Sitting of 5 November 1998

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time, and committed.

  BODMIN MOOR COMMONS BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Wednesday 11 November.

  ALLIANCE AND LEICESTER PLC (GROUP REORGANISATION) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Wednesday 11 November.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—
  TREASURY

    Hypothecation
    Mr. Donald Gorrie: What assessment he has made of the advantages of extending the principle of hypothecation in the tax system. [56858]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Byers): In general, the Government determine their expenditure according to need, not according to the sources of their revenue. However, we will continue to look at each case on its merits.
    Mr. Gorrie: The answer is encouraging in so far as it goes. The first stage should be to find a more friendly word. "Hypothecation", like subsidiarity, is an excellent concept but not a good word—perhaps we should use the word "earmarking". What will the Government do to encourage the earmarking of national or local taxes or charges for a specific related purpose? For example, office parking charges or road pricing could fund improvements in local public transport or, as Lord Marshall proposed, national taxes on energy could be spent on energy efficiency.
    Mr. Byers: We said in our transport White Paper that we would consider carefully any pilot schemes in which revenues were earmarked for particular purposes. Our general view is that we need, as a Government, to identify
    994
    our own priorities. That is why we have committed £40 billion to hospitals and schools over the period of the comprehensive spending review—spending that Her Majesty's official Opposition have still not supported.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his answer will give great encouragement? He said that he would look at the issue on its merits, which I have never before heard said about this matter; so I am grateful for that. I share the usual Treasury view that hypothecation is a danger. However, there is a case for it in one instance—the national health service. Expenditure on the health service will not fall, which is one of the problems with hypothecation, and an increase in any tax related to health service expenditure could command widespread support.
    Mr. Byers: There are always presentational arguments for earmarking taxation, but the Government's fundamental principle is that we need to identify our priorities as a Government and allocate resources accordingly. The health service will, of course, benefit from that approach, as we are committing an extra £21 billion to it over the three years from next April. Moreover, on Tuesday, in his pre-Budget report, the Chancellor committed a further £250 million this year to ensure effective health care across the country.
    Mr. David Ruffley: On earmarking tax revenues, may I draw the attention of the Chief Secretary to a report in The Independent today, which states that Ministers want to let the married couples allowance "wither on the vine"? Is that report true? If so, would that not represent yet another tax increase on childless married couples?
    Mr. Byers: I have not seen that report. One of the reasons that I do not read The Independent is that I do not always believe the stories that it covers. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait and see, but, if I were him, I would not rely on reports in The Independent.

    Productivity Seminars
    Jane Griffiths: If he will make a statement on his recent productivity seminars. [56859]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): With business, we are putting in place a strategy to tackle the long-term economic weakness of a 40 per cent. productivity gap between this country and our most successful competitors. The pre-Budget report sets out what we must do in the coming year to help to equip the British economy for the challenges ahead.
    Jane Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in constituencies such as mine, where unemployment is almost zero, there is no cause for complacency, and that productivity is a key to achieving all our targets?
    Mr. Brown: I agree that productivity is a central issue for the British economy. The director-general of the Confederation of British Industry told its conference that our productivity is 37 per cent. behind that of the United States and that the big picture is clear. The CBI agrees about the action that is necessary. I believe that our

    995
    discussions with British business will yield results, and I have always said that we will make changes in the Budget, in regulations or in public spending, if necessary—if a case is proven—to help to bridge the productivity gap. The only party that does not seem to be willing to join the debate is the Conservative party.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Chancellor acknowledge that, in the seminars, business leaders have argued that productivity is predominantly their responsibility and that the Government's responsibility is to create the climate in which they can compete? The 0.5 per cent. reduction in interest rates announced this morning is welcome, but do we not have to go a lot further down that road before we are competitive in Europe and have a sustainable exchange rate? What policies will the Chancellor pursue to help the Bank of England to deliver interest rates that are much closer to the European average?
    Mr. Brown: Of course I welcome the Bank's decision. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the most important thing that the Government can do is to create a long-term framework for monetary and fiscal stability. That is exactly what we have done by making the Bank of England independent, tackling the inflationary pressures in the economy and cutting the fiscal deficit by £20 billion. Of course we must work with business to tackle any barrier to productivity that exists in our economy. That is why we are looking at the future of competition policy and at regulation in some areas, and why we have agreed to look at some aspects of the tax system.
    The extra £20 billion that we are to spend on education over the next three years will make a huge difference to our ability not only to give an opportunity to every child and student who wants it, but to deliver an efficient economy. It is a pity, again, that the Conservative party cannot support that.
    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Is the Chancellor aware that, according to his own figures, the additional tax and regulatory burden on British industry will amount to £39 billion over this Parliament? The figure comes from published tax revenues and from compliance cost assessments published by Government Departments. Instead of lecturing British industry about productivity, will the Chancellor do something to reduce the daily burden on its ability to compete in international markets? Will he immediately take steps to repeal regulations and remove the additional burdens before they do more damage to employment? Above all, will he stop blaming British industry for Government failings?
    Mr. Brown: The first people to draw attention to the productivity gap in British industry were the previous Government, in the competitiveness White Papers that they published every year, saying that we had to do better.
    We have cut corporation tax twice, to 30p, and small business tax twice, to 20p; we have introduced a long-term rate of capital gains tax at 10p; and in the first year we have cut regulations by 30 per cent. from what they were under the Conservative Government. The Conservatives want us to abandon our proposals for a national minimum wage and a working families tax credit. If those things work in America, they can work in Britain.

    Jobs and Inflation
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: When he next expects to meet the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss jobs and inflation. [56860]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): I meet the Governor of the Bank of England regularly. Today's cut in interest rates, which I welcome, follows the global downturn, which the Bank and I agree will lead to more moderate growth next year. The cut is possible because of the tough long-term decisions that we have taken: making the Bank independent, cutting the deficit by £20 billion and getting inflation back on target. In an uncertain world, Britain is steering a course of stability.
    Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the political climate in which interest rates had to be cut was created by people in the media and in the House, including a little touch and a steer from him over the past couple of weeks? I am sure that he will not want to be complimented on that, but will he tell the Governor of the Bank of England and the Monetary Policy Committee that they are not dealing with an exact science but making a political judgment, and that we, not they, will have to carry the can? What happened today complements what he said in his pre-Budget statement the other day. To ensure that unemployment does not rear its ugly head in the next few months, will he give the Bank another little steer?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend will make his own points. We have made the Bank of England independent, and we will support it in all the difficult decisions that it makes. The Bank of England's notice states that the international environment and the prospects for domestic activity have led the committee to make its decision. It is because we have created a long-term system and tackled the inflationary problem that it has been possible for monetary policy to respond to the downturn in the international environment. In the previous downturn, interest rates had to be above 10 per cent. for four years and at 15 per cent. for one year as a result of the failure to tackle inflationary pressures. The former Chancellor said that he was ready to consider independence for the Bank of England, and we are in a better position to make adjustments now because we have created that long-term framework.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Will the Chancellor say where the long-term monetary strategy exists? In the press briefings that he was giving until a few months ago, he said that the Bank of England should have raised interest rates further and faster than it was doing, but in the press briefings he has given since Washington, he said that the Bank of England should start to reduce interest rates. Will he acknowledge that, when he welcomes the present reduction in interest rates, he does so in the face of the policy-induced slowdown that his errors and those of the Bank has caused, and will he invite the Monetary Policy Committee to be alert to the consequences of worldwide slowdown, which will come on top of the slowdown that he has already put in place?
    Mr. Brown: I have always said, and I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept this, that I

