school or a mainstream school with specialist support, such as, for example, sign language communicators. There needs to be a national policy and standard which is set by the Government who should then ensure that the required standards are maintained all over the country. This would remove the lottery factor whereby the availability of specialist services varies hugely in different parts of the country and is dependent on the attitude of the local authority. I would be grateful if the Minister would bring my comments to the attention of his noble friend the Minister responsible for education.
I turn from the education of the deaf with mental health problems to the availability of, and their ease of access to, healthcare. In the Government's recent White Paper the mechanisms for funding highly specialised services seem to me to be unclear. Under the new commissioning arrangements it is likely that it will become increasingly difficult for deaf children and

543
adults to access specialist services. For instance, the RSCAG (regional specialist commissioning advisory groups) are intended, under the Government's proposals, to commission specialist and highly specialist services. Some regions may recognise the need for that and give it priority and funding. Others may not, as indeed happens in the case of dyslexia which is still not recognised by all local education authorities.
A few months ago in Oxfordshire, where I live, I conversed with a teacher at a dinner. I have a dyslexic daughter who attends a special school in Warwickshire. The teacher asked me what I meant by dyslexia. She explained that Oxfordshire does not recognise dyslexia. I do not know whether the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford can put me right on that matter, but he is not present at the moment. It seems odd that some counties do not recognise dyslexia. I imagine it is all a matter of finance because if they recognised dyslexia, children with the condition would have to be statemented and that would involve more money.
Surely there is the need here for a standard which should be set and policed by central Government. The standards and objectives need to be specific and not vague. The user groups such as the deaf should be involved in shaping the standards and objectives.
How does a deaf person who relies on signing communicate with his or her general practitioner, for example? The availability of communication support varies from area to area. I heard only today at lunchtime that the notice required to book communication support—that may involve a sign language interpreter or someone who can lip read—varies between a few days, perhaps less than a week, to months. This obviously presents difficulties for a deaf person who has to see his or her GP at short notice. One cannot possibly plan an urgent appointment weeks or months ahead.
Under the proposed OATS (out of area treatments), specialist trusts such as Pathfinder NH Services will make two-year retrospective claims to the primary care groups. I understand that the PCG may or may not pay. How can a specialist service be developed on this basis and how will it receive its funding in the meantime?
I shall now discuss deafness in the community more generally. There is still great ignorance among the population as a whole about deafness. A 1995 survey commissioned by the Royal National Institute for the Deaf showed that, although five million people in the UK could benefit from a hearing test, a MORI survey showed that nearly four times as many people have had an eye test as have had a hearing test. Over 40 per cent. of people who report hearing problems have not even talked to their GP about that, let alone had a test. MORI found that only 22 per cent. of people aged over 55 have had a hearing test in the past 10 years, compared to 87 per cent. of people in this group who have had eye tests. That seems odd. This is in spite of the fact that, according to medical research, about 48 per cent. of over 55s have a hearing loss.
6.7 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, there is much to be welcomed in this Government's approach to
544
health, which is the subject I wish to address for the next few minutes. Their emphasis from the first on public health, and on the links with poverty, has been admirable, and has given the concept of preventative medicine a much-needed boost. Like others I lament the lack of legislative time for a Food Standards Agency, which when it comes will give a health-promoting role to good nutrition as well as removing the conflict of interest that lies at the heart of MAFF.
The gracious Speech talks of building a modern National Health Service to meet the needs of "the whole nation", and to replace the internal market with arrangements based on "partnership". If this is to be so, then I suggest that we need to take account of a factor which appears too little in Government pronouncements: the exponential rise of treatments such as osteopathy, acupuncture, medical herbalism, nutritional and environmental medicine, healing, homoeopathy, known collectively as complementary medicine.
At the meeting last month in Barbados of the Commonwealth Health Ministers a recommendation was made which stated in part:
"National policies for health need to give greater consideration and recognition to the existence of traditional and complementary medicine and their value to health development and health sector reform".
The Ministers noted that such treatments should be seen as complementary, not alternative, in partnership—foreshadowing the words in the gracious Speech, re-emphasised by the noble Baroness in her introduction—with more conventional approaches. They also, and this is significant, proposed a working group to develop an action plan to promote and integrate complementary medicine within national health systems, and this working group will be based with the Global Initiative For Traditional Systems of health within Oxford University's Health Services Research Unit.
The latest reliable surveys show that one in three people in the United Kingdom has at some time used complementary medicine. That is an enormous number of patients, although if your Lordships' House is at all representative it does not in the least surprise me. This includes two-thirds of rheumatoid arthritis sufferers and two-fifths of those with HIV or AIDS. In the South Thames Region 93 per cent. of responding GPs and 70 per cent. of responding hospital doctors have referred patients for complementary treatments; overall nearly 40 per cent. of GP partnerships appear to be referring. With medical schools increasingly including complementary medicine in their curricula, and with practising doctors asking for training in complementary therapies, the days of so-called fringe medicine are long since gone.
The Journal of the American Medical Association gave us last month the picture from across the Atlantic. Forty per cent. of Americans used complementary medicine in 1997–100 million people! Visits to complementary medicine practitioners have increased by nearly 50 per cent. since 1990 and have now exceeded by far, with 629 million visits, the number of visits to all primary care doctors. As a regrettable aside,

545
a relic doubtless of the days of mutual hostility, fewer than 40 per cent. told their doctors what they were doing.
There must be a reason for these remarkable statistics. They have very little, if surveys are to be believed, to do with a flight from science, which is how the old guard from the mainstream sometimes like to portray it. I believe the explanation is far simpler, and it is a very relevant one for governments everywhere. It is about plain, straightforward effectiveness, and most probably cost-effectiveness at that. The Chief Medical Officer appears to share this view; when he was asked in an interview published in the Lancet on 29th August whether there might be an increased role for complementary medicine, he replied:
"Yes, … because it's what people want and people definitely benefit from it".
I have been a student of this field for many years now: as a patient, as a keen observer of existing practice and development, as Joint Chairman of the Parliamentary Group for Alternative and Complementary Medicine, and Chair of the British Acupuncture Accreditation Board, as a past Council member of the Research Council for Complementary Medicine. It is my firm conviction that complementary medicine, if given the chance, has a key role to play in the major health issues of our time.
All the evidence I have seen suggests that most long-term survivors of AIDS—those who were diagnosed five or more years ago—are alive and well because they have discarded their medication (if indeed they ever took it) and embraced a range of non-conventional treatments. The field of cancer is littered with survivors against the odds who have used unorthodox approaches, never systematically followed up by orthodox workers who alone have access to the funding and institutions that can provide the sort of research that is nowadays called for. The same is true of multiple sclerosis, heart disease, asthma and many of the conditions that come under the heading of mental illness. Some of your Lordships may have read of the successful trials of the herb St. John's Wort in the treatment of depression.
I could speak on this for a long time, but will only say now that I have become persuaded that it is a strength but also a weakness of modern medicine that it is wedded to a gold standard of evidence borrowed from the hard sciences which, when applied across the board, can actually retard genuine progress by distorting the true picture. I do seriously question whether the agenda of the academic and clinical research establishment chimes any longer with that of patients; and when these get out of kilter, I believe that society needs to take notice.
I cannot leave this subject without mentioning the question of safety. Modern medicine has brought many benefits, and no one in their right mind would want to jettison these. But it is unquestionably one of the most dangerous systems of medicine yet devised. Let me quote two findings from abroad and one from this
546
country. In April this year the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that
"The incidence of serious and fatal adverse drug reactions in US hospitals was found to be extremely high",
making them between the fourth and sixth leading cause of death. In May it reported that
"51 per cent. of approved drugs have serious adverse effects not detected prior to approval",
and went on to say that
"Each year prescription drugs injure 1.5 million people so severely they require hospitalization and 100,000 die".
And over here a study published a month ago found adverse reactions to be third in the list of causes of death, after heart attacks and strokes. These are not statistics of drugs misused: they are side-effects of normal treatment—institutionalised damage, one might say.
The worst enemies of complementary medicine could not say this of the therapies that come under that umbrella. I think there is no doubt that the relative absence of side-effects is one reason why the public has been beating a path to practitioners' doors, and I would invite the noble Baroness the Minister—who sadly is not in her place and we wish her a very speedy recovery—to consider the savings to be made in hard-pressed NHS budgets in not having to deal with the aftermath of treatments which are themselves for the most part expensive and high technology-based. At the same time I wonder how she would reconcile this with the current tendency among health authorities to cut back on their funding of complementary medicine, supposedly in the interests of saving money. I have worrying evidence of this happening on a wide front, almost as though it is a common policy, even in cases where clinical audit has shown great benefit to patients. The Parliamentary Group is compiling a dossier of such cases.
I have explained some of the reasons why many of us regret the Government's reluctance to back complementary medicine more strongly. I know that some help has been given, and we are grateful, even though it amounts to barely a fraction of a per cent. of the health budget. I know too, of course, that most complementary medicine is private medicine; but where it is so massively used, and where the Government are concerned, in the words of the gracious Speech, with the health of the "whole nation", this should surely not stand in the way of more positive support, especially for research. For otherwise it is the less well-off who will. as ever, miss out the most.
It remains to be seen how the new primary care groups will respond to the increasing demand for complementary medicine. If "partnership" means what it implies to the full, all may be well. If the larger groupings that will arise produce decisions against the use of chiropractic, Chinese herbs and massage, then we may well see a decline in their uptake. I wonder how the noble Baroness envisages the future development of the non-conventional health-care sector under the Government's new arrangements.

547
I should like to end with a tale told in the 14th November issue of the British Medical Journal by the patient representative on the editorial board. She recounts how an excruciating knee injury threatened to put paid to her sponsored pilgrimage to Canterbury, and how the administration of the herb arnica saved the day.
"I reported my miracle cure",
she writes,
"to two colleagues at the BMJ editorial board meeting. One (a senior… editor) had never heard of arnica. The other (an American) knew it well. Before going home I went to pay tribute to…the BMA's herbal and medicinal garden…I noted that sage was useful for the disorders of the climacteric, admired the foxgloves and the periwinkle (we all know what they are for), and then on my way out, another label caught my eye: 'Arnica—used in the treatment of bruises and sprains'.
"Does the BMA realise",
she concluded,
"what seeds of subversion have been sown in the garden? If we all used these common herbs to cure common ailments what would happen to doctors and drug companies? And how much money would be saved by the NHS?"
6.18 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, Shakespeare's "Hamlet" opens with the changing of the guard. On the battlements of Elsinore, Francisco utters the immortal words:
"For this relief much thanks",
words which everyone employed in the NHS might echo after reading the gracious Speech—"relief" that they will not be faced with massive reorganisations, multifarious new structures, bright new initiatives always described as "challenging" when what they are is "exhausting", and no looming increase in the avalanche of paperwork required by increasingly remote authorities.
What we are promised is one Bill, to end the internal market and GP fundholding, and replace them with something better. Good!
A period of peace will permit a number of successful initiatives to be developed without recourse to primary legislation. I am thinking particularly of the changing role of the nursing profession and the recognition of the need to train nurses differently. For too long, the relation of the nurse to the doctor has been at worst servile handmaiden and at best humble suitor at the feet of sapience. We all recognise the chestnut that a nurse is trained not to look after patients but to look after doctors. Not any more. I read recently an article in Practice Manager for June 1998 by Stephen A. Ryan, showing how his practice in Bolton has developed the nurse's role. After special training, four of his nurses began prescribing. Soon, they were allowed to prescribe all dressings for nursing homes. This alone saves thousands of pounds in his area. Nurse prescribing is spreading, and it is here to stay. Good. It gives patients a speedier service, GPs fewer interruptions, nurses increased job satisfaction, and the practice better cost control. Mr. Ryan has also pioneered a "nurse triage clinic". Triage is a process for sorting injured people into groups based on their need for, and likely benefit from, immediate medical treatment. It originates on the
548
battlefield or at disaster sites, but in Bolton the triage nurse can be seen immediately, whereas the doctor may not have an available appointment for some time. The idea has spread like wildfire.
So there must be changes in the way nurses are trained. There must be far better career advice given in schools, for a start, and training in the old "practice rooms", now called "skills labs", in how to take blood, give injections and turn your patient must be reconsidered. Hospital doctors often complain that newly qualified nurses are marvellously adept at operating machinery the hospital has not got. but need six months on the ward to learn the basic skills. We must prepare nurses for the future: it is important that they learn new techniques—but not to the detriment of the fundamentals of nursing, like effective nutrition, maintaining the patient's skin quality, or learning lifting techniques.
This raises the question of whether or not nursing should become an all-graduate profession. There are good reasons why it should: graduates have higher status, they would guarantee deeper knowledge and higher skills, they would contribute to patient care on a much wider basis, starting pay would have to be improved. But it would debar entry to many people who are by nature fine and compassionate carers without being specially gifted intellectuals. Perhaps the best way forward is by greater investment in continuous professional development.
Probably the most conspicuous success in the new deployment of nurses is the nurse-led primary care pilots, set up under the primary care Act. The Government have wisely allocated £5 million to launch a second wave of them. Pat Cantrill, writing in Nursing Times, says,
"primary health care will be successful only by ensuring the effective contribution from all members of the professional team".
It sounds obvious, a bland truism. It is not. Hitherto, it has been tacitly assumed that the leader, the manager, the boss in any primary health care system will naturally be the GP. It ain't necessarily so. The GP is the most highly qualified medical expert; it takes five years to train one, and a nurse can qualify in three years at most, starting from scratch. But not every GP is a good manager. Many are hopeless managers. There is a prima facie case for thinking that a nurse may be much better at allocating resources, liaising with other healthcare professionals, filling in forms, submitting returns and reports, and controlling the whole operation because so many of them are doing it anyway, by balancing their responsibilities for children, dependants and home against the shifting demands of their professional careers. So allowing the nurse to control and administer the service frees the GP to concentrate on clinical responsibilities and gives an opportunity to attract doctors into, or back into, primary care.
The first nurse-led scheme opened in Salford on 1st April last, led by Lance Gardner. It now has 2,500 patients. Catherine Baranïak runs another in Derby, and the present estimate is that eight of the 80 current pilot schemes are run by nurses. Of course, they have always encountered suspicion and hostility from