    997
    will support the Bank of England in all the difficult decisions that it makes. Having set up a new framework for interest rate policy decision making, we will find that all political parties will come to support it over time.
    As for the inflationary pressures in the economy over the past year—I know that the former Chancellor is concerned about his record in the matter—for the six months before the general election, the Bank of England warned every month that interest rates would have to go up to deal with inflationary pressures, but action was not taken. We took action immediately and, because we did so, inflation is at its target.
    I am pleased that the former Chancellor is now ready to consider independence for the Bank of England. It is a pity that the rest of the Conservative party has not joined him yet on this, as it has not on other issues. I hope that we will have clarification this afternoon from the shadow Chancellor about the Conservatives' position on the Bank of England, because we did not get clarification yesterday and it is about time we did.
    Dr. Desmond Turner: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the interest rate reduction as a great step towards helping to ensure that his cautious growth targets are met, and does he agree that any further reductions would be welcome? I invite my right hon. Friend to speculate about the situation that we might have been in had the former Chancellor's policies been pursued.
    Mr. Brown: As everybody now knows, when we came into power, inflation was set to rise to twice that of our competitors. If we had not taken action, we would have been back to the old boom-bust that existed in the British economy. The Opposition should not forget that interest rates were above 10 per cent. for four years, and when it was right to lower interest rates because of the international situation in the early 1990s, the Government of the day were unable to do so. It is because we have created a long-term framework for this country that we are able to reduce interest rates. I hope that, in time, the Opposition will see the wisdom of making the Bank of England independent.
    Mr. Francis Maude: Is it now clear that not even the Bank of England believes the Chancellor's fantasy forecasts? When will he bring his forecasts in line with the majority of independent economists and begin to take serious policy steps to avoid a rising toll of job losses and business closures?
    Mr. Brown: This morning, the shadow Chancellor said:
    I am afraid that the Chancellor has made it less likely that interest rates will be able to be cut by the amount that is needed by the way he has conducted policy."
    That is an example of a Conservative party in search of every soundbite.
    In the summer, the right hon. Gentleman said that there was a spending gap, but there is none; we have met our spending ceiling. Then he said that there was a borrowing gap, but the figures show that that is not so. Now he tries to suggest that there is a forecast gap, but the Bank of England and I agree that there will be moderate growth next year, which is why the Bank has acted in the light
    998
    of what is happening in the international environment. The Bank says in its report that its action is about the international environment and its effect on what happens domestically. It is about time the shadow Chancellor woke up to what is happening around the world. The Conservative party is not living in the real world.
    Mr. Maude: We will be ready to welcome what is happening when interest rates come down to the figure at which the Chancellor inherited them. Is it not clear that the outlook for Britain's economy is the worst in the western industrial world, and that Britain has gone into the downturn ahead of north America and Europe? There will be a fearsome toll of job losses, and the blame lies at the Chancellor's door.
    Mr. Brown: The facts of the matter are that forecasts for the world economy have been downgraded by 2.4 per cent. for this year, and 1.2 per cent. for next year. The idea that Britain is somehow unique in downgrading its forecast by three quarters of 1 per cent. is ridiculous. It is another example of how out of touch the shadow Chancellor is. I note that he has not corrected his remarks this morning that the Bank of England would have been unable to take the action that was necessary. It is about time that, instead of making comment after comment—later proven to be untrue or incorrect—the shadow Chancellor woke up to the fact that there is a global downturn and that the Government are dealing with it by steering a course of stability. It is also about time that the shadow Chancellor gave us a straight answer on the first issue of economic policy—whether his monetary policy is that the Bank of England remains independent. Until we get a straight answer on his support or otherwise for Bank independence, he will have absolutely no credibility. The real deficit in the United Kingdom is the deficit in Conservative thinking.
    Fiona Mactaggart: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is being rather generous to the Conservative party in his account of history? He said that interest rates were above 10 per cent. for only four of the years in which the Conservatives were in office. In fact, there were interest rates of more than 10 per cent. for more like three quarters of that time. This morning, I attended a meeting sponsored by the chamber of commerce in Slough, a town in which new industries and businesses are part of the engine of our economy. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in towns such as Slough, the main anger is not with what he is doing but with the feeling that people are talking business down and making it more difficult for successful companies to export and to do their business well?
    Mr. Brown: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is about time that the Conservative party started to support the potential in our country. Welfare to work helps thousands of people, but the Conservatives oppose it.
    Working families tax credit will help 1.5 million people, but the Conservatives oppose it. Bank of England independence gives us economic stability, but the Conservatives oppose it. It is time they woke up to the fact that in the modern world we must make the changes that the Labour party is making. We will take no lectures from a shadow Chancellor who was at the Treasury between 1990 and 1992 when interest rates were at

    999
    15 per cent., when a million manufacturing jobs were lost, when manufacturing output fell by 7 per cent., when manufacturing investment fell by 15 per cent. and when the borrowing requirement went up to £50 billion. We have taken action. The Conservatives failed.
    Mr. Edward Davey: When the Chancellor next meets the Governor of the Bank of England will the Chancellor ask him to prepare and publish a report for the House on how he would like to see the Bank of England's independence strengthened? Will the Chancellor ask him for his views on the model of central bank independence contained in the Maastricht treaty—a treaty agreed to and signed on behalf of this country by the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is indeed right. The person who signed the Maastricht treaty on behalf of the British people was none other than the shadow Chancellor when he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury. There should be a welcome from the whole House for his action. As I said yesterday to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), we are prepared to listen to views about the structure and accountability of the Bank of England. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the reform announced only a few weeks ago, that the Bank of England would publish its minutes within two weeks of its meeting, is a welcome step forward. This comes back to the central question: unless hon. Members make up their mind, on macro-economic policy and monetary policy in particular, and decide whether or not they support the independence of the Bank of England, they have no credibility in terms of their economic policy. The former Chancellor of the Exchequer is facing up to that fact. The Conservative party and the shadow Chancellor must face up to that now.

    Savings Income
    Mr. Shaun Woodward: What measures he is taking to protect the UK financial services industry from the proposed provisions of the EU directive on the taxation of savings income. [56861]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dawn Primarolo): The Government are taking an active part in discussions on the draft directive. We have made it clear on a number of occasions that we will not agree to any course of action that would seriously damage the United Kingdom and other European financial markets.
    Mr. Woodward: Given that the Government are in such a decisive frame of mind this afternoon and that the Chancellor has spent the entire week lecturing the House about the importance of stability, the opportunity occurs now for the Government to tell the House their proposals on withholding tax. Given the experience of the withholding tax in Germany, the United States and Japan, where serious damage was done to domestic bond markets, and given the report produced for the Corporation of London by Professor Dale, which concludes that the European capital market would suffer a serious capital disadvantage if the tax were imposed, will the Financial Secretary take this opportunity to reassure the City on exactly what the Prime Minister promised he would do, namely, use the veto when that
    1000
    was possible, and tell the House in a moment of decisiveness—yes or no—whether in three weeks' time that veto will be used?
    Dawn Primarolo: The report by Professor Richard Dale of Southampton university was reported yesterday in the press. It is a rather limited report. We have now received a copy, and of course we are interested in studying the conclusions. We have made it clear that we would not accept a solution that obliged the United Kingdom to withhold tax, although we would be attracted to action based on the principle of exchange of information—as were the Conservative Government when, in May, June and December 1989, they agreed the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Council, that the way forward was an exchange of information.
    Ms Diane Abbott: The Financial Secretary will know that Labour Members are confident that the Government will do everything in their power to protect the financial services industry. She will also be aware that the pensions and salaries scandals of the 1980s revealed many structural problems in the financial services industry, including dependence on bonus-driven sales, the lack of transparency and the lack of training. Does she agree that it would be very wrong to divest swathes of pension and sickness provision to the private pensions industry without doing something about financial services regulation to address the structural problems that the pensions mis-selling revealed?
    Dawn Primarolo: The Government are addressing the issues that my hon. Friend has identified through the Financial Services Bill, which my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will help to steer through the House. The Government are in favour of taking effective international action against tax evasion, which I hope Conservative Members will support. Discussions on the directive are about addressing that issue.
    Mr. Nick Gibb: In a written answer last week, the Financial Secretary was robust in rejecting any European Union proposal to harmonise income tax rates. She made it absolutely clear that income tax was firmly a matter for national Governments, and we welcome that. Why was she not prepared to give the same firm undertaking about EU proposals to harmonise corporation tax rates? Will the Government veto any such proposal on corporation tax—yes or no?
    Dawn Primarolo: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box. The directive on taxation of savings is not about corporation tax rates but about effective ways to prevent avoidance of taxation. He knows that any change requires a unanimous vote. The Government have made it absolutely clear that we intend to maintain for this House decisions on taxation.

    Football Clubs
    Mr. Bob Russell: If he will introduce a tax redistribution arrangement based on turnover for professional football clubs. [56862]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dawn Primarolo): The football authorities, which are independent of Government, are best placed to make decisions on the development of football, including the distribution of income within the game. The tax system is not an appropriate mechanism for redistributing funds between football clubs.
    Mr. Russell: If Ministers are unaware of the financial apartheid in professional football, they should have a word with the Deputy Prime Minister, who may be able to tell them about the plight of Hull City. The gap between rich and poor football clubs grows by the day. Contrary to what the Minister said, the football authorities have failed to act. Will she give an assurance that the Government will consider measures for a fair redistribution of the huge amount of money in football?
    Dawn Primarolo: I understand that the hon. Gentleman supports Colchester, who are currently 20th in the second division, so I suppose that he well knows what it is like to be in the second division. It is not the job of the tax system to redistribute income between clubs; it is the responsibility of the Football Association and the football authorities. The hon. Gentleman should press them to make the changes that he wants.
    Mr. Ian Davidson: As we are on the subject of taxation and football clubs, will the Government do what they can to ensure that football clubs are not taken over by multinational, tax-avoiding media moguls?
    Dawn Primarolo: I know that some people think that the Treasury is all-powerful and commands everything in the country, but my hon. Friend must direct his point to another Department.

    Low-income Families
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: What plans he has to help working families on low incomes. [56863]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): From April, as a result of abolishing the entry fee to national insurance, all employees will receive a tax cut of more than £1 a week. The working families tax credit will be introduced, guaranteeing a minimum income of at least £190 a week for working families. That will back up the national minimum wage, which will be introduced next April, helping 1.9 million employees.
    Mr. Savidge: My right hon. Friend's reply will be widely welcomed, not least in Scotland where 1 million people—one in five of the population—receive less than half the national average income. Does he agree that those people will find new hope in the measures that he outlined and be disgusted that the Tories, who created so much misery and inequality, still oppose those policies, including the working families tax credit?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us of the challenge of tackling in-work poverty. The national minimum wage will help to do that. It is unfortunate that a policy that was supported by the
    1002
    Sir Winston Churchill and many Conservatives right up to the 1980s cannot be supported by the existing Conservative—[Interruption.] It is strange; the Conservatives are now attacking Sir Winston Churchill. I know that they have lost touch with the country. It is hardly surprising that Lady Thatcher has written an article in Saga Magazine saying that they have not got a chance of winning the next general election.
    Our policies are the minimum wage and the working families tax credit, which cuts the numbers of people who are affected by the marginal tax rate at above 70 per cent. In addition, we are raising child benefit for the first child by the biggest-ever amount. That is another measure that is dealing with the problems of poverty. It is a pity that we cannot have all-party support in those matters.
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure me that no individual in a family receiving working families tax credit will pay tax on child benefit?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Lady knows perfectly well that we announced in the Budget a review of that matter. We shall report by the time of the next Budget. As for child benefit, we have made our position clear. Child benefit is paid to every mother. Yesterday, we had some problems with the Conservative party over the policy on pensions. I hope that the Conservatives will be able to say that they support our measures to raise child benefit.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is it not a fact that the package that my right hon. Friend just referred to, with the national minimum wage and all the other things taken together, is the fairest and best policy initiative that any Government have given to low-paid people this century? The package is welcomed in areas such as mine, where many people have been in poverty and on low pay for many years.
    Mr. Brown: I applaud my hon. Friend for being a champion of action on those matters over the many years that he has been in the House of Commons representing his constituents. He is right to say that people will ask the Conservative party whether it would take away from 2 million people a national minimum wage and whether it intends to oppose the working families tax credit. If so, more than 1 million people would have a tax rise under a future Conservative Government. What do the Conservatives intend to do about child benefit, which we support raising? We still have not had answers from the Conservative party.

    Economic Cycle
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: If he will make a statement about the UK's position in the economic cycle relative to that of the rest of the EU. [56864]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): At present, the United Kingdom's business cycle is clearly not convergent with that of the rest of our European partners. However, the United Kingdom's divergence is not a new factor and is in part a legacy of our past susceptibility to boom and bust—the damaging boom of the late 1980s and the recession of the early 1990s, when the shadow Chancellor was a Treasury

    1003
    Minister, when manufacturing output fell by 7 per cent. and when half a million manufacturing jobs were lost—and the failure to raise interest rates in the run-up to the last general election.
    Mr. Swayne: I have always wondered what caused the business cycle. Will the hon. Lady comment on the fact that The Economist has pointed out that, since June, forecasts for the British economy have shown that the growth rate is set to fall by 56 per cent., but that, for the corresponding period, growth rates for France will fall by only 14 per cent. and for Germany will fall by 21 per cent? Why is it so much worse here? Has it anything to do with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's policies?
    Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman may not understand the basics of the business cycle, but presumably he understands that forecasts for world growth have been slashed as a result of what is going on in the world economy; that this country—[Interruption.] Just listen a minute and give the hon. Gentleman a chance to learn. This country is not immune from what is happening in the rest of the world. We have a larger exposure to trade with the rest of the world than most of the continental countries, but if the hon. Gentleman looks at the three-year period starting last year, he will see that, even with our revised growth forecasts for next year, growth in France, Germany and the United Kingdom will be about the same. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will also recall that unemployment in this country is well below the level in France and Germany.
    Dr. George Turner: Does my hon. Friend agree that what matters is not only where we are in the business cycle, but how big the peaks and troughs in that cycle are; and that today's welcome news shows that the peak in interest rates required to control that is at least half of what we had last time? Does she also agree that the next movement in interest rates is more likely to be downward, because the world knows that it was a technical, non-party political decision that was taken today?
    Ms Hewitt: I am delighted that my hon. Friend welcomes both today's decision and the steps that we have taken to create economic stability. It is the Conservative party that is the party of boom and bust; we are the party of economic stability.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Do Treasury Ministers agree that, for the British people sensibly to decide whether sustainable economic convergence between the United Kingdom and continental Europe can be achieved and whether economic benefits to this country of a "clear and unambiguous" nature—I am quoting the two criteria mentioned by the Prime Minister yesterday— would flow from joining economic and monetary union, it is extremely important that, as almost all independent economists agree, two complete economic cycles be concluded before any judgment based on those criteria is reached? Do Treasury Ministers agree with that assessment?
    Ms Hewitt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving us the benefit of a speech that I am sure that he made during the Conservative party's referendum on that issue.
    1004
    We have set out the five economic tests that will enable the Government and the country to decide whether sustainable convergence has been demonstrated. Unlike the Conservative party, we have a policy for monetary and fiscal stability that will enable those tests to be met in future.

    Productivity
    Ms Sally Keeble: If he will make a statement on his policy to promote improvements in the productivity of UK firms. [56865]
    Mr. Richard Burden: If he will make a statement about his policy to promote productivity increases in UK firms. [56870]
    The Paymaster General (Mr. Geoffrey Robinson): It has been clearly established by the Conservative party that there is a major and fundamental productivity gap between this country and others—our major competitors. It is a gap that we intend to close, in partnership with businesses and companies.
    Ms Keeble: My hon. Friend rightly acknowledges the productivity gap between ourselves and our competitors. I am sure that, like me, he understands the fears of some workers, such as those at Barclaycard in Northampton, that the productivity gains needed to maintain a competitive edge might have an impact on job numbers. What can the Government do to mitigate those fears, and what would my hon. Friend say to the Barclaycard employees, most of whom are women?
    Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend will be aware that we have engendered 400,000 jobs since the election and that, in her constituency, unemployment has dropped by 583, which represents a 23 per cent. drop. She will also be aware of the tremendous strides being taken by the welfare-to-work programme: despite the Opposition's position on that programme and their commitment to getting rid of it, we can now say that, through that programme, 30,000 people have gone into jobs. Throughout the country, 150,000 people are in the gateway, and we have partnership agreements with 29,000 companies. Those are the things that I would tell my hon. Friend's constituents, as I am pleased to tell the House today.
    Mr. Burden: When we talk about the need for productivity improvements in the motor industry and elsewhere, contrary to what is said in some sections of the media, we are not making any allegations about so-called lazy workers. What we are talking about is essentially four things: first, the need for real partnership between management and work force to achieve productivity improvements; secondly, the need for the companies concerned—Rover and others—to put in the investment necessary for the companies to prosper; thirdly, the need for that process to be given Government backing; and, fourthly, the need for the banks to provide the right financial climate, one that is sensitive to the needs of manufacturing. Does my hon. Friend accept that we in the west midlands welcome today's cut in interest rates, we welcome the announcements on more help for business made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the

    1005
    pre-Budget statement earlier this week, and we look forward to further action being taken at Rover and elsewhere?
    Mr. Robinson: I very much agree with my hon. Friend, and the Government are conscious of the position of Rover, which is in his constituency. We have spoken of the Government bridging the productivity gap in partnership with business, but equally, management, together with the unions and the work force, must make a determined effort to do so. That effort is being made, but a good deal still has to be achieved before we can say that we are reaching the levels of productivity that we see in other countries. We shall do that together, it will need a determined effort, and I am sure that I can count on my hon. Friend to play his important role in that.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: In spite of the Government's somewhat idiosyncratic interpretation of socialism in one country as the unilateral abolition of boom and bust, does the Minister agree that the experience of his hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden), speaking about Barclaycard and Rover, shows the sad fact that economic downturns tend to mean that productivity increases are interpreted as a loss of jobs? Therefore, will he re-emphasise the message that is coming from Conservative Members to his right hon. and hon. Friend—that they should eschew all the additional tax and regulatory burdens on business, to the tune of £1,500 per worker, that are being imposed? Will he argue with his right hon. and hon. Friends that they must seriously sharpen up their act first?
    Mr. Robinson: The only act that really needs sharpening up is the performance of the Opposition's economic team, and, my word, that does need sharpening up.
    I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the 22 per cent. drop in unemployment in his constituency and the 400,000 new jobs that we have created. I agree that we must cut the regulatory burden, and we are intent on doing that. Lord Haskins has embarked on a task force aimed at doing that by looking at building regulations and other matters. The simple fact is that the best contribution that we can make to British business is sustained stability—something that we are well on the way to achieving—and a cut in taxes, which are already the lowest in Europe at 30 per cent., with corporation tax at 20 per cent. That is a significant cut.
    Mr. William Ross: Is it not a fact that agriculture, above all British industries, has shown the most outstanding productivity increases during the past 50 years, yet finds itself in the most dire financial straits today? Given that the Government now intend to do all that they can to help employees on low incomes, what will be done for that industry?
    Mr. Robinson: I am aware of last night's debate on that subject, in which the hon. Gentleman spoke. All who know anything about the farming industry know of its fine productivity record, particularly under the proficiency payments systems introduced by the first Labour Government after the war. We are considering those
    1006
    matters and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will make a statement to the House in the near future.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend will be aware that we are repeatedly being told that productivity levels in Germany are far higher than they are here in the United Kingdom. Why is that? What is so special about the German system that enables Germany to score far higher ratings than we do?
    Mr. Robinson: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is puzzling that, in the past century, Germany has continued to outstrip Britain in productivity. Two important points that we can learn from the Germans emerged clearly from the series of seminars that we initiated. The first is that capital investment is much higher in Germany. There is no question about that. The second is that skill levels throughout the work force, from the management at the top right down to the technicians and the shop floor workers, are much higher in Germany, and its education system is geared to provide that. If we learn both those lessons and pool them, we can start closing the gap, and it is Government policy to do so.