549
some GPs. But that is vanishing like the morning mist on the mountain, and the example of university departments should help to dissipate it even faster.
In the olden days the professor was always the only head of the department. His was the kingdom, the power, and the glory. Then, as the administrative burden grew ever greater, and more boring, we allowed readers and senior lecturers to assume the headship, then even humble lecturers, and when the heavens did not fall, professors found they liked the new freedom to do what they were trained and paid for and did best more than they enjoyed wielding bureaucratic power. And so it will be with the primary care Act pilot schemes. All members will do what they are best at. As the Apostle St. Paul said (and he was not into partnerships, nor one of nature's "team-players"),
"there are diversities of gifts … and there are differences of administrations".
And if crusty old Apostles and bossy old professors can make power-partnerships work, so surely can the NHS. Many nurses, most nurses, are good organisers. They have to be. Nurses need to be trusted with greater responsibilities in healthcare. It looks as if this Government are willing to trust.
There is one other thing, however, that the Government should do, despite what I have previously said. The poet Dante, somewhere in La Divina Commedia (I cannot find the reference—answers on a postcard, please), has the phrase, apt to this occasion, "lunga promessa", meaning a promise long-delayed, or hope deferred, which maketh the heart sick. The delayed five-yearly review of the legislation governing regulation of nursing, midwifery and health visiting, commissioned from JM Consulting by the previous government in early 1997 and presented to Ministers in August 1998, is still firmly under wraps. If and when it does appear we may be sure of one thing: it will bear none of the stigmata of being a rushed job. A great deal of useful regulatory and developmental work is now being held up. For example, the UKCC's evidence to the review included recommendations for greater accountability in the regulatory system, broader powers for dealing with incompetent practitioners, and stronger sanctions in law for people purporting to be registered professionals when they are not. These are needed urgently, and major changes will require primary legislation.
I should end with a clarion call to the Government to give all nurses more pay immediately. And so I do, but I need not. For they have found a mightier champion than I could ever be in the Daily Mail, now running a high-profile campaign to secure justice for their case. I must confess I have previously viewed the Daily Mail as an organ slightly and regrettably to the right in its politics, but I must congratulate its editor and journalists on bringing this issue to the forefront of public consciousness.
So let me end where we all began, with the midwives. A few weeks ago they ran a demonstration outside the Palace of Westminster to publicise their problems. One
550
placard boldly read "Midwives deliver. When will the Government?". My Lords, I think that in this coming Session of Parliament deliveries will commence.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, as I fear that most of what I have to say will be critical of one feature of the gracious Speech, may I start by giving credit where credit is due. Provided we are guaranteed that it will become law by not later than autumn of the year 2000, the Government are being entirely sensible in taking time over the freedom of information Bill, to ensure that we get it right.
When the matter of freedom of information is raised, most people's immediate instinct—mine certainly used to be—is that freedom of information ought to be all-embracing and that in peacetime official secrecy can hardly ever be justified. However, when one goes into the matter a little more thoroughly, it is evident that things are not quite so simple. For example, it must be right that Ministers should be able to speak with total frankness at Cabinet meetings, without having to worry about being pilloried later in print or on the airwaves.
The United States is always being held up to us as an example of a nation where freedom of information is universal and totally unrestricted. In theory, perhaps, but not in practice, as I know from personal experience. Government departments the world over are adept at stalling or leaving false trails when they think it expedient to do so.
Therefore, it is important to get the Bill right. I think the Government are wise not to try to rush it through in what will be a shorter than average Session. One hopes, incidentally, that both Houses of Parliament will be given an input to the draft Bill, and not only the House of Commons. We certainly want a freedom of information Bill, but it must be a properly worked out one.
I now switch to a topic where in my view—and I was pleased to hear that it is the view of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester as well—the Government are mistaken: the proposal to give 16 and 17 year-old boys the green light to engage in homosexual activity.
When we last debated the matter, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, pointed out, in so many words, that a great many boys currently drive through those lights which are at present permanently set at red. Indeed they do. But the red lights at least deter a good many of them and, more important, they deter the older men who tempt them to drive recklessly across that particular intersection in their lives. I do not think and have never thought that the under-18s should be prosecuted for crashing the lights, and in fact very few are so prosecuted. But the older men who lead them into temptation certainly should be.
For as long as I can remember, I have taken the view that provided third parties are not harmed, consenting adults—I stress the word "adults"—should have the legal right to do as they wish in private with their own bodies, however dangerous or disgusting their actions may be. If grown men want to hold private homosexual

551
orgies—which are currently still illegal, unlike heterosexual or female homosexual ones—or if they are warped enough to derive pleasure from hammering nails into one another's anatomy, then provided no permanent harm results, the criminal law should not interfere, however much most of us may disapprove on moral and aesthetic grounds.
However, where under-18s are concerned, libertarian principles must be subordinated to concern for the protection of minors. It is significant that when we were debating the proposal to outlaw under-age sex tourism to Asian countries, it was revealed that the United Nations consider young people under 18—not under 16—to be in special need of protection against sexual exploitation.
This Government are even more obsessed with health and safety than the previous administration, which is saying quite a lot. Yet although buggery is probably 2,000 to 3,000 times more dangerous than eating beef on the bone, the Government propose to facilitate the first, while continuing to ban the second. A young homosexual male in western countries is 430 times more likely to contract AIDS than his heterosexual contemporary. There are many other unpleasant and dangerous physical risks as well, some of which were outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, when we last debated the matter—he may well do so again this evening—to say nothing of possible psychological damage.
How many people in this country want such a fate for their sons, grandsons or nephews, if it can possibly be avoided and if they can possibly be steered away from it? That is, supposing they are balanced on the edge, as young men quite often are. How many people in this country, for that matter, want it for their daughters or granddaughters, given that the law is bound to apply to girls as well and given that girls of that age are vulnerable to being brow-beaten by dominant men to experiment with different sexual practices?
Dan Farson is a well known author and journalist. He is also an avowed homosexual. Yet he, as a homosexual, is totally opposed to any change in the law. In the Daily Mail of 15th July 1997, he wrote that the proposal to lower the age of consent is,
"political correctness at its very worst, driven along by the aggressively show-off tactics of the so-called gay lobby. I fear the damage it will do is beyond calculation …
There can he confusion at that age about where your inclinations lie. Is it really sensible to make those difficulties even more acute by lowering the present 18 limit? Frankly, I doubt it …
when people are confronted with choices about their lives, they need the chance to work out the situation for themselves, in their own time and in their own way. Instead they are faced with the raucous proselytising of gay pride".
If, despite all that, the Government are still determined to press ahead, then at least let us protect young people from the most dangerous forms of homosexual activity. In the November 1998 issue of the Parliamentary Monitor, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon wrote, in relation to anal intercourse:
"This particular act is both a health hazard and for some a traumatic experience. There is a case for making this act illegal for under-I8s even if other genital activity is permitted".
552
I hope that the House and the Government will heed the wise counsel of the right reverend Prelate.
6.36 p.m.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I shall address my remarks to the proposed Bill on immigration and asylum, particularly concentrating on the asylum system.
The gracious Speech said that the Government's intention was to modernise the law in that area. It is becoming increasingly difficult to guess the direction that that "catch-all" term implies, but I shall go by the title of the White Paper: Fairer, Faster and Firmer. Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, with whom I very much agreed, I wish the term "justice" to figure somewhere.
I look first at where we are now as a result of the legacy of the last government. I agree with recent assessments by Home Office Ministers that the present asylum system is a shambles. Many leading members of the present Government, like those on these Benches, were highly critical of many aspects of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. It created the worst of all worlds in which everyone loses, resources are wasted and unnecessary suffering created. Two-thirds or three-quarters of applicants are rejected, yet many of those are never removed. The White Paper gives a case history of an applicant who spent 13 years in the system, but at one point there was an extraordinary delay of two years and two months between the refusal of an application to remain and the serving of a deportation notice.
The test of a good and effective system should be that it is both efficient in use of resources and treats applicants with dignity and humanity. On that basis, the Government's new proposals are somewhat better than, but not sufficiently improved over, those brought in by the last government. Improvements are needed in both the procedures and the system of support.
There are currently almost 80,000 individuals stuck in the decision-making process. Around 58,000 applicants are awaiting a first decision and another 21,000 are awaiting an appeal. Shockingly, 10,000 people have been waiting over five years for an answer from the Home Office. Hundreds are detained arbitrarily without being given justification, without time limit and often in prison in conditions criticised by Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons.
Meanwhile, tens of thousands of people are being inadequately but expensively supported by local councils, denied social security benefits but given subsistence shelter and food after court decisions under the National Assistance Act.
That has led to serious cost pressures on local authorities, especially in London. I declare an interest as a member of such an authority. It coincides with severe budget cuts devastating services like social services, at least in my own borough. But it also creates serious hardship and indignity for asylum seekers who may have to make 12-mile journeys across town to use

553
vouchers at a designated supermarket. My own local paper in Islington reported a few weeks ago under a headline,
"Refugees in food token bust-up",
that Albanian, Algerian and Romanian refugees had clashed in a fight over food tokens at a local housing office. The office had to be closed while police were called.
I do not know the rights and wrongs of the case and how much was caused by desperation and how much by deplorable behaviour, but the impact on local opinion, it may be feared, will not have helped to promote harmonious race relations. There is a rumour circulating that the council will have to close an old people's home and reopen it as a hostel for asylum seekers—which risks creating resentment towards foreigners. The need is urgent for a return to a proper national scheme of support. based on social security benefits, where the impact does not fall on local funding. I will return to that later.
Clearly, there is a need for an asylum system which offers real protection and prevents abuse. There needs to be a forum, a standard joint working party for practitioners, government officials and NGOs to discuss common concerns and attempts to agree procedural reforms. I hope the Government will consider that. It would be much better than the present adversarial battleground. It certainly seems true that there is a climate of appalling suspicion and mistrust between practitioners and the immigration service. Perhaps bodies like the Refugee Council, Amnesty International and the Medical Foundation—to all of whom, and others, I pay tribute—would identify the clash that exists as one between a positive desire to provide protection and a negative agenda simply of deterring arrivals and a culture of disbelief.
It seems to me that improving the system requires front loading of resources on initial decision making, because if the savings are made then with skimped decisions or inadequate information gathering the later costs of appeals will be all the higher. Often the poor quality of the initial refusal decision increases the likelihood of challenges through appeal and judicial review. Appeals can take years, delayed by poor organisation, lack of resources and adjournments. Most frequently these are requested, according to the Refugee Legal Centre, not by the applicant but by the Home Office or the court.
The system has been described as less a mechanism for making decisions than a series of processes for reviewing other people's decisions. I have not had the chance to visit Lunar House, but I have been told that it is aptly named because it might as well be on the moon, and its procedures are Dickensian. This is no doubt unfair on staff as well as on applicants.
The White Paper has some welcome elements. I will not tediously enumerate them all, but I would pick out the recognition of the contribution made to the life of this country by immigrants and asylum seekers, some of whom of course are present in this House. I would also welcome the adoption of an intelligence-led approach to
554
the assessment of cases. That would be sensible, as is the use of new technology, especially the intention to have a computerised case management system, although there is considerable concern that it is behind schedule.
I am glad to see moves towards more openness and giving reasons for refusals, which is welcome. Also welcome is the emphasis on training and information. I wonder whether the Government will also consider training on gender guidelines, as advised by the Refugee Council—a special situation in which women may find themselves. I welcome new regulation immigration advisers to weed out the unscrupulous: that is indeed necessary. The six-month target for the combined decision and appeal is similarly welcome. The special treatment for older cases, which the Government are at pains not to call an amnesty, with special leave to remain is, I believe, essential to tackle the backlog. However, this still leaves some 20,000 awaiting an initial decision and 22,000 appeal cases. I would also mention the abolition of the white list and, finally, the firm intention to force the removal of those who have received a final refusal after appeal, as long as it is humane, respects human rights—and, as the White Paper points out, there is now the backdrop of the Human Rights Act. Of course, there have to be effective enforcement procedures.
The main concerns that I still have over the White Paper include the strengthening of pre-entry controls, like the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act and more airline liaison officers. The problem in this area is that it puts genuine refugees in a Catch 22 situation because those who are fleeing persecution are the least likely to have genuine papers or to apply for a passport or to be granted a visa. They are almost forced into the arms of traffickers or false documents. I wonder whether the Government will be considering a dispensation from fines for a carrier carrying genuine refugees who are unable to provide proper documentation, or to consider not applying controls to people from countries with serious human rights abuse when they arrive.
The five-day limit on appeals raises considerable problems, and not only for those who are stressed, bereaved and therefore disorientated, but to people like torture victims, who may have difficulty in getting the medical evidence in time. An option to extend that on compassionate grounds, and so on, I should like to see in the Bill.
The proposal for tighter controls on legal aid raises problems relating to the front loading of resources that I talked about. Proper legal advice and representation can shorten the whole process and save money in the long run. Therefore it seems to me that it could be a false economy to make cuts here. Could the Government consider more funding for the Refugee Legal Centre and the Immigration Advisory Service, which I know already get grants?
I know that other points will be raised by my noble friend Lord Dholakia and so I will leave those to him. The final issue that I will deal with is the system of support. It seems a reasonable proposal to identify the cost of supporting asylum seekers within the Home Office budget, but not to have a separate system of

555
support with a national agency, giving support in kind and a system of dispersal throughout the country. The White Paper itself says that a cash support system is administratively more convenient and less expensive. It seems perverse really to go for a system which is expensive and complicated, when that remark has been made.
The proposal to disperse asylum seekers around the country and yet have support mechanisms only as a safety net after the support from friends and the local community has been exhausted does not seem to fit, because surely if applicants are expected to turn to their friends or relatives and the local community they are more likely to find that if they are living close to such people. The cheapest and best option in the context of a swifter and more efficient determination system, which will end the scandal which is said to exist of years on benefit, must mean a restoration of social security benefit. At the moment the Government reimburses local authorities to the tune of £165 a week for each adult, and £230 per family; so that does not seem to be a very efficient system.
There needs to be some cash allowance for necessities, including travel, phone calls and children's needs. Asylum seekers need to be housed in appropriate multicultural areas, with access to community agencies that can support them. The idea of having no choice of where to live may well be self-defeating if people are isolated from family and friends, as I have just said; and harsh means testing and lack of choice could leave asylum seekers destitute in London if they refuse to leave London. That could be far worse for the capital than for such people to live properly in London. There is nothing wrong as such with asylum seekers staying in London as long as the host communities are not being subjected to unfair competition with them for housing and funding, which is disastrous for race and community relations.
Before I say one last word about the European Union, may I ask the Government whether they are considering a relaxation to allow more asylum seekers to work? It seems to me that if we want, quite rightly, to save public money we ought to be allowing asylum seekers more chance to be self-sufficient and give something back in tax and skills. Perhaps, if a case is not decided after the target six months, that matter could be considered. Could the Government also look at speeding up the recognition of qualifications, for instance, for the 1,000 doctors at present unable to practise in the United Kingdom when there is, as was identified earlier by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, a nationwide shortage of doctors?
I deal finally with asylum policy within the European Union. It is disappointing that so far the Government have opted out of the chapter of the EU treaty on visa, immigration and asylum policy. We need to be part of a common EU policy not only because it is more rational and sensible but also so that we can influence the European Union in the direction of justice as well as efficiency. I hope that the Government will seek to opt into at least some measures under this chapter.
556
In conclusion, I believe that the White Paper and thus the proposed Bill is likely to be (if the right reverend Prelates will forgive me for using the expression) a curate's egg: good only in parts.
6.50 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I shall never forget this year's gracious Speech, for many poignant reasons, but my enduring memory will be the number of times that the words "modernisation", "modernising" and so on—whatever those words mean—were used. Even today those words were used in the first and last sentences of the speech of the Minister. I believe that it appeared 11 times in the Queen's Speech. The spin doctors use it in every soundbite and press release.
The right honourable Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, says that he wishes to create a modern country of which he can be proud. I am deeply saddened and perplexed that he does not share the feelings of millions of fellow citizens who are immensely proud of their country today, and always have been. Perhaps we should be thankful that past Administrations did not have the same obsession for modernisation; otherwise, we might not have inherited the wonders and richness of our history and ancestry.
I turn to the issue that I wish to deal with this evening. I hope and pray that this legislation is not brought before us as an example of modernisation. The reduction of the age of consent is far too important to be trivialised in this way. I understand that it will be subject to a free vote as a matter of conscience which I believe to be imperative in such a moral and ethical matter. An 18th birthday should be a very special and happy occasion. It is a time when young people are perceived to have reached an age of maturity and discretion. In the eyes of the law they become adult and take on added responsibilities. It is at this age that if criminal charges are pressed any subsequent case is heard in the adult court and not the youth court.
As it is such a significant milestone in a young person's life, I sought to discover what a person could do before reaching the age of 18. I refer to some of my findings. Until a person is 18 he cannot vote in general, local or European elections; he cannot serve on a jury; he cannot buy land, a house or flat; he cannot apply for a mortgage; he cannot act as an executor; he cannot open a bank account or apply for a passport without the signature of a parent: he cannot make a will unless he is a member of the Armed Forces; he cannot serve in Northern Ireland; he cannot make an application for civil legal aid; he cannot buy or sell alcohol in a shop; he cannot hold a licence to drive a medium size goods vehicle; he cannot enter a betting shop and place a bet or enter a bingo hall and play; he cannot be tattooed; he cannot join the Armed Forces without parental consent; he cannot take part in a performance of hypnotism; he cannot donate his body to medical science without parental permission; he cannot see an 18 category film; he cannot pawn an article in a pawn shop; and he cannot gain access to his school records. Lastly, I am informed that he cannot give blood until the age of 18. In addition, the Government have said that they would like to raise to 18 the age at which it is legal to purchase cigarettes.

557
Some of these measures may appear to be more important than others, but I am sure that the government of the day thought that each was necessary to protect young people. Parliament in its wisdom voted that the age of consent should be reduced to 18 from 21. I did not support that amendment but accepted that as the age of majority was such a momentous milestone the majority view should hold. However, I cannot accept that the age should be lowered to 16.
Some young men of 18 are mature but others are still only boys who are coming to terms with their sexuality. These are the ones who are vulnerable and ripe for others to take advantage of them. Three weeks ago I read with horror how young people had been abused while in care. That care had been provided to children who had already suffered some traumatic incident in their short lives. As a result they had been taken in for protection only to find that for some there was further agony to come.
The Utting Report had a dramatic effect upon me. I felt deeply ashamed that we had let down these young people. I understand that most of the staff in children's homes are decent, dedicated people who try their best to create stability with as near a traditional home atmosphere as possible. As citizens we are all responsible for seeing that the welfare of young people in care is of the highest quality. I was pleased to hear that the Government proposed to introduce legislation to try to eliminate the horrors of the past.
To leave care to enter the wide world must be traumatic for any young person, but for a 16 year-old, who may never have had the guidance and love of parents, it is difficult to imagine if he is turned out from the only home he has known to fend for himself. At such a vulnerable time one can see how the advances of an older man can be seductive. It is our responsibility and duty to protect young people from those with evil intent. I believe that the age of consent is far and away the most important issue of any of those that I have quoted. Young men should wait until they are 18 before making a decision of such magnitude that could lead them into a different way of life.
As a mother of two boys and a grandmother of one I could not live with myself if I supported this Bill. As it proceeds through the House I shall do all in my power to see that the Bill as proposed does not reach the statute book. This Government is a master in the giving of messages. I plead with the Government not to give our young people such a disturbing message.
6.57 p.m.
Lord Hussey of North Bradley: My Lords, I must first declare an interest. Last month I ceased to be chairman of the Royal Marsden Hospital after 14 years. I am also a member of the management committee of the King's Fund. In that capacity I chaired two commissions on London's health services in which I was helped by four Members of your Lordships' House, not least by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. Your Lordships may be interested to hear that in more than three years of deliberation on London's health not
558
once was there any political division between the members of those commissions. In my opinion, on matters of health there is more that unites than divides your Lordships.
Perhaps my main interest—though hardly a financial one—is that I may be the only Member of your Lordships' House who was still in hospital on 5th July 1948 for treatment of injuries I had received in 1944. I clearly remember the impact that the announcement of the new National Health Service had on many of the patients. In those days sickness or illness was a total financial disaster. Some patients were in tears at the unbelievable concept of a service free at the point of delivery. I say that because, despite all the difficulties the NHS suffers, it remains a unique organisation. Like another unique organisation with which I have been recently connected, the NHS is the subject of constant criticism at home and undiminished admiration abroad.
The NHS, like the BBC, suffers from being known by three familiar initials which on their own are sufficient to catapult a story on to the front page regardless of merit. In 1948 the eyes of the world were on a great social experiment. It is appropriate that it should be the subject of your Lordships' attention as the 50th anniversary of the NHS draws to a close. Of course, there have always been problems. Nye Bevan, its founding father, disastrously miscalculated the cost of the new service when he predicted that as the health of the nation improved the cost of the NHS would decrease. Life expectancy and our expectations of treatment have risen. Advances in medical science have transformed care. Inevitably costs have soared.
In 1948 many doctors and nurses had worked in military hospitals both abroad and at home. Healthcare was another branch of our wartime service, fuelled by the same spirit that drove many young men and women to join up. That spirit flourishes undiminished 50 years later in the dedication of nurses, doctors and other staff in many centres, of which I believe the Royal Marsden Hospital to be one.
But as we look at what comes next, perhaps I may make one or two comments. First, I have long believed that there are two NHSs: one in the big cities where care is always fraught with difficulties, and another in the country where the standards are often superb.
In the second King's Fund report, we found mental health and care of the elderly in London in a dreadful state with the poorest and most disadvantaged in society finding the greatest difficulty in getting access to treatment. Last week, Sir Donald Acheson published the results of his independent inquiry into health inequalities. He too found the state of health of people in our deprived inner cities little short of a national disgrace. The King's Fund commented:
"People in Britain in 1998 pay the price of poverty with their health and their lives".
Environment and public health are inextricably entwined. We shall not improve public health unless we tackle also the environment in which it languishes.
The gracious Speech forecasts the abolition of the NHS internal market and GP fundholding. It is too early to say what the effect of those changes will be. Our

559
experience of GP fundholding was that it brought many benefits. Its replacement—primary care groups—is untested and will need considerable additional bureaucracy to work efficiently. I hope that this is not yet another change that will not help patients.
The internal market spawned a complex bureaucracy which reached down to the minutiae of hospital administration. This Government have pledged to remove much of the paper pushing of the past few years. I must say that after 18 months, from where I stand, the piles of paper have not diminished.
I hope very much that the Government will do more than just rejig the structure and will swiftly tackle the big issues of public concern. For that reason I applaud the Government's decision to put quality and clinical governance at the centre of their healthcare agenda. They are right to do so.
Your Lordships may know that the Royal Marsden is a specialist cancer service. Cancer has now overtaken heart disease as the biggest killer. We need specialist centres with the highest level of clinical skills to provide the best care. It is not acceptable that this country lags behind many others in Europe and America. Clinical practice ensuring that those who need specialist care are referred for prompt treatment to centres of excellence is what we require. Too often we get the referrals too late. The diagnostic and treatment skills of those specialist centres must be disseminated and practised across the whole country.
When I talk of clinical practice, I do not just mean the work of doctors. Development here will be increasingly the responsibility of nurses, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. To meet the challenges of present and future health needs, we must encourage the skills and dedication of our nurses. The crisis in nurse recruitment is critical. The new generation of young do not need persuading that public service is a worthwhile career any more than their grandparents did. But are we as a society prepared to reward their vocation fairly and not disadvantage it?
Over the next 50 years the success and quality of our health service will depend on the vocation, energy and skills of its staff. We must not work them so hard that they begin to believe that they no longer have the energy to deliver the service to which they are emotionally and practically committed. As the Government begin yet another reform of the NHS, I urge them to keep the wellbeing of the staff who will deliver that service as an unassailable priority.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, the gracious Speech referred to the proposed immigration and asylum Bill. I start by congratulating the Government on the abolition of the primary purpose rule. Such a swift response, so early in their term, showed commitment to fairer immigration policies and race relations generally.
The White Paper, Fairer Faster Firmer, is welcomed by me and many community groups as it outlines long awaited reform. I welcome the commitment to an informed and open approach. Many immigration practitioners and community advice agencies are
560
looking forward to the systematic disclosure of the immigration directorate's instructions and the asylum directorate's instructions. For too long practitioners have had to rely on leaks, rumours and guesswork when advising their clients as to how IND staff will decide their case.
I welcome the Government's planned concession to the one-year rule in the case of victims of violence during their first year of marriage. But I have very real concerns about the burden on the applicant to "produce satisfactory evidence" before the concession can be applied. Such evidence is outlined in the White Paper as court orders, convictions and police cautions. It is important to take stock; and I ask noble Lords to visualise the "victims" whom this concession intends to assist. From experience I can say that such victims are usually scared, withdrawn and isolated individuals with little understanding of their rights or the legal process, and with a very basic knowledge, if any, of the English language. It is hard for me to envisage how such individuals could have reported the matter to the police, given a statement to the police or evidence in court, or instigated and funded civil proceedings such as an injunction and thus obtain the "satisfactory evidence" required. I ask the Government to think about the practicalities of the burden upon the applicant before the final drafting of the concession.
Chapter 5 of the White Paper relates to pre-entry controls. I confess that I read the chapter first hoping to see some form of commitment to the rights of disabled persons who wish to marry from abroad. As your Lordships will be aware, currently the requirement for entry clearance among other things is that the sponsor in the UK must be able to accommodate and maintain the applicant without recourse to public funds. Inevitably, the disabled sponsor will be reliant on public funds, and thus his or her spouse will not be able to satisfy the entry clearance requirements.
Sometimes the only opportunity that the disabled person has to marry is to choose a spouse from overseas who will agree to such an arranged marriage. If allowed to come to the United Kingdom, that person will enable the disabled UK citizen to live a more fulfilled and complete life. The law currently denies that. We cannot fly the flag for human rights and yet allow those requirements to apply to disabled sponsors.
I am aware that there is currently a Home Office policy to allow entry clearance where the sponsor is receiving benefits. But there would be no "additional recourse to public funds" by the applicant's presence in the UK. Despite that policy being quoted by practitioners to entry clearance officers, entry clearance is still being refused. If the Government are committed to that policy, let us urge them to implement it in the form of legislation in the forthcoming Bill.
Viewed purely from the financial point of view, it costs the Government more to provide care in the form of home helps, nursing and warm meals than to pay a married couple's allowance on top of the benefits already being received by the disabled sponsor. Further, it must be remembered that in any case the person from abroad would not be entitled to benefits for the first