    Growth Forecasts
    Mr. Robert Syms: If he will list the assumptions on which his new growth forecasts have been based. [56866]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Byers): Full details of the Treasury's new forecasts were published in the pre-Budget report on 3 November. They were based on a number of realistic assumptions.
    Mr. Syms: Given the scepticism of the Chancellor's growth forecasts shown by many economic forecasters, is the Chancellor happy for the achievement or not of those forecasts to be the judge and jury of his chancellorship?
    Mr. Byers: It is worth examining the average of the independent forecasts for next year, which is 1.1 per cent. The European Union is forecasting growth at 1.3 per cent. We are able to forecast that growth figure because the economy is well placed as a result of the tough decisions that the Government took last year. We have given independence to the Bank of England—we have not heard the shadow Chancellor confirm whether the Conservatives would continue that arrangement—reduced the deficit by £20 billion and ensured that we have strong and robust public finances. That is what we have done, and I think that it is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman has not acknowledged that, since his election to the House in May last year, unemployment in his constituency has dropped by 32 per cent.
    Mr. Jim Cousins: Can the Minister assure me that, built into every one of the Government's forecasts, will be a firm commitment to maintaining social support for pensioners and children—an approach that distinguishes us from the Conservatives?
    Mr. Byers: We shall certainly do that. I am sure that my hon. Friend welcomes the news today of the creation

    1007
    of 500 jobs on Tyneside in the ship repair industry. That is good news for both our constituencies.
    I can assure my hon. Friend about the Government's commitment to benefits and to social infrastructure, but the Conservative party cannot do the same. Yesterday, the Opposition announced no clear policy on pensions and their uprating and, today, they refused to confirm whether child benefit would be safe in their hands. The Opposition are prepared to talk down our economy, ignoring its underlying strengths. There are 400,000 more people in work compared with May last year and we are tackling the budget deficit and ensuring that inflation is at its target. The Opposition are prepared to talk down our economy but will not give clear answers to simple questions. They are not a credible Opposition, but a shambles of an Opposition.
    Mr. John Whittingdale: On Tuesday, the Chancellor described his growth forecasts as "prudent" and "cautious". Today, the Chief Secretary has said that they are "realistic". Why, then, is it almost impossible today to find a single independent forecaster who agrees with them? Will the Minister explain why the Chancellor is almost alone in upgrading his growth forecasts for the year after next? Will he give an assurance that the Chancellor will not be forced to return to the House in a few months to admit that, once again, he got it wrong?
    Mr. Byers: Most independent forecasters—out of the 45 consulted—anticipate growth next year to average 1.1 per cent. The most effective forecast for two years' time from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, which was published last week, is in line with the figures produced in the pre-Budget report. They are the facts; they are not fantasy. Another fact is that, when the shadow Chancellor was a Treasury Minister, inflation was at 10 per cent. and interest rates were at 15 per cent. They are not fantasy figures. They are real figures and, as a result, more than 1 million people lost their jobs.

    Pensions Mis-selling
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: What discussions he has had with representatives of independent financial advisers regarding the investigations into the selling of pensions during the 1980s. [56868]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): As the hon. Gentleman will recall from the debate earlier this week, I am well aware of the concerns of the Independent Financial Advisers Association about phase 2 of the pensions review. The hon. Gentleman and many other hon. Members have registered those concerns with me. I shall be meeting representatives of the IFA Association later this month.
    Mr. Robertson: Is the Minister also aware of the Personal Investment Authority ombudsman's practice of charging IFAs £500 every time a complaint regarding
    1008
    pensions or other financial services products is made against them? Even if the complaint is not upheld—if it is found to be frivolous and thrown out—the company cannot claim back that £500. That is surely not natural justice.
    Ms Hewitt: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares my belief that we need a high-quality IFA sector that customers can trust. An effective regulatory regime, including an ombudsman system to which consumers can take their complaints, is part of that sector. Of course it is right that the industry as a whole should cover the costs of that regime, because it stands to benefit from it.
    Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Might it not be helpful if the pensions industry examined its own codes of practice? A constituent recently complained to me that, before his endowment policy was due to be paid, independent financial advisers seemed to know that he was due for some money. Is that not yet another instance of pension companies selling on the names of people who are beneficiaries?
    Ms Hewitt: I share my hon. Friend's concern about such a practice. Despite the welcome progress that has been made, particularly by the large firms, in putting right the scandal of personal pensions mis-selling, the financial services industry still has some way to go before we reach the standards that all of us have a right to expect.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the burden of the mis-selling scandal is borne by the shareholders of insurance and pension companies, rather than by other policyholders in those companies?
    Ms Hewitt: As the hon. Gentleman knows, from the beginning of our action on the personal pensions mis-selling scandal, we have taken the view that the costs of putting matters right should be shared by all those who stood to benefit from it. Therefore, where with-profits policyholders have shared in the growth in their fund, the costs should be shared in the normal proportion—90:10. We are keeping a close eye on the allocation of the costs of the pensions review, and of course we shall intervene, if necessary, to protect policyholders' reasonable expectations.
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Given the Minister's statement earlier this week that compensation under phase 2 should be calculated on present market conditions, does she agree that, in order to take account of market conditions, the Financial Services Authority should raise the compensation cap, which has not been raised for 10 years, in cases where the IFA is not able to make the compensation?
    Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. As I stressed in the debate on Tuesday, we have put in place a system for calculating any loss that may arise from mis-selling at the time, on the basis that has been advised by senior actuaries, and that would be applied in the courts. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman in more detail on the specific point that he raises.

    Monetary Policy
    Mr. Ivor Caplin: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his reforms to the monetary policy framework on meeting the inflation target. [56869]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The new framework has been successful in reducing inflation and inflation expectations close to the target level, and has led to long-term interest rates falling to their lowest levels for 35 years.
    Mr. Caplin: My hon. Friend may be aware that, last night, the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury refused to debate with me in interventions those important points about the framework. Is it not a fact that, in the 12 months leading up to the general election, the Conservative Government managed to meet the inflation target just once, and that the long-term stability and framework that we have put in place will take Britain forward?
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right. As we saw over and over again last night, the Conservatives cannot or will not tell us what they would do about the Bank of England and about the monetary framework that we have put in place, which has brought interest rates to their lowest level for 35 years.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that, even before she became a Member of Parliament, the hon. Lady will have followed the debate about the independence of the Bank of England. We were all told that the one plus that would result was that real interest rates—the difference between the rate of inflation and the interest being paid—would go down. Since the independence of the Bank of England, people have been paying three times the rate of inflation. Why? Can the hon. Lady explain that to the House?
    Ms Hewitt: As I just said, long-term interest rates are at their lowest level for 35 years. It was the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported who, for short-term party political reasons before the last general election, failed to take the necessary action to stem inflationary pressures. This Government will take no lectures on interest rates from a Government who were responsible for interest rates of 10 per cent. for four consecutive years,
    1010
    and of 15 per cent. for 12 months. I remember, as do my constituents, what that did to our mortgage rates. We will not take lessons from the Conservatives.

    Small and Medium Enterprises
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: What plans he has to introduce tax and fiscal measures to encourage investment in small and medium enterprises in the regions. [56871]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dawn Primarolo): The Government are examining how best to develop an environment which encourages investment and growth in enterprising small and medium businesses.
    Mrs. Ellman: Will my hon. Friend back the channelling of support for small and medium enterprises through the regional development agencies so that regions such as the north-west, and particularly Merseyside within the north-west, can improve their rates of small and medium business formation and success?
    Dawn Primarolo: I can confirm that the regional development agencies, starting from next April, will have to draw up regional and economic strategies, which will cover encouraging investment and innovation. They will, of course, address themselves to small and medium businesses.
    Mr. John Bercow: If the Financial Secretary wants to encourage investment in small and medium enterprises in the regions of the United Kingdom, why is it that she is not prepared flatly to condemn the £40 billion additional tax and regulatory cost put upon those enterprises in the lifetime of this Parliament, a policy that the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Forum of Private Business are united in condemning?
    Dawn Primarolo: We just need to remind the hon. Gentleman that it is this Government who have cut the small business rate for corporation tax; abolished advance corporation tax, giving small and medium companies £1 billion in cash-flow benefits; enhanced venture capital reliefs; and increased the taper on business assets to help entrepreneurs. As a result, unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency has been reduced by 28 per cent., but he does not have the good grace to say that.