561
12 months. Can the Government calculate the human and financial cost and give serious thought to the implementation of a concession for disabled sponsors in the forthcoming Bill?
Finally, I welcome with some reservation the reintroduction of appeal rights for visitors; rights which were taken by the previous Conservative government. My reservations are threefold. First, appeal rights are granted only to those who wish to visit a "family member" in the UK. This discrimination against those with no family connections in the UK is not justified in the White Paper. Secondly, I have concerns as to the workability of a "fast" appeal in light of the delay and backlog in the appeals system. I hope that the appeal will not become a pure academic exercise long after the event for which the original visa was applied for.
Thirdly, I have real reservations on the true effect of the visitors bond scheme. The scheme is intended as a safety measure to stop "visitor visa" abuse. In my opinion, no financial penalty or bond scheme will deter a fraudulent applicant, but it will place undue financial hardship on genuine applicants and their families at a time when due to a family event resources may well be scarce. I hope that the scheme will not create a two-tier system where only the financially privileged will be allowed to enter the UK as visitors.
7.11 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I would like to speak briefly on the subject of the registration of domiciliary care workers. This is by any standards a large category. It is estimated that 2.6 million homecare hours are worked every week. Whereas regulations for carers for children, while not perfect, are reasonably well ordered, it is the care of the elderly which leaves much to be desired. The majority of assignments for the elderly are more or less unsupervised, caring for a growing section of the population which is very vulnerable to abuse.
We must recognise the desire on the part of all user groups in the care industry for a comprehensive register for all care workers, including home care, nannies, childminders and, of course, social workers. What the Government are currently proposing is a very limited register confined to senior and highly qualified social care staff; the general social care council. These highly qualified staff form a tiny proportion of the care workforce. Although influential in some types of work, they are rarely involved in day-to-day tasks and they are almost totally absent from the independent sector. Indeed, the need for action is greatest in respect of the unqualified people in that sector, who now deliver the overwhelming body of care. Regulation of all other workers is expected by the Government to rely on contracts of employment. I suggest that is inadequate.
One must appreciate the Government's concern that blanket registration requirements would inhibit the use of relatives, friends and neighbours, who form such a large and vital component for the care of the elderly. Nevertheless, a middle way must be found.
562
Let us consider the reality. The workforce is in the main quite unstructured. It is highly transient and carers make frequent moves from agency to agency. It is possible for a rogue worker to walk out of a job in Aberdeen and take one in Plymouth. Ironically, it is with the most structured employers such as local authorities where the most rigorous checks apply. Agencies supplying the much less structured home care market in the independent sector have the greatest difficulty in checking applicants. Hospitals and local authorities simply do not have the time to give records of past employees and in frequent instances refuse to give references at all on grounds of legal liability. Genuine referees move on to new addresses; referees can be friends or relations of the applicant. The more enterprising applicant can give himself as the referee under a different name and address.
Furthermore, there is the growing number of individuals who arrange care for themselves under commendable initiatives by the Government, such as direct payments, which rightly encourage user choice. By their nature, these people are likely to be living on their own and to be especially vulnerable to abuse. The majority of them simply cannot be expected to find their way through the minefield of interviews and reference checks. They need a single and straightforward point of reference to give them the necessary reassurance.
There are some well organised user organisations within the care industry. These operate a code of conduct where interviews and checking are obligatory. They regard the setting up of a national care register as a matter of urgency. There is one area in particular where this would be of great value. At present, the ability to check on criminal records is hazardous. It is common for a carer to have multiple employers and to change these frequently. If these are in the same district the police may get, say, four checking requests in as many weeks and will have neither the time nor the inclination to co-operate. Nor in such circumstances will the proposed new central criminal records agency. But let us look at the position if there were to be just one central national carers register. The criminal records agency will then have only one inquiring source to deal with and communication between the two can be established in an efficient, productive and time effective way, including the vital annual update check of those already on the register.
As I have said, nothing must be done to discourage the vitally important care of the elderly by friends and relatives. But we must also have a broadly based register of carers, possibly based on a careful definition of the title "carer".
I understand that there is likely to be a delay of some one to two years before any register, however selective, is put in place and that the current thinking will apply to qualified personnel only. We simply cannot afford to wait that long, nor indeed to have such a restrictive—dare one say, èlitist—base.
The care of the elderly can be a difficult and demanding task for which there is often scant reward or even appreciation. It is in the main not very attractive work, often, as I have said, unsupervised. Until a central

563
comprehensive structure embracing substantially the whole of the industry is put in place many elderly patients will continue to be subject to abuse and in many cases physical danger. The register will not solve everything, but it will be an important first step in regularising the care sector and I do urge the Government to act and to act now.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, rightly alluded to the rhetoric of modernisation which runs through the gracious Speech. Today we have had delivered to us a White Paper, Modernising Justice. So it is creaky, antiquated, on-its-knees justice which has stuffed 60,000 people into our gaols.
I find the proposals for youth justice rather tame. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, in his excellent maiden speech, said that the emphasis of the youth justice taskforce will be on earlier intervention and on trying to change the behaviour of young people. But he pointed out that even in the limited time in which his taskforce has been in operation, it is apparent that the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 left unfinished business. He said that the courts do not do enough. In so far as the details of the proposed Bill are known to us, they do not begin to address the weaknesses to which he referred.
If the Government want to be radical and reforming, the entire system of youth courts must be overhauled. The youth justice services, co-ordinated by youth offending teams in pursuance of a youth justice plan approved by the youth justice board—all those phrases come from the Crime and Disorder Act—are a means of ensuring best practice in dealing with young people after they have been convicted. They do not deal with the process of conviction itself. Juvenile offending is caused primarily by breakdown in the family. The child is not responsible for the inadequacy of his parents who fail to inculcate ideas of honesty and behaviour which are appropriate to his age. He has not chosen his parents.
Again, a secondary cause of youth offending is failure in schools. The child is not responsible for that. He may grow up in a depressing environment with a lack of opportunity for jobs or recreation which does not stimulate or encourage him to make the most of himself. That is just his bad luck. He has drawn the outside lane in the hereditary steeplechase. But the days of responsibility will come to him. There will come a point in a young man's life when he will be held responsible for his actions. The noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, for example, savoured the come-uppance of the Hartlepool hooligan. Of course, any society has ultimately to protect itself from crime by appropriate measures of detection and punishment.
However, I am concerned with the early years of a child's life when there is a hope that he may be deterred and guided away from a life of crime. Those are not new or original thoughts. Indeed, they were echoed in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Warner. It was refreshing to hear his voice of progressive reform. That is a voice which has been drowned by the rhetoric, the baying of the dog fight, between Mr. Howard and
564
Mr. Straw over the past five or six years. It is encouraging that he is back in the Home Office to calm things down.
As long ago as 1927, the Molony Report advanced the concept that the reformation and rehabilitation of the family was the keynote of the administration of justice. Juvenile courts were seen then as the instruments of reform. Then the Children and Young Persons Acts of 1932 and 1933 brought into being the juvenile court panel of magistrates for each petty sessional division and laid down the principle that their decisions in criminal and care proceedings must have regard to the welfare of the child. But those juvenile courts, valuable though their work has been, always operated with the traditional approach which involved the adversarial process, the proof of crime, a finding of guilt and, finally, punishment. The system had benefits and safeguards of due process but it has always criminalised youngsters at far too early an age.
It is interesting that in the 1960s, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, chaired a Labour Party policy committee which perceived, quite rightly, that society would benefit by the replacement of the juvenile courts with a more welfare-oriented council in which youth offending would be decriminalised, the goal being the care and protection of children rather than punishment and deterrence. He thought in those days that such a council could act as a forum where, as a first step, the child, the parents and social workers could come together to try to agree what had gone wrong and then institute measures to put things right. Only if the facts were disputed would the matter be referred to a family court for determination.
That report, a Labour Party policy document, was followed by a Home Office White Paper in 1965 which suggested that just such a family council should be brought into being to replace the juvenile courts. It happened in Scotland. That is why the children's panels in Scotland came into being. But the publication of those proposals in England and Wales coincided with the annual meetings of the Magistrates' Association and the Justices' Clerks' Society, both of which bodies in the climate of their prejudices in those days, heavily voted down such radical reforms.
Therefore, two separate systems have grown up in Britain. It is sometimes thought that children's panels derive from some ancient Scottish practice embodied in their separate system of law. But that is not the case. Children's panels were introduced there in 1968, following the 1965 White Paper. But in England and Wales, the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, following the lead that the Magistrates' Association had shown, retained the juvenile courts and the traditional findings of guilt and punishment.
In the 1970s, following the 1969 Act, there was a dramatic increase in custody for juveniles. In the 1980s there was a more enlightened approach. Sentences of custody for males between the ages of 14 and 16 dropped from 7,700 in 1971 to 1,400 in 1991. Therefore, prison for youngsters was being reduced until the beginning of this decade. We then entered into the period when "prison works" became the cry and the

565
enlightened trend was reversed. Various events then took place. Well-established policies were turned over. Guidance in the Home Office circular which came out in 1994 limited the use of cautions to one for each offender. The 1994 criminal justice Act offered the court an increased range of sentences for 10 to 17 year-olds. Prosecutions became more regular for young people.
What we see in the Government's proposed Bill, referred to in the gracious Speech, is the idea that it will assist to lock up those young people more quickly; to process them through the juvenile court without any real thought being given to the process itself. Whereas I believe that the proposed sentence of referral to a youth offender panel is a step forward—and that, apparently, is to be proposed in the Bill—it is by no means the full answer.
In Scotland, the children's panels discuss solutions and disposals with parents and social workers in the presence of the children. In England and Wales, with the court system that we have, magistrates listen to submissions. They then retire and discuss the matter among themselves without any participation by parents and without the involvement and consent of those who are most concerned. The magistrates then give their decision and any explanation they may give—whether it is a sentence of probation, imprisonment or referral to the new panel—is confined to a few sentencing words.
Above all, the young person is still criminalised by the system which exists in England and Wales. As the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said, those young people who are socially excluded and disadvantaged need help and support as much as punishment for offending if the gaols of this country are not to become their permanent home.
It is essential that the practices and, indeed, the whole ethos of the youth court be drastically changed so that the young person is involved in what is to happen to him: that he is involved with recognising his problems and involved with working out the possible solutions. I hope that consideration will be given to that before the Bill comes forward.
The gracious Speech refers to provision for the protection of witnesses. That must be welcomed but the detail must be scrutinised with care. The noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, seemed to be asking for the modernisation of justice for policemen as opposed to that for anyone else. He referred to lawyers and the sarcasm, forcefulness and venom they use against witnesses. On the other hand, he said, the police, with all their faults, provide a good service. The noble Lord should examine rather closely what he said: perhaps he will see that he is saying that the police are all good and lawyers are all bad. I do not believe that that is quite the case. There are two misconceptions in the noble Lord's remarks and there may be two misconceptions in the Government's proposals. One is that defendants are constantly personally cross-examining the victims in rape cases. That is not so. I know of only two such cases. The Lord Chief Justice, in the Court of Appeal, has given firm guidelines to judges on how they are to deal with such a situation if it arises.
566
The other matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, referred was that irrelevant previous sexual history was brought into cross-examination for no other purpose than to embarrass the victim. That is not permitted in our courts. If it is irrelevant, it is inadmissible. Before anyone's previous sexual history is gone into in a rape case, the consent of the judge is required; it must be relevant. It may be that those provisions are addressing problems that have already been solved. I hope that witnesses will be protected when they give evidence in court, but I am concerned that the normal right of a defendant to defend himself fully and properly will be affected by the proposals that are put forward.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, before I begin, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for arriving in my seat so late. Sadly, I missed many of the earlier speeches and regret not hearing the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, particularly as she kindly came and spoke to the annual dinner of the metropolitan branch of the British Dental Association on Monday night. I also regret missing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, whose views on complementary and alternative medicine I agree with 100 per cent.—perhaps, on reflection, 95 per cent. because I support the fluoridation of water supplies and know that he does not.
As a dental surgeon I must declare an interest and will start my remarks by saying a little about fluoridation. This Government came to power with promises to reduce inequalities in health and improve access to services. Dentists looked to them to address the problems of high decay rates in deprived areas and make NHS dentistry available to all patients who wanted it. For that the Government needed to remove all barriers to the fluoridation of water: provide financial incentives for practices to be established in deprived areas; and to improve funding for NHS dentistry so that those who had been forced by low fees to concentrate more on private, independent practice would be brought back into the NHS.
The Minister will not be surprised to hear that after 18 months of the new Administration the dental profession is disillusioned. The Government have been long on promises and short on performance. They have some good ideas but those are in danger of being strangled by red tape and smothered by indecision.
Water fluoridation has been shown throughout the world to reduce tooth decay. I know that I do not have to rehearse for the Minister the arguments on the safety and efficacy of fluoride at one part per million. There are far fewer bad teeth in the West Midlands, which has been fluoridated since the 1960s, than in the North West where water companies refuse to introduce this simple public health measure. The reduction in pain, suffering and removal of teeth—especially among children—is well documented. And we know that this beneficial effect lasts even into old age, where there is a reduction in decay in the roots of teeth which is difficult to treat.

567
Sir Donald Acheson's report on reducing inequalities recommends water fluoridation as a means of achieving that.
Earlier this year in their Green Paper, Our Healthier Nation, the Government accepted the strength of the arguments for fluoridation, but a small vocal minority opposed it and the Government called for yet more discussion. No public health measure has ever been discussed or analysed so comprehensively. The dental profession look to the Government to take decisive action when they publish their forthcoming White Paper on public health.
The Minister of State has plans for a strategy for NHS dentistry. He made a speech in April promising this in the autumn. We are now at the end of the year with no sign of it. He wanted to work on it with the profession, but the formal request for this was not sent out until mid-October. Patients and dentists want to know what the Government have in store for NHS dentistry. So let us have no more delay, and perhaps a promise of action this evening, or certainly before the Christmas Recess.
The Government want to reduce oral health inequalities, meaning that dentists should be encouraged to go into unpopular places where at present it is difficult to make a practice viable. That will cost money. They will need to provide financial incentives and target resources to areas of the greatest need. Progress could be made through the Primary Care Act, brought in by the Conservative administration, by setting up personal dental services pilot studies. The first of those started in October, six months later than the equivalent medical counterpart. Progress is slow and negotiations made difficult by the Government's insistence that few extra resources would be provided.
With regard to access to NHS dentistry, the Government set up the Investing in Dentistry scheme and promised £19 million towards it. In July I asked the Minister how much of that had been allocated and was told that only £4 million had been spent. A later parliamentary Question in another place revealed that only £6 million had been spent in the first year up to 30th September, despite the fact that bids for over £20 million had been received. There was something about that on the "Today" programme this morning, and I may have missed an important government announcement. However, I should be grateful if the Minister could explain or write to me about the way that those bids are allocated. At present there appear to be no logical criteria applied to the applications, with relatively affluent areas having bids allowed and many deprived areas having no bids accepted.
Another of the Minister of State's challenges for dentists was for them to be better integrated with the NHS. Why is it that when any government paper is published, dentistry is always omitted? Dentists will not be on primary care groups, nor will they be on the NHS net—the IT network which will include all general practitioners and hospitals. There are many fine words from Ministers about the value of dentists, but few signs that they mean what they say.
The proposed legislation to "build a modern NHS" includes a provision to make changes to the Dentists' Act by order. Perhaps the Minister could give some
568
indication as to when that might happen and assure me that there will be proper and full consultation with all interested parties before any amendments to the Act are initiated.
An example of what happens when there is no consultation was highlighted by a recent decision of the General Dental Council on the administration of general anaesthetics in dental practices. Without any warning the council decreed that only specialist anaesthetists could give such anaesthetics. Those of us who have offered that type of treatment in complete safety for many years—30 years in my case—overnight were prevented from doing so. Many dentists in specialised general anaesthetic practices have dedicated their professional careers to providing general anaesthesia and now find themselves overnight without a livelihood and little hope of compensation. Some practices have been the sole provider of a general anaesthesia service in an area, receiving referrals from both the community and hospital service. That service, which is needed by patients, will now no longer exist.
For instance, my partner has worked for 30 years with a colleague providing referral general anaesthetics for general NHS dental treatment for very young or difficult children. Perhaps the Minister has not considered how difficult it may be providing dental treatment—say, five or six fillings and a couple of extractions—for a three year-old. It cannot be done in the way that most of us regard as normal; it invariably requires a general anaesthetic. Overnight the facility has had to close down.
In a Written Question about this two weeks ago I tried to draw this problem to the attention of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. Her Answers were helpful but did not convince me that the Government had fully grasped the effect that that new regulation will have on hospital waiting lists and on finances. All those patients who were treated by dental practitioners will now be referred to the hospital service where the cost is approximately 10 times greater. I estimate an average of £1,200 per patient as opposed to £120. Many of us have had to equip our surgeries with expensive monitoring instruments and other apparatus, much of which has now become superfluous. I also asked whether the Government would be in a position to compensate those dental practitioners who had to buy their own equipment and did not receive any help from the regional health authorities. In her Written Answer to my Question the noble Baroness said:
"The General Dental Council's amendment to its ethical guidance on general anaesthesia, sedation and resuscitation has not precluded the provision of general anaesthesia with dental treatment in primary care".—[Official Report; 19/11/98; col. WA220.]
I hope that the Government understand that the ruling has stopped all dentists from giving general anaesthetics and written off the £20.4 million allocated to regional health authorities between 1992 and 1994 specifically for further training and for contributing towards the cost of the mandatory equipment.
Finally, I heard yesterday that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Health have issued a notice of appeal against a supplier of dental bleaching products—the technique whereby

569
discoloured teeth can be saved from destructive crowning or veneering treatments by bleaching them at home. That treatment technique was the subject of a long and expensive High Court hearing last year which ruled in favour of the use of a CE marked bleaching product at home when prescribed by a dentist. Can the Minister say why this issue is being looked at again, who is likely to benefit and who will pay the massive costs which will inevitably arise during an appeal?
The dental profession looks to the Government to translate its ideas into action during this Session of Parliament. Dentists accept the need for change. We accept the need for modernisation, but such changes need a proper level of funding.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, we have had several days of animated and very informative discussion on the Queen's Speech and I shall be brief in an attempt to spare the stamina of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who has been here constantly for a long afternoon today.
I very much welcome the indications of the Government's determination to look further into the needs of young people, whether through the education system, through improving youth courts in our justice system, through better inspection of children's homes, or through strengthening,
"the protection of young people from abuse of trust."
I look forward to studying the proposed legislation in all these respects, including the last, where the phrase I have quoted comes in the context of the forthcoming Bill on the age of consent, a matter already addressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, and by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, on these Cross-Benches.
Since almost irrespective of how old we are, there is always the risk of being unduly influenced by those in authority over us, recognising the need for special protection of the young implies the Government's belief that, so far as sexual consent is concerned, youngsters in their mid-teens are significantly more vulnerable to undue influence than those in their late teens or older. I trust that Ministers will reflect on the implications of this belief.
I am particularly concerned in this connection about the vulnerability of the school girls who—if the consent measure is like the one we had before us in July—will be affected merely as a matter of unintended consequence. That measure would have made consensual anal intercourse legal for girls of 16 as well as for the boys of 16 at whom of course the Commons amendment was solidly directed and on whom discussion was predictably focused. This is not the occasion to address an issue better left till we have the Bill before us, but we need to bear in mind the seductive pressures—both words in multiple senses—by which girls can be lured into anal sex, from allusions to avoiding unwanted pregnancy to hints about preserving some sort of technical virginity.
570
As to what sort of "protection … from abuse of trust" is to be afforded, I would submit that the best protected are the best informed, and I have to say that I am far from assured by what I have seen of the official information at present available for teenagers. If there is any area in which the admirable goal of "joined-up government" is
"a consummation devoutly to he wished"
—and I quote "Hamlet" like the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris—this surely is it, and I would urge on the departments responsible for education, health and home affairs the need for a speedy review of officially-sponsored material on sexual health for the young.
To give just one example, and that in relation to what I said earlier. We certainly need accessible information, in the plainest language, on the dangers of anal intercourse. At present, for very good and obvious reason, there is plentiful material in this connection on HIV and AIDS, and it is said to be both influential and effective. But such is the emphasis that there is grave risk of conveying the impression that "safe sex" is achieved once the insertive partner is equipped with a condom, ignoring the danger of lesions and other damage to the receptive partner.
Certainly, the numerous leaflets attractively produced and issued by the Health Education Authority give for the most part no hint of such dangers. For example, the current leaflet entitled Sexual Health Matters for Women repeatedly conjoins references to vaginal and anal intercourse as though they were equal options on a precisely equal health footing. Indeed, the only HEA document in which I have seen a specific warning about anal sex is the one entitled Gay Men and Safer Sex where, in relation to the practice known as "fisting", we are bluntly told that this can "cause tears inside the anus". I have seen no leaflet telling girls, just as bluntly, that so too can penile penetration.
I hope that when the Minister comes to wind up, we can be given the assurance that the Government will reflect on the points I have ventured to make, not least with respect to a vigorous, well-informed, wide-ranging, and relevant health-education campaign.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract: My Lords, I shall confine my speech this evening to matters arising from the gracious Speech on health. I quote:
"A Bill will be introduced to replace the NHS internal market which put hospitals, doctors and nurses in competition with each other. In its place will be decentralised arrangements based on partnership, quality and efficiency to put doctors and nurses in the lead in shaping local services".
Your Lordships will have heard my noble friend Lord Winston caution against too much decentralisation. I follow the noble Lord's argument. I shall express the situation as I find it to be in the area in which I live. I do that only because I know that in many parts of the country we will find similar experiences.
I have recently studied the British Medical Association and Royal Colleges consultative document Provision of Acute General Hospital Services. I understand that that

571
report followed a report from a joint working party of the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Physicians in London and the Royal College of Surgeons of England which states that the effective size of a hospital to provide most acute services for medicine and surgery is one serving a population of 250,000 to 350,000. The report goes on to suggest that the ideal unit for fully comprehensive medicine and surgery is a hospital or integrated group of hospitals serving a population of 450,000 to 500,000.
While I recognise the expertise serving on the joint working party, I wonder whether we are getting too big and moving away from the loyalty and love that people have for their own hospitals. I also wonder whether these new units will become so distant that the average person will not be able to associate with them. Although I am sure that the public do understand that it may be necessary for there to be alternatives locally to hospital admission and that better outcomes may be achieved by travelling further to receive specialist services, I am sure they feel that distance should be minimised as much as possible.
When I think about the situation which is developing as to whether we have larger units, thus obliging people to travel further, I well recall the famous quote from Nye Bevan in 1947. He said:
"I would rather be kept alive in the efficient but cold altruism of a large hospital. than expire in a gush of warm sympathy in a small one".
I can well understand that. However, when we consider that hospital services in this country have grown up around traditional populations in towns and cities, it is easy to recognise people's fears that, the longer the distance is from the area that they reside in to an acute unit, the more lives may be put at risk.
Since my younger days, and up to the present time, I have been accustomed to visiting the hospital in Pontefract where I live. I do not make that point to be parochial, because I have already said that many other areas in the country are probably in the same situation. I regret it now, but in fact the services of Pontefract, which have been provided for many years, may have to change and probably move to another part of the area. That will obviously cause people to engage in much more travelling.
I recognise that Pontefract is no different from any other town. I am aware that many other authorities in the country are undertaking work to close traditional general hospitals and develop services on a single site so as to serve a much larger population. However, there is current concern in the Wakefield district, as I am sure there is in other parts of the country, over the proposals to follow this pattern. People are worried about access to services that they have traditionally found available close to their homes.
I realise that technology has moved on and that the skills of doctors need to be used to the best effect. In many cases this involves sub-specialisation where a doctor is an expert on a particular part of the anatomy rather than on a specialised subject; for example, surgery. But people are worried over the
572
balance between availability of services and the travelling time with which members of the public are increasingly having to cope.
I should like to quote a few statistics to the House, and do not apologise for doing so. I shall use them to emphasise the need for acute services in the areas such as Pontefract and Wakefield. This is quite understandable when you consider that Wakefield's aged standardised registration rates are the highest in Yorkshire for breast, lung, stomach and prostate cancer and that Wakefield's standard mortality ratio is 108 for all cancers—125 for lung cancer and 187 for cervical cancer. Moreover, Wakefield's aged standardised mortality rate is the highest in Yorkshire for lung and stomach cancers, second highest for breast cancer and third highest for prostate cancer. The five-year survival rate for breast cancer in Wakefield is joint worst in the country, at 54 per cent. For cervical cancer, Wakefield women have the second lowest five-year survival rate in the northern and Yorkshire region at 56 per cent.
I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate why the population of the Wakefield district is keen that an ideal unit for fully comprehensive medicine and surgery, equipped with the latest high quality medical and surgical services, should be provided. While people believe that the ideal would be a unit at each end of the district, as is the case at present with a general hospital at each end, it is recognised that the demand for funding of two such units is probably not realistic.
However, there is concern among a substantial number of the population because both the Wakefield Health Authority and the Pinderfield Pontefract hospital trust have made the strategic outline case for capital investment, including a preferred site. As I see it, this is the major problem and this is where the decentralisation comes in. Let us take, for example, a preferred site in an area which consists of about 315,000 people, as is the case in the Wakefield metropolitan district area—with probably 100,00 on the perimeters. If a hospital is to be built at one end of the area, like Pinderfield at Wakefield, it means that there will be no other acute services between Wakefield's Pinderfield site and York, which is something nearing 40 miles. This causes people a great deal of worry, which I am sure noble Lords will appreciate.
If the Wakefield Health Authority is successful with its bid to provide a new modern hospital—and everyone hopes that that will be so—there is a strong wish by, I think, the majority of people that it should be a site which is accessible to most of the people. I was very pleased to hear my noble friend Lady Hayman say in her opening remarks today that services should be provided around the people. If in fact areas like my own, and others in the country, are to be blessed with new facilities, which are very much needed, especially as regards acute services, I hope that they will be placed within the best possible spots, with the best possible travelling distances, for the convenience of all the people and not just a few. Those are the dangers that we face in Wakefield.