Children's Safeguards Review
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): In November last year the Government published the Utting report, which reviewed the safeguards for children in care. In my statement to the House, I made clear that the report painted a woeful picture of failure. Many children who had been "taken into care" to protect and help them had received neither protection nor help. Instead they had been abused and molested. Many more had been let down, never given the attention that they needed, shifted from place to place, school to school, and often simply turned out to fend for themselves when they turned 16.
That catalogue of events was not just a failure by the care staff directly concerned. It was a failure by social services managers, by councils, councillors, the police, the court system, schools, voluntary organisations, neighbours, the news media, the Government's social services inspectorate, Government Departments, Ministers and Parliament. Some people from all those institutions and in all those categories had worked hard to do a good job for those children, but too many had not and the whole system had failed.
Last November, I reported to the House that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had asked me to lead a ministerial task force to draw up the Government's response to the report. The task force involved Ministers from 10 Government Departments, together with outside representatives from social services, education, the police and the voluntary sector. It also included a young women who had recently been through the care system. She made some most valuable contributions to our deliberations and provided salutary reminders of the real world in which some children are being expected to grow up. I am grateful to her and all the other members of the task force for their positive contributions to the work of developing a comprehensive and practical set of measures.
In July this year, the Select Committee on Health strongly endorsed the need for action. Its report covered some aspects that were not the subject of the Utting report. The Government will make a full response to the Select Committee after the publication of our White Paper on social services.
Today I am publishing the task force's report, which sets out the practical measures that we have proposed and which the Government have accepted. We want to ensure that in future, children in care are looked after properly and get a decent start in life. We started by recognising that, if the whole system had failed those children, the whole system had to be put right. Tinkering with a few aspects was not enough.
Throughout our deliberations I asked everybody involved to look at the matter from the point of view of the children and to ask whether the care provided would have been good enough for them when they were children, and whether it would be good enough for their own children. That is what the task force has tried to do. As a result, our proposals are intended to ensure that those responsible, at any level, for children in care behave towards them as any good parent tries to behave towards his or her children.
With that in mind, the Government are implementing the task force's recommendations. We have already launched a three-year programme in the document
1012
entitled, "Quality Protects". Its job is to transform the care system for children by setting clear objectives and targets, putting action plans in place, and measuring whether those targets have been met. It also provides new guidance to strengthen the hand of conscientious elected local councillors. That will call for joined-up government—all Government Departments, local authorities, the court system, schools, the police and voluntary organisations working together towards a common goal, with clear targets and a demanding timetable. There can be no more excuses.
All those measures cannot be undertaken for nothing, so I can announce today that we are establishing a new children's services grant, which will provide an extra £375 million over the next three years to help fund the necessary improvements.
To stop potential child abusers working with children, we are establishing a new criminal records agency to improve and widen access to police checks on people wishing to work with children. It is a first step towards a "one-stop shop" that can give employers access to police records and the separate lists kept by the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health. The present system is a confusing mess that denies the children concerned elementary protection.
The present law provides that councils have a duty to children while they are in care up to the age of 16 and a discretionary power to help them up to the age of 18 when they leave care. As a result, some unfortunate children are turned out at the age of 16 with little or no help afterwards. That cannot be right.
In order that the task force could consider the question of when young people should leave care, and how they should be helped when they do, I insisted that my officials produce a paper spelling out what parents usually provide for members of an ordinary family between the ages of 16 and 18 or 21. May I ask hon. Members to think for a minute about when they were between 16 and 21, or what they did or are doing for their children in that age group? Now may I ask them to think about having to do without any of that: no home to live in or return to; no shoulder to cry on; no encouragement to do school or college work; no morale-boosting chat before an interview, nor anyone to console us if it went wrong; nobody to give us a lift, make us a meal or, if we are a bit older, take us out for a drink; nowhere to get our washing done for nothing; no mother or father to touch for a tenner when we are skint. The list is endless, and it is a disgrace. It is simply wrong and the Government are going to change it.
We will change the law to extend the duty of care for those young people from 16 to 18, and ensure that councils' responsibilities for children up to the age of 18 and beyond correspond more closely with those accepted by any good parent. That includes trying to keep in touch with children once they have left home.
We are taking steps to ensure better school attendance by children in care and setting targets so that they achieve more at school than they do at present. We are taking steps and setting targets to reduce the number of children exposed to a succession of placements every year and to ensure that those placements are more suitable. We are taking action to increase the number of foster parents through new recruitment campaigns. We shall also increase the skills of foster parents by providing new funds for training and establishing a code of practice and

1013
national standards for foster care. We propose to bring all children's homes—whatever their size—and residential schools and independent fostering agencies within a new and more effective regulatory system, with simpler and faster action against schools and children's homes with unacceptable standards.
We are taking steps to monitor and safeguard better the welfare of children in hospitals, nursing homes and hospices and improve the health of children in care, including their mental health. We are changing local government law and practice to bring about across-the-board improvements in services for children in care or with special needs. In future, the whole local authority will have to accept its responsibilities for supporting the children.
The voice of the children involved has been ignored for too long. We will improve the arrangements for whistleblowing and fund a new group to provide a national voice for children in care and those formerly in care. We are taking steps to ensure that children in court as witnesses get better protection, and children who are detained are kept separate from adults.
These are just some of the major measures that the Government are starting to put in place. Many others are set out in the detailed report. It will take time to thrash out the detail of some, and others will depend on the availability of parliamentary time. However, action is under way.
The task force report covers England and Wales, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales shares my commitment to its implementation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is today publishing a separate response to the Kent report, which covered the same issues in Scotland.
Finally, I should like to make it clear that many dedicated people are doing a good job looking after vulnerable people living away from home. It is never an easy task and we owe them our thanks. However, that is not all we owe them. We owe it to them and to all the children in care to root out and punish the wrongdoers and to put in place a system which really cares for children in care.
Vulnerable children are the responsibility of us all. In the past, the whole system has failed. We intend to make sure that, in future, the whole system delivers.
Mr. Philip Hammond: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for his courtesy in supplying me with an advance copy of it. However, I was disappointed—as you will be, Madam Speaker—to have read the details of the Secretary of State's statement in the Evening Standard this lunchtime. That shows, once again, the contempt in which the Government hold the House of Commons.
Anyone who has read the Utting report, or reports of other inquiries into child abuse, will have shared a sense of horror at the nature and extent of the abuse which has undoubtedly taken place. It is for this reason that the previous Government set up the review under Sir William Utting into safeguards for children living away from home, the excellent work of which forms the basis of the Government's proposals.
At the time of the publication of the Utting report, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples)—the then shadow Secretary of State for
1014
Health—confirmed the Opposition's support for the Government in carrying forward the process of implementation of the report's recommendations. We shall continue to support the Government in their efforts to ensure the safety of children living away from home.
However, there are a number of issues that arise from the Secretary of State's statement, and I would be grateful if he could clarify the following points. Is the £375 million of children's services grant that he announced really extra money, over and above the existing funding for social services? Can he confirm that there will be no corresponding reduction in social services standard spending assessments in the revenue support grant settlement?
If the money is not to be funded by a reduction in revenue support grant, can he confirm that this is genuinely new money, or is it simply an allocation of money that has been announced in the comprehensive spending review? While the Opposition support the need for national standards to protect the safety of children living away from home, can the Secretary of State confirm that local authorities will retain the autonomy to develop service provision in accordance with local needs?
Local councillors are to be held responsible for the quality of services delivered—rightly, in my view. However, with that responsibility must go the right—within a framework of national standards to ensure the safety of children—to exercise discretion over service delivery in meeting the targets set by the Secretary of State.
Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Government have now abandoned the Utting recommendation for a legislative definition of parental rights and responsibilities? The report stated that the issue was to be reviewed by the Home Secretary, but the recent Green Paper on the family makes no mention of any such proposal.
Will the Secretary of State's "new and more effective regulatory system" be dedicated to children's services, or will it be broader and more all-encompassing, as suggested by the leaks of the social services White Paper? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the inspection system will be nationally based? In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement that "the whole local authority" will have to accept responsibility for failures in children's services, will he use his influence and authority to persuade the responsible Labour councillors in the London borough of Ealing and in Coventry, where there have recently been serious failures in children's services, to do the decent thing?
Let me again emphasise our support for the Government's objectives in implementing most of the recommendations of the Utting report. The vast majority of people who work with children living away from home are dedicated, loyal and trustworthy, but every Member of Parliament will support measures attempting to weed out the tiny minority who represent a threat to the safety of those vulnerable children.
Mr. Dobson: I thank the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) for his thoughtful response to, and welcome for, our proposals.
The £375 million to be provided over the next three years is extra money. Of course it was included in the sums that we announced after the comprehensive