573
I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will agree that the overriding feature must be the availability of care which will improve health. I submit that there must be a middle road which needs to be investigated and identified. Of course, if the recommendations of the consultation documents are given serious consideration, then such consideration must be given to the shortest possible travelling time and access to such facilities to ensure that the NHS is serving the population, with the needs of patients being paramount.
7.59 p.m.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords, I must declare an interest as a retired professor of nursing. As such, I sat with great pleasure at the feet of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, and heard his very authoritative and sensitive analysis of the situation in nursing. I was also greatly pleased to hear the intention of the Government, as stated in the gracious Speech, to improve care in our health service and the promise of a Bill to enable doctors and nurses to work in partnership, with much more emphasis on achieving quality and measurable improvement in performance throughout the health service.
I want to return to the contribution of the nursing service to the quality of care. All our aspirations for a better quality service—the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its six-stage approach to establishing consistent clinical standards across the National Health Service—will be only a mechanistic tool unless flesh is put on the bare bones and breath is breathed into the framework by the quality of care given by individual health professionals to individual patients.
Nurses provide 80 per cent. of direct patient care and spend more time with patients than do any other health professionals. The patient's experience of nursing care is likely therefore to colour his or her experience of the health service to a great degree. There are signs that all is not well. Like many in your Lordships' House, I am distressed at the frequent reports I see in the media and hear personally about failures in care in the National Health Service. It seems to me that there are not nearly so many stories of the excellence of care that people receive in some places. Perhaps it is an occupational hazard that colleagues, friends, relatives and the people I meet tell me about their National Health Service experiences. Many are above praise but there is a disturbing increase both in informal complaints and those that reach a formal level.
Two recent examples in the press concern me. The first was a "personal view" contributed to the British Medical Journal of 21st November this year by a general practitioner. It is entitled:
"Some NHS care is unacceptable".
She describes the distressing experiences of the husband of a friend of hers who in the last 12 days of his life witnessed the appalling lack of care given to the patients around him who were also dying.
574
Evidently, the ward sister and the manager of consumer affairs—a new title since my time—agreed that the events described fell below acceptable standards of human decency but were likely to be repeated time and time again. She said:
"I see things getting worse".
She ends her personal view by saying:
"Witnessing poor care either brutalises you or outrages you. I am outraged, and I want to see acknowledgement of the problem and appropriate action".
A second recent contribution to the press was the publication of a monograph on "Trends in the Professions", edited by Digby Anderson, under the title "Come back Miss Nightingale". In his view most of the professions are now "professions without virtue". Nursing comes off not quite so badly as the Church, but the contribution on nursing written by an experienced nurse and a journalist GP recalls with nostalgia the traditional values of nursing taken from the monastic system, the uniforms based on Victorian housemaids, the Nightingale-style wards and the hospital school of nursing which, they said, generated a brand loyalty to the hospital. They looked back with nostalgia to the apprenticeship system of training, without all this high-falutin theory that is around these days. They believe that nursing has been sacrificed to feminism, careerism, to the managerial restructuring by the Salmon Committee and,
"the Socialist leanings of the nurse leaders".
In the pain of the present, when we hear so many criticisms about lack of care, I think we must beware of looking back too nostalgically to the past and invoking Miss Nightingale. She worked indefatigably not only for change in nursing but for political change. She used a disciplined statistical approach to problems and wore down successive government Ministers to the point of exhaustion. Perhaps some of us should be emulating her example.
We must look at the facts. If there are examples of poor quality care—our perception is that these are increasing—we need to look at the causes. In the same issue of the BMJ in which the personal view of the GP was published, Hugh McKenna, Professor of Nursing at the University of Ulster, responded and rightly asked why nurses who have received a rigorous and systematic education would be party to such poor quality care. How could professionals, trained to give a high quality of care, allow standards to slide so far? He rightly says that there are explanations. Some of the explanations he gives are those that were given in a debate in this House based on an Unstarred Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, on 16th June. Some of the points raised were these. We have the worst nursing shortage in 25 years, with more than 8,000 full-time posts across Britain vacant. We have the first ever shortfall in applications to nursing. There was a turnover rate of 21 per cent. in 1997. There are unfilled vacancies. And we have a retirement bulge, with 25 per cent. of registered nurses due for retirement by the year 2000. There is an acute shortage which inevitably affects the quality of care. If nurses are not there to give care, patients do not feel cared for.

575
In addition, economies have been achieved in the health service by managers substituting care assistants, excellent in their own right, for registered nurses. The skill of the nursing workforce is thereby diluted. The resulting shortage of registered nurses often makes a proper standard of care impossible to maintain.
The worst blow to the morale of nurses in the past year was the phased introduction of the pay award recommended by the pay review body. That strategy has been adopted by successive governments, but it has eroded the role of the review body. The body was advised to take affordability into account. It did so, but then its independent conclusions and the justice of the case were laid aside.
I do not believe that the recruitment of nationals from other countries or the awards to clinical specialist nurses, desirable as those are, will cure the ills of the nursing profession. Morale is seriously affected and nurses vote with their feet. They find more attractive and less demanding work elsewhere. Nurse graduates are highly desirable in other sectors of society.
The changes effected in nursing education are often made the scapegoat for the state that nursing is in. The courses are said to be too theoretical. The graduate or diploma nurse is said to be less clinically competent than the products of the old hospital-based courses. The teachers of nursing are said to have a political agenda. I think we need to distinguish between fact and fiction. Project 2000 was designed to meet the needs of the nursing workforce from the year 2000 onwards with a broadly based introduction to the theory and the practice of nursing.
Since the inception of Project 2000 there have been tremendous strides in specialist and innovative roles in nursing, described so vividly by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. I noted with pride that the first name he mentioned was that of a man who did a master's course and then a doctorate in the department of nursing at Manchester. That shows the contribution that graduates can make to the nursing profession in innovative roles and in saving the health service money.
In the future we shall need to consider carefully the role of nurses in the health service and the skills mix that we need. We talk about partnership but as nurses take over more and more functions that were once carried out by doctors we shall need to consider the skills mix and discuss between professions and across professions the kind of training that is needed. I have received from the council of deans and heads of the 64 UK university departments a paper entitled, Breaking the Boundaries, which sets out their approach to the future. They may see a graduate profession as a long-term goal in perhaps 10 years' time, but in the meantime, if standards of care are to be improved, much needs to be done as regards employment practices and the way in which nurses are helped to achieve future partnerships in the health service.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, I am the final Back-Bencher to speak on the gracious Speech. Today we have had a varied debate stimulated by the maiden
576
speech of the noble Lord, Lord Warner. As I prepared this evening's speech I wondered whether I was not to some degree responsible for the conditioning of the Prime Minister's modernising attitude to Britain. I say that because in May 1968 I was elected to the London Borough of Islington as a councillor, somewhat to my surprise I must admit. Not long afterwards I became leader of that council.
One of the first measures I had to consider was whether or not the new modernising concept of the previous Labour council with regard to estates, such as the Packington Estate, which comprise highly dense. small "boxes", was to be the way forward. I had to consider whether we should demolish the streets of late Georgian and early Victorian properties which were alleged to be slums. Indeed some of them certainly lacked the basic necessities for life. I took the view that those properties had the potential to be good homes for families. I saved great swathes of streets and squares that were due to be demolished in the forward plans. Our Prime Minister lived in one of those streets until recently. Certainly I have no regrets that he was able to live in and enjoy that lovely part of London.
That was the first experience of modernisation. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, was a member of the government when Lord Wilson introduced that first wave of the "white heat" of technology. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. may have warm memories of that period. I am glad that I opposed that plan and I am glad that I oppose three aspects of the Queen's Speech which I believe are wrong. Those three areas are the constitution, welfare and the beginnings of clear signs, in my judgment, of where the Government are going wrong with the health service. We understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, cannot be present for the end of the debate. However, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will draw to her attention what I thought was a good contribution from my noble friend Lord Colwyn on the great problems faced by the dental profession. Tomorrow I shall visit a National Health Service dental practice for a routine check-up. That is an important part of the National Health Service and should not be left to wither on the vine.
The Prime Minister claims that his is a great reforming government which will modernise Britain. Noble Lords who read the House magazine will have noted the Prime Minister's first claim; namely, that 52 Bills were put on the statute book in the first Session. That is rather like an opening batsman claiming his half century. Sadly, that does not apply to an English opening batsman, but nevertheless elsewhere in the world that is seen as an achievement. The Prime Minister failed to mention the several thousand statutory instruments which flow from the 52 Bills. Who is cheering this new burden of several thousand new instruments that have flowed from this modernisation process?
Your Lordships have spent many days discussing devolution, but I do not believe any of us have discussed to any great extent how we will alter our procedures in this House, or the other place will alter its procedures to take account of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh

577
Assembly. Your Lordships will be as aware as I am that that situation is now just six months away. Is this the modern way to plan? If we are to be a reformed second Chamber, as I understand it, should we not have a lead role in relation to devolution and other constitutional issues? I understood that our role was a revising or a refining role. However, if the House will forgive my saying so, the Government gave us hell for accepting PR on the European elections Bill but rejecting the particular system which virtually ensured that candidates were controlled by parties rather than by the electorate as such.
Now I must move a little closer to today's main topic of the health service. I think it is generally accepted that public health is affected by welfare. I think the greatest tragedy that this Government have already "chalked up" is that despite all the rhetoric and all the good will that existed following the election, they have shirked the challenge of welfare reform. I do not know why Frank Field MP was not able to drive through his proposals, but your Lordships should be quite clear that compulsory funded stakeholder pensions are as inevitable as night follows day. These would complement the basic state pension and so return to families some of the responsibility for their own welfare and relieve the state of an ever growing burden of demeaning means tested benefits. They can be delivered by mutual organisations.
I declare an interest as the chairman of one of the friendly societies. We and all the mutual organisations have no shareholders. We follow entirely the wishes of our membership. We are non-profit-making. It can be done; it must be done. It is a tragedy that that particular issue has been shirked.
At last, I turn my focus on the National Health Service. Your Lordships should know that I was the only Conservative Member of Parliament who consistently voted against the health service reforms of the government of Mrs. Thatcher. At every stage, I went into the "No" Lobby, usually on a three-line Whip. Why? First, because I believe passionately that the NHS is a public service. At that time, there were clear signs of a move to some form of privatisation. Secondly, the then Secretary of State for Health was extremely anti the medical profession. Some of your Lordships may remember the references to the doctors and their wallets. Thirdly, I could not get from that administration a clear commitment to increase real spending on the NHS.
All that changed with the successor Prime Minister, John Major. His government gave a crystal-clear commitment to increase real expenditure on the NHS and, what is more, kept to it. He encouraged, rather than coerced, GP fundholding; he refined the PPRS; and significantly reduced the waiting lists. Despite the figures announced this morning, waiting lists today are not encouraging. It is not encouraging to know that the number of people waiting for more than 12 months has doubled since the election.
What do we have now? I speak as one who lives and works alongside a medical family. GP fundholding has been destroyed. All the ethos and spirit of successful group practices managing their own budgets, helping
578
their patients, fighting for their patients, and saving money have been destroyed. Yes, that involved pitting one hospital against another to see which could do the better job and better respond to its patients' needs, but I repeat that all the good aspects of GP fundholding have gone. It is a tragedy.
Yes, there was bureaucracy. As one who, wearing my friendly society hat, works in the financial services industry, I have to say that if you want to see bureaucracy, cast an eye in that direction. Bureaucracy is even worse in that industry than in the NHS.
Sadly, nearly all that doctor-patient, practice-patient momentum has now gone. I understand that we are entering a brave new world in which co-operative primary care groups will look after 100,000 patients. As I hope that my background and life show, I believe that there is nothing wrong with co-operatives. However, leadership is needed in any group. In my judgment, as things stand, primary care groups are a recipe for confusion, inaction, and for resources being wasted on more bureaucracy. Clearly, local authorities will want to be involved. Alongside them are the commissioning health authorities and, of course, there must be the primary care trust boards. I ask Ministers: What will happen to all the little, but very important initiatives, which most practices were creating? Sadly, many of those have already been snuffed out as there is no money to fund them. That is already happening.
The second major area of health on which I want to comment is the PPRS. That is the mechanism for the interface between the NHS, as the purchaser of drugs, and the pharmaceutical industry. As your Lordships will know, we do not have price control in this country. We have a system that seeks to ensure that we have a profitable and responsible pharmaceutical industry. The system encourages research in the UK, encourages investment in new plant and encourages exports of pharmaceuticals. It has worked well under governments of all political persuasions. When I was a Member of another place, I served on the Public Accounts Committee. We investigated in depth the PPRS. Across all political parties, we came to the view that it was a good and sound system and that it worked well in the interests of the NHS, the pharmaceutical industry and patients in general. What on earth are the present Government doing? It is reported that they are considering dismantling that scheme. Perhaps the Minister can reassure us that that is not the position; if not, perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, who I note is not in her place, will write to me and explain the situation.
The third area on which I should like to comment relates to the number of doctors. I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Winston. There is a national shortage of doctors. There may be a degree of prejudice on my part in what I am about to say—I hope not—but I believe that part of that shortage is because 50 per cent. of our medical students are female. I understand that we must have equality of opportunity, but all the analyses suggest that relatively few of them go on to be full-time practitioners, whether in general practice or in one of the other medical disciplines. That creates a shortage.

579
Another cause of the shortage is that 25 per cent. of our doctors are trained outside the EEC. In addition, a huge number of doctors are coming up to retirement in the next five or six years. As one must add to that the fact that probably 10 to 15 per cent. of our doctors come from the EEC, surely it is time to recognise that one cannot have a health service without sufficient doctors, however important the nursing profession—and I listened with interest to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane of Llandaff. In my judgment, the vast majority of doctors should be UK-trained. That matter needs urgent attention.
If the Government are sincere in their modernising mode, that should be transparent. We still spend far too little of our gross national product on the NHS. At last, all political parties agree that there should be a public national health service. I suggest that it is time to reach agreement on how to move forward to increase the growth of the NHS budget.
Let us openly recognise that we ration treatment by way of the waiting lists. If we do not want to ration treatment—I suspect that no Member of your Lordships' House wants that—we must provide more resources. Let us all recognise that new drugs are vital. Let us leave the PPRS alone. Let us forget about limited formularies, black lists and white lists. Let the clinicians—not the bureaucrats—decide what is best for us, the patients. Let us try to find common ground, based on clinical excellence, and a consistent, stable framework, in which our doctors and all their support services can flourish. If we do not do that, I fear that all that we shall see ultimately are "illusions of progress" rather than real medical advances.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, may I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Warner, on his masterly contribution. He brings with him considerable experience, which will go a long way towards a balanced and reasoned approach to youth justice. I see that the noble Lord is not in his place, but perhaps the Minister will convey our good wishes to him.
I can do no better than follow up some of the points made by my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank in response to Her Majesty's gracious Speech. My noble friend was generous in awarding 9 out of 10 to the Government for trying, and 7 out of 10 for getting it right. I, too, am in a generous mood, having seen the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, rubbing his eyes on at least 10 occasions. I have always awarded the noble Lord 10 out of 10 for humour and 9 out of 10 for the content of his contribution to this House. He lost a point by "tripping over" on at least three occasions in the previous Session. It is right and proper that I draw his attention to that.
Perhaps I may take up some of the matters that have caused us concern. On 25th August 1998 the Prime Minister announced that Parliament would be recalled on 2nd and 3rd September to consider new anti-terrorism legislation following the Omagh bombing on 15th August. Contained in the same legislation were the provisions to amend the Criminal Law Act 1977 to
580
make it an offence to conspire to pursue a course of conduct that would amount to an offence where it was intended that the conduct would take place in a country or territory outside the UK.
Let me say straightaway that, while we on this side of the House had no hesitation in supporting the peace process in Northern Ireland, I believe that Parliament did not give sufficient time for the scrutiny of provisions relating to international terrorism. I therefore wish to stress that on future occasions we shall certainly press the Minister for the review and discussions in this House about this aspect of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act. I am sure that the concern expressed by many noble Lords at that time justifies that course of action.
During the passage of the Human Rights Act we on this side of the House pressed for a human rights commission to be established in this country. We argued that a commission is essential in Britain, as is now the case in Northern Ireland. We believe that such a commission would help public authorities comply with the new Human Rights Act and ensure access to justice. I urge the Minister to study the strong case made by the Institute of Policy and Public Research. In a foreword to the recently published book on a human rights commission, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, has this to say:
"For me, the most important benefit of a commission is that it will assist in creating a culture in which human rights are routinely observed without the need for continuous intervention by the courts. Human rights will only be a reality when this is the situation".
We need a commission that is independent of Parliament and of other interests.
We welcome the proposal for a disability rights commission, and we welcome the review of the race and sex equality laws announced this morning. Equally, as the gracious Speech pointed out, as we commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we appreciate that the Government remain committed to the effective promotion of human rights worldwide. Towards that aim, we shall certainly press the Government to establish a human rights commission here, as they have done in Northern Ireland.
The third matter that I wish to raise relates to an important amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, during the passage of the Crime and Disorder Act. He advocated, and we on this side supported, the establishment of a standing advisory council on criminal justice and the penal system. The matter was carried by this House, only to be rejected in the other place. I do not wish to rehearse all the arguments again: suffice it to say that sentencing tariffs have increased in our courts. The establishment of a relatively independent and dispassionate mechanism will certainly be helpful, particularly to ensure that crime and penal policies are not hijacked for political opportunism and other considerations.
Of course we welcome the work of the Criminal Justice Consultative Council and its area committees. We should study its revised terms of reference carefully. But we remain concerned that the Government did not accede to the weight of support from Members of all parties in this House.

581
The Queen's Speech contains some welcome proposals in the area of youth justice and improved protection for vulnerable witnesses. However, I hope that we shall take into account the concerns already expressed by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. The proposed youth justice reforms include a new system for referring young offenders facing their first court appearance to a "youth panel", which would agree a contract with them regarding reparation and work to tackle the causes of offending. Once a young offender has completed the contract, his or her conviction would be regarded as "spent". That provision has worked successfully in the United States, and I believe that the same would happen in this country. We shall need to examine the details of the legislation carefully. However, in principle this is an imaginary first step towards a system that places more emphasis on preventing re-offending than on over-formalised court proceedings, which often mean very little to young offenders and their parents. The procedure of a youth court panel should make it easier to involve offenders and their parents in taking responsibility for a youngster's actions and agreeing on actions to make amends.
I wish to draw attention to four areas of policy that were not mentioned in the Queen's Speech and on which further action is urgently needed. The first is the need to relieve the pressure on the prison system. The prison population has risen by over 60 per cent. since the end of 1992, from just over 40,000 to around 66,000. That has reduced the ability of prisons to provide constructive regimes; it has led to many prisoners being placed in distant prisons, which makes it difficult to maintain family links; and it has halted much of the progress that the Prison Service made in the early 1990s following the Woolf Report.
The Government have now set in train some welcome steps to reduce the prison population--in particular a new scheme for the early release of selected non-violent prisoners under a "home detention curfew" monitored by electronic tagging, which comes into operation on 28th January. However, if prisoners are subject to a home detention curfew, they must first have a home. There are presently problems within the Probation Service across the country. Probation services in some areas are advising that hostels in their area are suitable for home tagging, but other probation areas are ruling out the possibility. Will the Government take steps to bring about consistency between areas and to ensure that suitable prisoners who can be safely tagged in voluntary hostel accommodation can benefit from the new scheme? Will Ministers also take every opportunity to advance in public the powerful arguments for reducing our over-use of imprisonment?
The second area is the resettlement of short-term prisoners. Those prisoners who are sentenced to less than 12 months' imprisonment do not receive statutory supervision on release. They are the ones in need of help. However, this area of probation work is given lower priority. There is also the role of voluntary organisations, including NACRO, of which I am chair. It is particularly important in ensuring that this group of
582
prisoners receives the help they need to avoid returning to crime and prison. Will the Government undertake a national monitoring of partnership arrangements between the Probation Service and voluntary organisations, together with a review of present financial arrangements, with the aim of reducing the current patchiness of resettlement provision for this large group of prisoners and ensuring that the role of the voluntary sector is fully recognised and adequately resourced?
The third area is that of sex offenders. The Government have introduced a series of measures that will help reduce the risk posed by such offenders, of which the most important is the new power introduced in September to order extended supervision on release from prison. However, if supervision is to be fully effective, it must be reinforced with an adequate number of sex offender treatment programmes, both inside and outside prison. Research has found that treatment programmes can significantly reduce the likelihood of re-offending. In recent years, both the Prison Service and the Probation Service have greatly increased the number of treatment programmes for sex offenders. However, two-thirds of those discharged from prison have not been through such a programme. Will the Government ensure that adequate resources are provided to increase further the number of such programmes, together with the staff training that is needed to ensure their quality and effectiveness?
The fourth area is the crucial one of race and criminal justice. My noble friend Lord Meston drew attention to that. The proceedings of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry have not only brought into the open the inadequate police response to racially motivated crime; they have also highlighted the wider lack of confidence of many black and Asian people in the criminal justice process. For example, the way that institutional racism in the operation of such police powers as stop and search has alienated many black people, especially young black people, from the agencies responsible for law enforcement.
We hope that the Government will take speedy action to implement any proposals of the Lawrence inquiry designed to combat discrimination by criminal justice agencies in their treatment of people from minority ethnic groups.
I turn now to the subject of immigration and asylum. I do not know whether it was intentional, but the "F" word appears prominently in the White Paper: Fairer, Faster and Firmer—A Modern Approach to Immigration and Asylum. We shall scrutinise the legislation to see that fairness has not been sacrificed in preference to a faster and firmer policy. I have argued on previous occasions that the heavy emphasis on excluding the ineligible, rather than giving prompt and sympathetic attention to the rights of the eligible has led to administrative practices which bear with particularly adverse effects on genuine asylum seekers.
The proposed asylum and immigration Bill will be the third piece of legislation in this area to pass through this House since 1993. The Government have quite rightly described the current situation as a shambles and it is in everyone's interest that we get the legislation

583
right once and for all. The challenge that is presented to us is trying to find the right balance between the fairer, faster and firmer components of the Bill and not sacrificing one component in the pursuit of others.
There are several aspects of the Bill which give us cause for concern. For example, the use of certain pre-entry controls, such as airline liaison officers, which may prevent refugees from getting out of the countries in which they are being persecuted; the extension of police powers for search, entry and seizure to immigration officers who are not as accountable as the police officers; the failure to recognise that good quality legal advice at all stages of the asylum application has a central role to play in making the system both fairer and faster; the Government's decision not to repeal Section 8 of the 1996 Act which forces employers to check the immigration status of employees, despite having opposed it while they were in opposition.
However, in the short time that is available to me, I wish to concentrate my remarks on two issues in the Bill which are of particular concern to us. I begin with the proposal to set up a cashless support system for all asylum seekers. While we welcome the fact that the Government will ensure that support for asylum seekers will once again be a national responsibility and not a burden placed on a small number of local authorities, we are worried that the new system may be worse than the current one.
In their own White Paper, the Government recognised that their proposed cashless system will be more cumbersome to administer and more expensive per person to run. Many asylum seekers who have been dependent on the National Assistance Act for their survival have suffered severe hardship, as illustrated by the Refugee Council's report Just Existence. We very much hope that good quality advice and the appropriate approach to that group of people will result in a remedy in terms of their needs.
I wish to take the second policy area which we are concerned about relating to the detention of asylum seekers. The current system operates in an arbitrary way and allows asylum seekers to be detained in prisons or detention centres for unlimited periods of time, without giving them an automatic judicial review of the decision to detain. The Government propose to reform the system to give all detained asylum seekers an automatic bail hearing after seven days, which is a positive but inadequate initiative.
We believe that there is ample opportunity and I wish to congratulate the Home Office on trying to effect an integrated approach to the management of casework, both at the immigration and nationality department and abroad in entry clearance posts and to draw a line under recent legislation.
We welcome the right of appeal for refused visitors. Equally we welcome a pilot project for a financial bond, but as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, let us hope that it does not discriminate against those who cannot make sums easily available.
584
We welcome the commitment to set up a statutory scheme for immigration advisers, but this must also include members of the legal professions who are governed by the code of conduct of their professional body.
There are exciting times ahead. I shall not only look at the ministerial Bench for a positive response to our concerns but also at the Opposition to see whether they have had a change of heart after the disastrous penal policies of the previous government.
Britain is often held as an example to the world. The way we regulate our policies on home affairs will have a bearing on what will happen in other parts of the world. Our policies must be legal, decent, honest and true. They must be accompanied by dignity, fairness and justice. Take away any of those ideals and we lose our claims to being a civilised society.
8.44 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, seeing the sufferings of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, the Minister responsible for health, one might be tempted to indulge in a bit of schadenfreude. However, suffering from a similar bug, I extend to her my deepest sympathy and commiserations. I offer to the House an apology for my voice and throat. I hope that they will last for the few remarks I wish to make in winding up the debate.
As was said earlier, I was originally under the impression that in winding up I would have to wind up five days of debate. I decided at an early stage that I had no intention of so doing. My noble friends on these Benches have adequately wound up the earlier debates. I shall therefore concentrate my remarks largely on this afternoon's debate, particularly—as my noble friend Lord Howe said—on my Front Bench interest in home affairs. I shall leave it to the Minister whether he wishes to take up the challenge of trying to sum up all five days of debate; it is a matter for him. I am not sure that it is necessary on this occasion. I shall devote my efforts this evening, as I imagine he will, to the remarks we have heard from this evening's speakers, particularly those who are still with us.
I also offer my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, on his maiden speech. He brings an enormous wealth of experience from both the Civil Service and local authority social services and as special adviser to the Home Secretary and chairman of the newly-created Youth Justice Board for England and Wales. We look forward to his active participation in the House. He kindly referred to one of my former noble friends, the late Lady Faithfull. He explained how formidable had been her work for children over the years. For a number of years I sat in front of her and I can bear witness to the formidable nature of some of her work. I probably still bear the scars to prove it, as I suspect the noble Lord, Lord Carter, knows.
This debate has, as always, been one where we have gone beyond matters confined to the gracious Speech and departmental subjects suggested as topics for today's debate. I make no objection; it is one of the strengths of these debates. We have ranged high and low. My noble friend Lord Astor of Hever, with his

585
experience of RoSPA, spoke of the dangers of accidents at home. We heard a great deal about medical training from the noble Lord, Lord Winston. Many of us were amused by his remark that, "I learnt my anatomy by cutting people open". Alarmed looks appeared on faces around the House.
We heard about the problems of people with learning difficulties and their access to justice from the noble Lord, Lord Rix. My noble friend Lord Annaly, spoke about similar problems for deaf people. We heard not only of mainstream health matters, but of complementary medicine from the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley. We even had references to "Hamlet" and "The Divine Comedy" as we have come to expect from the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris.
I shall not go into the vast range of subjects covered, but there has been a large number and some of them went wide of the subjects we have been debating. At this stage I wish to pick up a small point made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, who called for more discrimination legislation. I do not argue that particular case at this moment, but I should like to make one small point, on which I hope I might get some support from the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, purely in terms of the use of English. I would be most grateful if in the future one could talk about "unfair discrimination" at work or wherever. I think it is very important that we are seeing what might be termed the bastardisation of the use of that word "discrimination". I see a nod from the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. I find it very sad that one can no longer talk with praise about a person being "a man of some discrimination". We all have to discriminate when we interview people for jobs and when people apply for a post. What we are talking about is unfair discrimination, and I think it is very important that we maintain the distinction.
As I said, we are here to debate Her Majesty's gracious Speech and the various commitments made in the Speech in the fields of health and home affairs. As I said, I intend to concentrate on home affairs. We heard in the gracious Speech of three particular Bills that were to be introduced and legislated upon this Session. One Bill will be introduced to modernise the youth courts and to give greater protection to vulnerable witnesses against intimidation in criminal cases. Parliament will also be given the opportunity to vote on the age of consent; and a Bill will be introduced to modernise the law on immigration and asylum, including the appeals system and support arrangements for asylum seekers.
We also heard of the draft Bill relating to freedom of information. Perhaps I might start by saying a word or two about that draft Bill. As the noble Lord the Minister will be aware, we discussed this very briefly at Question Time on Monday. The noble Lord made it quite clear in his first Answer that this draft Bill would be subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny by another place and by another place's Select Committee for Public Administration. When pressed, the noble Lord accepted that if this House wished it, it would be possible to have the pre-legislative scrutiny but that would be a matter for
586
the usual channels. That is slightly at odds with the precise words of the gracious Speech, which made it clear that the Bill would be given pre-legislative scrutiny in both Houses.
This is important, and I would be very grateful for some assurance from the noble Lord as to what exactly the Government have in mind in terms of pre-legislative scrutiny for this House. It could possibly be some Moses Committee type of procedure, with the noble Lord and the appropriate members of the Opposition Front Benches being involved. I imagine it could be something much closer to our European Communities Committee work. However, I do have to ask him whether he could spell out to the House this evening exactly what is being proposed and how it will operate. This is an important matter because to publish Bills in draft is a relatively new idea and one that might in time grow if that would ease the work of Parliament. I make no particular comment on whether that is necessarily a good or bad thing, but if we are going down this route I think it is very important that we should get our procedures right, and right from the start.
I should like to turn to the other three Bills very briefly—three Bills that we have obviously not yet seen and which we will be able to debate in detail when they come to this House, though we have had the benefit of a number of White Papers which set out what I imagine will largely be in the Bills.
Perhaps I could start by talking about the asylum Bill, the subject of a White Paper published last July, Fairer, Faster and Firmer: a Modern Approach to Immigration and Asylum. As the noble Lord will be well aware—he takes the trouble to read the White Papers with great care—this makes a number of recommendations about what will be needed in legislation. I perhaps might refer in particular to paragraph 13.12 where different legislative possibilities are set out chapter by chapter. Can the noble Lord say whether other matters will be included in this Bill? For example, he will remember there was the issue of unscrupulous immigration advisers and that problem was set out in the January 1998 consultation paper. Can the noble Lord give an assurance that these matters will be included in the Bill and be addressed on this occasion?
Regarding youth justice, I refer to a report, rather than a White Paper, which was produced by an interdepartmental group, entitled Speaking Up for Justice. That made some 78 recommendations, some of which, I imagine, will require primary legislation, although others will not. I presume that the Bill relating to youth justice will be based on that. Again I should be grateful for confirmation from the noble Lord that that is the case.
I turn now to the Bill relating to the age of consent and to the fact that the gracious Speech referred to the Bill giving strength to the protection of young people. A number of your Lordships, including my noble friend Lady Seccombe, the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Winchester and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred to this particular Bill. As the noble Lord will be only too well aware, there is enormous concern about the Bill: the noble Lord