1015
spending review. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah"] Do not start mocking. The money is available because, when we were conducting the comprehensive spending review, we recognised that extra funds would be necessary, and, as far as I know, they are being welcomed by all concerned apart from the Conservative party.
I am a strong supporter of local government and local autonomy. That is one of the reasons why, as I said, we have already issued new guidance to help conscientious councillors to do their job better in relation to children in care. In view of the general performance of councils over the years, however, we need to take a fairly leery look at anyone who says, "We want to do things this way, or that way" on grounds of local autonomy. There will be national standards, and people will be expected to meet them.
As for the definition of parental rights and responsibilities, what the task force has tried to do—partly because of my psychological predilection in that direction—is come up with practical measures, rather than exceedingly theoretical considerations. I suspect that we could devote two or three years to those, without necessarily getting much further.
The regulatory system will be national, although it may be delivered on a regional basis.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the "whole authority". He descended into bathos by singling out Labour local authorities where things have been going wrong in regard to children in care. I shall not descend to his level by coming up with a list of Tory authorities where things have gone wrong. The burden of the Utting report, of the task force's consideration and of my statement is that everyone has been at fault, including Members of Parliament. It is not just the fault of local authorities; it is the fault of people in management, of the police, of people running the courts, of neighbours who did not bother to report what they saw going on, of councils, of councillors, of Ministers and Government officials. We have all let these children down, whatever our political persuasion. We should be ashamed of our record and we should start doing something about it and not try to use this opportunity to make stupid party political points.
Mrs. Llin Golding: If it was in order to cheer, I would cheer this report very loudly. At long last something will be done to protect these vulnerable children and I thank my right hon. Friend very much for the work that he is to do. He said that abuse is continuing and that it is a problem that we all have to work towards preventing. Will my right hon. Friend look again at the appointment of a children's commissioner to lead this long-awaited campaign?
Mr. Dobson: I thank my hon. Friend for her welcome for what we have done. I pay tribute to her because, whatever the shortcomings of the rest of us, she has devoted a great deal of her parliamentary time and effort to trying to draw to the attention of the rest of us the circumstances in which so many children were being mistreated and let down by the care system. I will agree to look further at her suggestion for a children's commissioner as long as she does not interpret that as a promise to definitely agree to it. I will look at it again
1016
because, when someone has campaigned so consistently and effectively, and for as long as my hon. Friend, she is entitled to be listened to.
Mr. Paul Burstow: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for granting me the opportunity to look at it in advance. Liberal Democrats support the proposals outlined in the statement and those we have managed to study in the detailed document that accompanied it. We would like to acknowledge the way in which the Secretary of State recognises that the failures that have undoubtedly occurred in the system are not the sole responsibility of any one institution or individual, but are systemic and need to be recognised as such.
One of the issues I did not hear mentioned in the statement was how the Government propose to reduce the number of children aged 15 or under who are currently held in prison establishments. It is a national scandal that more than 200 children are currently being held in such institutions. The Utting report made it clear that that was a serious failure of public policy. I wonder how the Secretary of State's proposals will help them.
Can the Secretary of State confirm that the £180 million earmarked for the year 2001–02 will become core funding to sustain the improvements that we all hope that funding will produce? Can the Secretary of State tell us whether the statement or the detailed document go on to develop the issue of training for staff? There were welcome comments about training for foster carers, but can he make it clear whether we will see additional resources being used to raise standards of training for residential care workers? In addition, in order to retain those residential care workers, there needs to be recognition of the fact that we will need to look at pay and conditions. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether he has plans to give legal protection to staff who choose and need to blow the whistle about abuse of which they become aware? Does the Secretary of State accept that there is a developing crisis in the recruitment and retention of foster carers, which could undermine many of the laudable proposals contained in his statement today?
We welcome the statement and the additional resources, whether they are contained in the comprehensive spending review or are new money, but we want to be assured that those resources will produce the results that the Secretary of State has described.
Mr. Dobson: I welcome the welcome that the Liberal Democrat representative has given to our proposals. When he has had an opportunity to read the report in detail, he will see that it is our intention to address the number of children and young people who are imprisoned to try to ensure that they are not mixed with adults, which is a veritable invitation to the interests of child molesters. Children in care amount to less than less than half of 1 per cent. of the population, but make up 22 per cent. of the prison population and nearly 40 per cent. of the number of young people in prison, which is a measure of how unsuccessful the care system has been.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned funding. The £375 million is additional funding and will be spent on the specific task of looking after children better. There are proposals to improve staff training, but I have always been disappointed when reports on terrible incidents in the

1017
social services make more training for the staff their first recommendation. A bit of decent management and the exercising of common sense should probably be item one, but I accept that more training is needed and, as we spelt out in "Quality Protects", we intend to provide it. We also intend to make life easier for anyone who blows the whistle on anything that is going wrong, whether that person is a member of staff, the child concerned or another child in the institution.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's deep personal commitment to this subject and his announcement today, and I thank him and those in other Departments for the steps that have already been taken. As he knows, during both the previous Parliament and this Parliament, the Health Committee has considered in detail the issue of looked-after children. Members of the Committee have been particularly struck by the fact that children in care lack a voice—someone to speak out for them or to whom they can turn. The abuse that has, sadly, taken place is a result of that lack of a voice.
The Committee strongly recommended establishing a system for a local voice; my right hon. Friend referred to that, but I should like to hear more about it. I strongly endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) about the need for a children's rights commissioner, which was, until recently, Labour party policy—I know that because I wrote the policy document.
I warmly welcome the children's services grant, but will my right hon. Friend look at the one failure of the Children Act 1989? We have not been able to make the Act's preventive measures work, but if we prevent the problems that the care system has to deal with, children will not need to be in care. How will the new grant system enable local authorities to carry out the preventive work that is, at the moment, so lacking?
Mr. Dobson: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments. We intend to establish a national unit to provide a voice for children in care and for children formerly in care. We are considering various ways in which to assist the whistleblowing process in each locality, as a national voice will not be of much help if children cannot make it speak for them. We would welcome the Select Committee's views on how best to proceed—I note my hon. Friend's support for a children's rights commissioner.
We want the children's services grant to be used to prevent children from coming into care in the first place. Many of the actions that have to be taken are not necessarily the responsibility of the social services department; they may be the responsibility of other parts of the council's organisation. That is one reason why we will legislate to ensure that responsibilities fall across the board in local authorities, not only to individual departments.
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Long-term admirers of Bill Utting's work will recognise that the problem is serious and intractable. I welcome the effort to restore the equivalent of the National Association for Young People in Care. Does the Secretary of State intend to use a telephone service, such as Childline, to assist in encouraging young people to get their voice heard?
1018
Many of the children are troubled and troublesome, and in great need of child mental health services. Does the Secretary of State plan to provide any encouragement for the availability and development of child mental health services? The young people are often costly to care for, and some cost shunting goes on, with referrals between special education, children's homes and prison institutions. I am pleased that he gathered together Ministers from different Departments on his group; are there to be any financial mechanisms to discourage perverse recommendations being made on the basis of the Departments' financial interest rather than the children's needs?
Mr. Dobson: I thank the right hon. Lady for her comments. Certainly, Childline fulfils a function, and we will want to continue to promote that, but it has been in existence for some time and it clearly does not work for all the children. It is a valuable service, but its provision needs to be augmented, as otherwise we would not have all the current problems.
We will shortly make a statement on mental health services. I am not a person who leaks anything to anyone at any time, but I can safely predict—
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Who is leaking, then?
Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Gentleman can help me to track down the person who is leaking from the Department of Health, I will get that person sacked.
We are talking about the serious matter of children's mental health. I can safely predict that we will make a substantial effort to ensure that the mental health of all children gets more attention than it does under the present system, and especially that we concentrate on children in care, because recent estimates suggest that about two thirds of all such children suffer from some degree of mental health problems, compared with 4 per cent. of all other children of the same age.
The right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) mentioned the problem of various Departments shuttling children from one budget head to another, because the people making the decisions do not give a damn about the body of the child that goes with the budget head that they are concerned about. I am determined to put a stop to that, and I think that our proposals will achieve that. If people still want to behave in that way, I suggest that they seek employment that does not involve any responsibility for children.
Mr. Hilton Dawson: I commend my right hon. Friend for providing the extra cash and making a commitment to the reform of the whole care system. How will the extra money help to address the central absurdity of the care system: the fact that a large proportion of staff working in residential care are completely unqualified for such a vital and complex task? How much of the money will go to help the funding of foster care, to ensure that foster carers receive money commensurate with abilities and training and are adequately supported?
May I be the third person today to say that children's rights are fundamental to the whole process and that we absolutely need a children's rights commissioner to ensure

1019
that the scandals of the past are put well behind us? My right hon. Friend rightly celebrates the achievements of one young person in care who has made a major contribution to that work, and he makes the commitment that local authorities should act as good parents to all children. Does my right hon. Friend look forward to the day when we can celebrate the achievements of all children in care?
Mr. Dobson: Again, I thank my hon. Friend for his points and I know that he draws on considerable professional knowledge and experience of the subject. He is right to say that many people who look after children in care have no qualifications. One of the problems is a by-product of the constant assertion that care in the community is superior to care in an institution, however large or small, which has meant that the prospect of working in a residential setting has become less professionally attractive. As we said when we launched "Quality Protects", we want to increase the number of foster carers, provide better training for them, and give them whatever encouragements are necessary to improve the service they provide. Most of them do a very good job already.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and commend to him the report of the Health Committee. Like Sir William Utting in his report, the Committee considered the safeguards for children looked after by local authorities and the need for them to give children the same support as a parent would. On that theme, I have two points to put to the Secretary of State. First, he will know that many problems stem from the impermanency of the arrangements for many children. Even when placements are sustained, there can be rapid changes in staffing caused by the relative professional unattractiveness of residential social work. Will he consider a residential child care initiative for training and the need to adapt training for residential social workers so that it becomes an explicit professional expertise with its own recognised and specific training? Having rooted out abuse, we must recognise and value those who continue to work successfully in the system.
Secondly, the Secretary of State will know that adoption can be the most appropriate mechanism for providing children with a home like that enjoyed by most children. Will he introduce adoption legislation to remove many of the impediments to successful adoption?
Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the Health Committee's report and I contemplated whether the task force should consider it as well as the Utting report. The Committee's report covered a wider range of issues than Utting and I felt it was better to deal with those aspects separately. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with our proposals when we respond to the Select Committee's report and produce the social services White Paper. He is right to draw attention to the problem of unsatisfactory short-term placements for children, which are disturbing and damaging to the children's mental and physical health and their prospects. As we said in "Quality Protects", we intend to improve training and to set more demanding targets for local
1020
authorities so that they pay more attention to the standard and appropriateness of placements and to reducing their number.
Adoption, where it works, works very well indeed in providing a wonderful family life for the children concerned. One reason why it succeeds is that there is, rightly, a severe vetting process to ensure that the child is suitable for the adoptive parents, and that the parents are suitable for the children. The law does need sorting out, but we must be careful about that. Some people—not, I am sure the hon. Gentleman—seem to think that some of the restraints on adoption should be dispensed with entirely. Those constraints exist for the protection of children, and that is right.
Mr. Joe Ashton: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the immense steps that he has taken in acting on the Utting report. However, he has not mentioned the fact that the number of prosecutions for child abuse is dropping. In the past two or three years the figures have fallen by probably 50 per cent. The Utting report said that schools feared prosecutions because of the shame, the headlines and the bad publicity that result. Councils also fear prosecuting abusers because of legal costs and insurance payments. There is often a tacit agreement that abusers should simply be dismissed—they can then move on elsewhere. Despite list 99 and the other safeguards, the BBC 2 education programme, "Just One Chance", claims that 1,000 abuse suspects are probably still teaching.
Would it not be a good idea to have a children's commissioner who could take decisions on whether to prosecute, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) has said? If decisions on whether to prosecute are left with schools or councils, prosecutions will dwindle to nothing. In addition, lawyers drag cases out, and our court procedures need to be examined. The decision on whether to prosecute must be taken from local councils and schools or the problem will simply be swept under the carpet.
Mr. Dobson: As ever, my hon. Friend makes an important point. The number of prosecutions has gone down, and successful prosecutions have fallen even faster. That seems strange at a time when more and more attention is paid to and public horror expressed at the idea that some pervert may be molesting children. However, when cases come to court, the courts are less likely than they were a few years ago to find the people charged guilty. We clearly need to examine the system to find out what is going wrong.
As my hon. Friend has said, one problem is that for the sake of not damaging the reputation of their school, institution or council, and to avoid all the bother and expense of prosecuting, employers frequently let the abusers move on. That stops them molesting local children, but it leaves them to molest children elsewhere. We have to put a stop to that, and we are considering what we can do. I am prepared to consider the concept of a children's commissioner and the possibility of a prosecuting role for such an office.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the compassion that the Secretary of State showed as he presented the report. I also welcome his tribute to Sir William Utting. We all recognise our debt to

1021
Sir William, although some of us are still waiting for implementation of an earlier recommendation for a council for social work. In implementing the report, will the Secretary of State bear in mind that some conscientious and hard-working social workers may have extra pressures placed on them, which their middle management will do nothing about? The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was not mentioned in the Secretary of State's statement, but may I take it that the statement also applies to Northern Ireland where abuse is as prevalent as it is here? Finally, will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming Tuesday's launch by his erstwhile colleague, now the Minister of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), of the remand foster care experiment in Reading? I hope that that experiment, pioneered by the care movement, will spread throughout the nation.
Mr. Dobson: At the risk of being accused of leaking from a document that I shall eventually produce, let me say that the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that the proposals for a council for social work will ultimately be forthcoming. As far as I know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will seek to extend the principles behind what we have been talking about today to Northern Ireland although, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would be the first to say, certain aspects may need adjustment to meet the particular circumstances there. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's kind words about my former ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), which give me an opportunity to pay tribute to him for the enormous amount of work he has done in this sphere generally and as a member of the task force towards the production of our report. I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said about my hon. Friend and I have tried to trump him.
Ms Julia Drown: I remember a child who had been in care talking to the Select Committee on Health. He realised that he fitted into the category of a child looked after by a local authority but said that "looked after" was the last thing he felt he had experienced. I am sure that he, like me, would welcome the Secretary of State's comments today and the great moves forward that have been announced. In particular, I welcome the extension of care to children over the age of 16 and the funds for local authorities to improve the services for looked-after children.
The Select Committee picked up on the lack of streamlined checks available for social services and other employers to look at, so I welcome too the change on that to ensure that those who are working with children are not potential abusers. Do the Government accept that local authorities need to have surplus places if children who are to be looked after are to have real choices? Sometimes it is uncomfortable for a Government to say that their target is to have surplus places, but that must be recognised if there is to be real choice. Will my right hon. Friend continue to encourage independent visiting schemes for children looked after by local authorities, who for one reason or another cannot relate to their social worker? It is important for them to have somebody who will befriend and stand up for them and be an independent voice to represent them as they move through their life and make choices.
Mr. Dobson: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind welcome for our proposals. I welcome the continuation
1022
and, indeed, development of independent visiting schemes. I accept on behalf of the Government her good point about surplus places. A problem that faces councils when placing children, possibly with particular difficulties or who may not be particularly appealing to a possible foster parent or even people running a small home, is that if they have no choice because there are no surplus places, they end up knowingly placing a child somewhere that is less than suitable. Therefore, there must be a surplus of places; otherwise, there is no choice and even the best-intentioned, best-informed social work staff cannot implement their professional judgment, but have to send children somewhere unsatisfactory.
Dr. Peter Brand: May I congratulate the Government on a comprehensive response to Utting and in particular welcome the establishment of a central register that can be consulted by people concerned about the welfare of children? For some time I have been concerned about the welfare of young foreign visitors to this country. I note with interest that the paper suggests setting up a code of practice. A code of practice is no use if it does not require those organisations to consult the very register that the Government are setting up. Will the code be voluntary or will it have some teeth?
Mr. Dobson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his general welcome for what we are doing. Our ultimate intention is that consulting the register should be mandatory for employers, but it will take some time before we can get to that position. There are all sorts of quite difficult ethical and other considerations to bear in mind before we can fully put in place the system that we all want.
Mr. John Gunnell: Like other members of the Health Select Committee, I very much welcome the Secretary of State's report. He has noted that the educational standards reached by children in care, as the Committee said, are appallingly low. What discussions has he had with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment about the mechanisms used to raise standards? Will joint advice be given to local authorities so that they can act in a corporate Way in making relevant decisions? The Committee found that stigma was attached in school to children in care. Will he and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment consider ways of making contact with children more sensitive while in school so that such stigma is not attached?
Mr. Dobson: As a member of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend has been heavily involved in these matters. He knows that the system does not get some children to first base. Roughly speaking, on any given day, one in four of the children in care who should be in school are not. There is not much hope of them doing well if they are not attending. It must be one of the first, basic requirements of the system that education departments, social services departments and the people responsible for where the children live work together to get the children to school in the first place. I have had discussions with members of the team of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, and we are ensuring that councils are given joint advice. We want to them to act jointly; there is no excuse for the education and social services departments

1023
of a local authority not acting in concert. The Department for Education and Employment has today launched a new initiative on children with special needs. Children in care are, of course, children with special needs.
It is difficult to deal with things such as stigma, partly because other children can be perfectly horrid. We have to bear that in mind. If we can get a system that works better, so that children in care are, generally speaking, better looked after and more closely resemble, in every sense, the other children in the school, differentiation and stigma should decline.
Mr. John Bercow: Given his welcome insistence that the money for the new children's services grant is additional to existing funding, will the right hon. Gentleman give an absolute, unbreakable assurance that social services SSAs will at no stage be adjusted downwards to reflect its introduction?
Mr. Dobson: As a result of the comprehensive spending review, we have identified a substantial increase in the funding for social services. Part of that increase was to provide the £375 million over the next three years. That is additional money to what it was previously the intention to spend on those services. The assurance that I promise that I can make, which is probably more important even than the one that the hon. Gentleman seeks, is that the money will be spent on children's services. It will not be spent on anything else.
Madam Speaker: Thank you. We now move on.

Business of the House
4.24 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.
MONDAY 9 NOVEMBER—Debate on the fifth report of the Committee on standards in public life on the funding of political parties in the United Kingdom on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Proceedings on the Statute Law Repeals Bill [LORDS], which is a consolidation measure
TUESDAY 10 NOVEMBER—Opposition Day
Until 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on factory closures on an Opposition Motion.
Consideration of Lords Amendments to the European Parliamentary Elections Bill.
Motion relating to the Personal Equity Plan (Amendment) Regulations, the Individual Savings Account (Regulations) and the Individual Savings Account (Insurance Companies) Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 11 NOVEMBER—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Progress of consideration of any Lords Amendments which may be received to the Scotland Bill.
THURSDAY 12 NOVEMBER—Debate on the Royal Navy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 13 NOVEMBER—The House will not be sitting.
MONDAY 16 NOVEMBER—Until about 7 o'clock, conclusion of consideration of any Lords Amendments which may be received to the Scotland Bill.
Consideration of any Lords Amendments which may be received to the Regional Development Agencies Bill.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 11 November there will be a debate on Agenda 2000: Financial Aspects in European Standing Committee B.
The House will also wish to know that it is proposed that on Wednesday 18 November there will be a debate on agrimonetary arrangements and the introduction of the Euro in European Standing Committee A and a debate on EC development aid to South Africa (1986–96) in European Standing Committee B.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 11 November: European Standing Committee B: European Community Documents: (a) 7046/98, Agenda 2000, The Financial Perspective (2000–2006); (b) 7221/98, Agenda 2000: The interinstitutional agreement of 29 October 1993; (c) 9302/98: Own resources based on VAT and GNP; (d) 11666/98, Financing the European Union. Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports: (a) HC 155-xxvi and HC 155-xxxvii (1997–98)(b) HC 155-xxvi (1997–98) (c) HC 155-xxxvii (1997–98) (d) HC 155-xxxviii (1997–98).]
[Wednesday 18 November 1998: European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community Document: 9597/98, Agrimonetary arrangements following the introduction of the euro; Relevant European Legislation