587
was on the receiving end of considerable discussion some time last July when, regrettably, I was not able to be in my post and left the matter to others.
We are grateful for the fact that the Government will seek, as they put it, to strengthen the protection of young people. That says something about the work of this House and what this House achieved on that occasion. If we had not made that stand then, we would have a lower age of consent without any attempt by the Government to offer some protection to young people. However, I have to say that we shall wait with interest to see whether the Bill will achieve exactly what it says. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to show, either now or later, that that will be the case. I can assure him that he will again have a very interesting time, if I can put it in those terms, on that Bill in this House. He knows that it is something on which the party Whips will not be operating and he also knows that it is a matter on which many people on both sides of the argument feel extremely strongly. I will not attempt to explore those arguments this evening.
Another Bill which I imagine comes within the ambit of this evening's debate was given its First Reading by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor this afternoon: the Access to Justice Bill. Obviously in the time available I have not been able to see that Bill and I shall not set out any strong views on it. All I can say from these Benches is that we are very grateful that the noble and learned Lord is giving this House the opportunity to debate the Bill first. That will certainly ease the pressures on the business managers in due course in what is going to be a relatively busy but perhaps shorter Session, in that we have begun it somewhat later.
I would ask the noble Lord the Minister when he comes to reply to say whether the question has been addressed as to whether the Bills to which I have referred—or for that matter other Bills which have been dealt with during the four or five days—could start in this House. I know we are having a social security Bill, I think, some time next week and others will follow. I should be particularly grateful if the noble Lord could respond—I say this personally—in relation to Home Office Bills. I could then make my own arrangements with greater ease.
There is a last point that I wanted to deal with in my brief remarks, again moving beyond the contents of the gracious Speech. In opening, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, almost as an aside, slipped in a reference to the fifth report of the noble Lord, Lord Neill, on the funding of political parties in the United Kingdom. I believe that the noble Baroness told the House that the Government would publish a draft Bill in the summer but made no mention of precisely what would be in it other than that it would deal with the funding of political parties. Noble Lords will be well aware that in his fifth report the noble Lord, Lord Neill—I have checked it very carefully following the remarks of the noble Baroness—made about 100 different recommendations. Not all of them were related directly to the funding of political parties. Some dealt with honours, the media and advertising and the establishment of an election commission.
588
Speaking from memory, recommendations 83 to 93 referred to the conduct of referendums. Over the past 20 to 25 years increasing use has been made of referendums. I believe that if they are to be seen by the people (if I may use a word that is often on the lips of the new Government) as both fair and valid, it is important that a proper set of rules is established. Therefore, I ask the Minister to give a commitment that the Government will sign up to all of Neill and not simply cherry-pick those parts of the report that they want and reject the rest.
We are all aware of the use made of referendums by various unsavoury demagogues in the past and that the desired result can be achieved by careful phrasing of the question. I revert to the light-hearted story told by the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, about the injured man who is asked how he is feeling and responds that he is very well. The idea behind it, as the noble Lord put it, is that one usually gets the desired answer if the question is phrased in the right way. There are concerns about referendums. If they are to be used more frequently, it is vitally important that they should be seen to be valid. Therefore, it is very important that the recommendations made by Neill are adopted. I ask the noble Lord to give very serious consideration to the reproduction of all 100 recommendations in the draft Bill that will appear in the summer.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is not feeling well this evening. I advise him to bear it with resignation! He said that these days it was not right to speak of a man of some discrimination. I respectfully disagree. In my experience, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, was indeed a man of some discrimination and a man of his word. Since he has done something that the control freaks in Conservative Party Central Office do not like he is subject to instant dismissal. On a personal basis, I am very sorry that he has gone. Agree or disagree, he was a very good servant of this House.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am not sure whether the Opposition Front Bench as presently constituted will be the same tomorrow. One has the feeling that the lights are on but there is no one at home. It is a privilege to be able to cast these few words before a depleted House, apart from our Front Bench which is notably full and talented.
The indicative convention is that I should aim to finish in 20 minutes and I shall do my very best. One parlour game parodied in "Monty Python" involved the task of encapsulating Proust in 20 seconds. This feels like just such a task.
First, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Warner on his notable speech which was full of authority and experience. In the nature of things—I respond to what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, indicated as being more appropriate—I should focus essentially today on home affairs matters. In the previous Session legislation dealing with crime and disorder, human rights, data

589
protection, registration of political parties and terrorism and conspiracy was delivered. Crime and disorder legislation has had a substantial welcome across the whole spectrum, from the Prison Service, the police, the Probation Service and, to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, not least the voluntary organisations. This is a platform of co-operative partnership and it is the first step on the way ahead.
The Human Rights Act was modified following various requests in your Lordships' House specifically to protect freedom of expression for the media and freedom of religious belief. The Data Protection Act also protected the media as well as the individual. The Registration of Political Parties Act was significantly amended as a result of requests by the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Henley. I am grateful that the Terrorism and Conspiracy Act had all-party support, although I recognise that some people still have lingering doubts.
In the coming Session we are looking fundamentally at step two in the attack on the failure of the criminal justice system to deliver public confidence and protection. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Henley, given his particular request, that the new Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill will be introduced in this House tomorrow. I do not believe that I can respond much more promptly than that. (We have an hour or so later this evening and perhaps it can be done.) Along those lines we have commissioned another first-rate document that has been out for consultation: the Prison/Probation Review. That consultation finished on 27th November. That is another indicator that we must work co-operatively with the relevant agencies. It has been a serious blot that different agencies that deal with exactly the same group of mainly young offenders have worked in isolation. That is a cause of shame and regret to us all.
The next point may be of general assistance to the House. What we propose—the Leader is writing to this effect to those who may be interested—is that as a matter of general practice after Second Reading and before Committee stage, when noble Lords have digested the text of a Bill, we will offer the same opportunity that we offered, with some success, on the Human Rights Bill, the Data Protection Bill, the Government of Wales Bill and the Crime and Disorder Bill. Noble Lords in any part of your Lordships' House who may be interested may, together with their advisers if they prefer, have meetings with officials and Ministers so that detailed questions can be put in the hope that matters can be resolved in that way. I hope that noble Lords will regard that, first, as a generous approach and, secondly, as one that is likely to be fruitful if it is worked at co-operatively. I think that that is a useful mechanism which does not necessarily require pre-legislative scrutiny in the formal way in which Mr. Rhodri Morgan's committee will consider freedom of information.
On freedom of information, our minds are entirely open. If the noble Lord thought that the Moses Room Committee procedure were appropriate, I should have a
590
good deal of sympathy. However, one needs to consult all political parties represented in this House through the usual channels in the usual way.
The new Bill to be introduced in this House tomorrow will, as a matter of central significance, include referral to the youth offender panel. That is entirely novel—the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is quite right—in the context of the English and Welsh jurisdictions. It means that for the first time young offender, who critically at present slips through the net and is not stopped and assisted, there will be included a contract of programmes and activities to address the causes of offending behaviour, including familial problems, underlying psychiatric problems and, in particular, the scourge of our time, drug addiction. All those contracts will involve reparation either to the victims—which is not always appropriate for various reasons—or to the wider community.
The temptation to read out the contents of notes on these occasions is almost overwhelming and I shall be underwhelmed.
I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on his new position as Leader of the Opposition in this House.
A noble Lord: Tell us more!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my lips are sealed.
We must protect witnesses, whether they are vulnerable female witnesses in allegations of rape or sexual assault or domestic violence. We have to think of the position of children. They have not been properly looked after in the context of the criminal justice system. I am afraid that statistical research evidence—I do not refer to anecdotes—demonstrates that 75 per cent. of children who have been abused sexually or physically have said that had they known what they would have to go through in the court process they would never have reported the alleged crime in the first place. We have failed a significant segment of our population. The question of evidence about previous sexual behaviour has already been dealt with. That will be in the Bill.
The asylum Bill will deal with what the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, rightly described as a present national shambles and disgrace. We want to be fair. We want to be firm. We want to have judicial involvement. We have set ourselves some pretty firm targets which we intend to meet.
There will be the age of consent Bill. We have our ECHR commitment to that. It will equalise the age of consent for homosexuals and heterosexuals. As I said on the last occasion the matter was discussed in your Lordships' House, and responding in particular to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, the measure will provide for a criminal offence specifically focused to protect boys and girls where they are particularly vulnerable or where the position of trust is particularly strong. We also want to take forward an initiative to strengthen codes of conduct generally to protect the 16 and 17 year-olds from sexual advances from those in a position of trust.

591
It may well be that the European Parliamentary Election Bill will return to your Lordships' House, but I do not wish to intrude indecently into private grief. I do not therefore outline the substance of its provisions.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, asked about the Access to Justice Bill which was introduced by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. That is appropriate in the context. (Perhaps I may say that it is possible to read two documents at the same time. It makes one cross-eyed, but not cross—I have some good news in a moment.) The Lord Chancellor's initiative will be the first effective measure for rather more than a century to make a determined attack on the deficiencies of our justice system, which plainly does not deliver speed, efficiency or true access.
On the funding of political parties, one has read the report of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Neill, with care. There were 100 recommendations. We intend to have a draft Bill published before the Summer Recess next year. That will give political parties and everyone else who has an interest the opportunity to comment. We shall consider all representations made to us. Whether or not the Bill will contain matters about referenda remains to be seen.
I turn briefly to health issues. What the noble Baroness said is critical if we are to have a functioning health service in this country. The new Bill is a key element of our 10-year programme to modernise the system in England, Scotland and Wales. The key to it all is partnership. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane of Llandaff, who spoke on the issue and the noble Lord, Lord Morris or Castle Morris, about the essential function of nurses. Our representations to the review body have stated that we must have a fair system of pay for nurses because it is an essential prerequisite to the modernisation and proper functioning of a National Health Service. But it is not only nurses and doctors who are in the partnership. Let us not forget the many hundreds of thousands of other workers who do unsung, unspectacular work day in and day out. Their
592
work is not very glamorous; it is not always very well rewarded. But they are extremely important and I pay my own tribute to them.
The quality of debate over the past five days has been remarkable. I have heard every speech in your Lordships' House today. When there were other meetings concerned with the possibility of a consensual approach to matters of reform in your Lordships' House it was occasionally necessary for colleagues to be absent from the Chamber. That was not discourteous and was not intended as discourtesy; it was imperative. I have read every Hansard entry. They are a remarkable tribute to the degree of expertise which presently resides in this House. I do not believe that one can say that any contribution fell below the high standards to which we are all accustomed. I do not suggest that I agree with every observation made, but it was a coup to have such a spectrum of discussion concentrated into five days in a way which was economic but at the same time informative.
What we are about—I do not care whether it is called "modernisation" or any other word, because any word becomes jargon if it is used more than once or twice—and intend to deliver is the transformation of our civil society. Of course we are proud of our country. We are proud of our past, but our eyes are on the future. And there is a confident future for this country if we want to work together and modernise ourselves. We have slipped sometimes; we have been slothful; we have lived on previous undoubted glories. One can understand that. I have no shame in saying that I am proud to be in such a decent country. But it is a decent country which we can make even better.
I am grateful for the privilege of being able to sum up the debate relatively briefly—seven minutes less than I was aiming for—and I hope that I have dealt with it satisfactorily in your Lordships' minds. I am content to sit down from the Dispatch Box and to take my place once more on a Front Bench which was not driven to mass resignation.
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past nine o'clock.

  Sustainable Development and Environmental Protection
  Sustainable Development and Environmental Protection
  Modernising Justice
  Modernising Justice
  Rights of Audience: Response to Consultation
  Rights of Audience: Response to Consultation
  Education: Additional Funding
  Education: Additional Funding
  Teachers: Fast-track Dismissals
  Teachers: Fast-track Dismissals
  House of Lords: Powers
  House of Lords: Powers
  Comprehensive Schools: Minimum Size
  Comprehensive Schools: Minimum Size
  Motorway Hard Shoulder Accidents
  Motorway Hard Shoulder Accidents
  Cabinet Committee on Productivity and Competitiveness
  Cabinet Committee on Productivity and Competitiveness
  Mental Illness: Combating Stigma
  Mental Illness: Combating Stigma
  Fluorides: Sources
  Fluorides: Sources
  Health Improvement Programmes and the Voluntary Sector
  Health Improvement Programmes and the Voluntary Sector
  NHS Trusts: Directors' Remuneration
  NHS Trusts: Directors' Remuneration
  Licensing Laws
  Licensing Laws
  Medway Secure Training Centre
  Medway Secure Training Centre
  TWH Management Ltd.
  TWH Management Ltd.