1025
Committee Reports: HC 155-xxxiii and HC 155-xxxviii (1997–98). European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community Document: 9690/98, EC development aid to South Africa (1986–1996). Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 155-xxxvi (1997–98).]
Sir George Young: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving us next week's business. Can she shed any light on the date of Prorogation? What are the Government's plans for the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, which is due to be considered on Tuesday, following the Government's defeat yesterday at the hands of peers from all parties who are anxious to allow people to vote for individual candidates rather than centralised lists? How do the Government plan to get themselves out of this hole?
Once again, there is no planned debate in Government time on the economy. Thanks to Opposition parties, we have recently been able to debate a matter that the Government are clearly anxious to avoid, but if the House is to perform its job properly and hold the Government to account, provision must be made in Government time for an economic debate. Will the right hon. Lady reflect on the reply that she gave me last week—that the Queen's Speech will provide an adequate opportunity? That is not a substitute for the traditional economic debate in the autumn.
Yesterday, the Government launched an important document on the family which generated both support and controversy, described in today's The Guardian as "nannyism without the smacking". There was no statement on that report, but can the Leader of the House find time for a debate on this most important subject?
In the Army debate last week, the Minister for the Armed Forces said that he hoped to make an announcement shortly on the Territorial Army. In the light of the critical and threatening letter from the Select Committee on Defence to the Secretary of State published today, and against the background of the leaked letter from the Secretary of State for Scotland, can the Leader of the House assure the House that any announcement on the TA will be made by way of oral statement?
Can she assure us that the Public Accounts Committee debate has not been overlooked, and that, once the Pinochet case is resolved and no longer sub judice, there will be a statement in the House on how the matter has been handled?
Although I am disappointed that the right hon. Lady has not found time for a foreign affairs debate, will she undertake to keep the House in the picture, if events in Kosovo or Iraq take an unexpected turn for the worse?
Mrs. Beckett: I note that, on this occasion, the right hon. Gentleman has managed to ask for nine separate subjects to be debated. Last week, I recall, the total was only seven, so the number clearly rises as we go along.
The right hon. Gentleman first asked me about the date of Prorogation. I fear that I cannot add anything to what I told him last week, which is that—[AN HON. MEMBER: "You do not know."] The right hon. Gentleman is quite right—I do not know. The principal reason for my not knowing brings me to item No. 2 on the shopping list—the behaviour of the parliamentary friends of the Opposition in another place. If the right hon. Member for
1026
North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) is concerned about the date of Prorogation, I suggest that he has a word with his noble Friends. Despite his attempt—laudable, from his point of view—at a cover-up, may I point out that, whatever he says about votes on that issue coming from both sides of that House, it remains the case that, had it not been for the participation of hereditary peers, the Government would have won that Division by 29 votes? The issue of timing in this respect is in their hands.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about two issues relating to the economy. He asked me to reflect on the answer I gave him last week, that those matters would come up in the debate on the Humble Address. That remains the case. I am confident that he will not have forgotten that this week, we have had two full statements on the economy. However, I accept that that is somewhat different from the traditional autumn debates and the general forum for discussion of economic affairs, so I anticipate the matter being discussed through the usual channels.
The right hon. Gentleman asked for a debate on issues relating to attitudes to families; I shall certainly bear his request in mind. He also asked me to give an assurance that the arrangements for the Territorial Army are likely to come back to the House in the form of a statement. I certainly hope and anticipate that that will be the case. He also sought a debate on Public Accounts Committee issues; again, the matter is being discussed with a view to finding an early and convenient date for such a debate.
Although I cannot give an undertaking on how issues relating to General Pinochet will be handled, I note the right hon. Gentleman's request. When the matter ceases to be sub judice, it might be raised again in the House—indeed, I suspect that it will be, in one way or another. As for foreign affairs, he will know that the subject of debates on the Humble Address is a matter for the Opposition, and that it is the custom to have a debate on foreign affairs. In any event, I can give him an assurance that, as we did this week with the statement on Iraq, the Government will continue to keep the House informed about developments.
Charlotte Atkins: As yesterday's vote in another place shows, it takes only 36 per cent. of Tory peers to defeat Labour every time. More than 100 of the Tories who voted are hereditary peers. Does not that demonstrate the urgent need for reform of the House of Lords?
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Quite right—abolish the Opposition.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Jolly good question.
Charlotte Atkins: Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House find time for a debate on that matter?
Mrs. Beckett: I shall certainly give favourable consideration to my hon. Friend's suggestion that the matter is one we should debate. I noticed a certain amount of barracking from Conservative Members about getting rid of the Opposition.
May I draw to the attention of the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) the fact that, as matters stand, there are some 750 individuals who are entitled to sit in

1027
another place and play a part in our legislature, not by virtue of any contribution they have made to the running of our country, but by virtue of the contribution made, for good or ill, by their predecessors? It is 87 years since the Conservative party officially agreed that it was time to get rid of the hereditary element, so I do not think that anyone can accuse us of being in a rush.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the issue of social security computing to be debated? As you are probably aware, Madam Speaker, the answer to a written question tabled today was apparently leaked to The Times yesterday I am sure that you will agree that that is not a satisfactory way for matters to be dealt with in the House.
Will the Leader of the House also arrange for a debate on SI 2618 and early-day motion 1718?
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Disability Discrimination (Exemption for Small Employers) Order 1998 (S.I., 1998, No. 2618), dated 19th October 1998, a copy of which was laid before this House of 22nd October, be annulled.]
Many hon. Members have been shocked to find that the Government propose, via that statutory instrument, to do a U-turn on the ability of disabled people to seek employment with small employers, as a result of which their hopes of jobs have been dashed. It is urgent that we discuss that matter.
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot say that the Government will be able to find time for a debate on social security matters in the near future. I am aware, of course, as is the House, of the concerns that have been expressed as a result of some computer problems in the Department of Social Security, and I understand that the matter is under urgent consideration. I have not seen the other report to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I shall certainly draw his remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention.
Ms Hazel Blears: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to some fairly sensational reporting in the Manchester Evening News this week, putting my constituency at the top of the league for people leaving the city, and highlighting the huge problems of social deprivation and exclusion that we face. Nevertheless, the Government have instituted a number of initiatives to help Salford. We have an education action zone, a health action zone and a regeneration project. Can my right hon. Friend make time for a debate on the Government's measures to tackle the real problems of deprivation and social exclusion in our inner cities?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose constituency I know well. I share her concern for those who have, for so many years, suffered from social exclusion in the area. She is right to identify the fact that that is one of the Government's key priorities, to which we have already given a great deal of attention and to which we shall give more in future. I suspect, Madam Speaker, that, if my hon. Friend is lucky enough to catch your eye during debates on the Humble Address, that is exactly the kind of issue that may arise in the Government's programme.
Sir Sydney Chapman: I congratulate the right hon. Lady on the choice of her recently appointed Parliamentary Private Secretary.
1028
Since the House seems to be marking time waiting for amendments to two Bills in particular to come from the other place, and since the right hon. Lady does not seem to want controversial issues to be debated on the Floor of the House, will she look sympathetically at perhaps a three-hour debate between now and Prorogation on the importance of tree planting, as this year marks the 25th anniversary of National Tree Year, which I had the modest honour of instigating, and as National Tree Week, carrying on the initiative of 25 years ago, is impending? Whether tree planting is important to the ecosystem or to improving our towns and countryside, will she look favourably on this request?
Mrs. Beckett: That is an unusual but worthy request, to which I undertake to give careful consideration. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. As for the suggestion that we are not keen to bring controversial matters before the House, I suspect that the matter that we shall be discussing later today will give the lie to that.
Mr. John Cryer: My right hon. Friend will know that, a few years ago, when that lot on the Conservative Benches were in government, specific EU questions were abolished on the Floor of the House and pushed upstairs. Will the Government consider a return to a Question Time dedicated to the EU? I ask that after this morning's report that duty-free goods will be abolished for the entire population of western Europe, apart from European Commissioners, who will continue to enjoy them. If we had specific EU questions on the Floor of the House, we could put the spotlight on the huge gravy train that is the EU.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend will know that it has been a goal of this Government to ensure that any exploitation of the public of Europe is severely curtailed, which is why we have been such staunch advocates of tackling fraud. I did see the stories on duty-free goods to which my hon. Friend refers. To be fair to the European Commissioners, it is not solely they, but they and other diplomats, who will continue to enjoy such a concession.
With regard to the handling of European matters, my hon. Friend will know, I think, that proposals for the better scrutiny of EU matters have been under discussion, and we hope to make a statement on the matter in the near future. Whether we should return to a dedicated Question Time on the matter has not previously been raised with me, but I undertake to consider that.
Mr. Edward Leigh: We shall debate proportional representation this afternoon. However, in terms of the right hon. Lady's area of responsibility, does she agree that we could arguably reduce the democratic deficit and improve the scrutiny of Bills in this place by ensuring that parliamentary Select and Standing Committees reflect more accurately the proportion of votes cast in the country rather than merely the composition of the House? That would enable Committees to scrutinise the Government and allow the Government to overturn decisions using their solid majority, thus ensuring the best of both worlds.
Mrs. Beckett: I note with interest the hon. Gentleman's unusual suggestion, but the Government have no plans at

1029
present to change the composition of Select Committees. I take it that the hon. Gentleman's observations mean that he does not entirely share the views expressed by some of his hon. Friends in these matters.
Mr. Tony Benn: On the subject of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill—having no regard to the merits of the matter—can the Leader of the House confirm that, as the Parliament Act 1911 will not be at the disposal of the House, if the Lords insist upon the amendments that they have made already, elections will have to take place in May under the old system? Am I correct in supposing that that is the constitutional position?
Mrs. Beckett: My right hon. Friend raises a very important matter, which the Government have under review at present. I have little doubt that the relevant Minister will make a statement about the matter when the legislation returns to the House.
Mr. Christopher Fraser: May I lend support to the comments by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) about having a debate on the family? Given recent newspaper reports about prominent Members of Parliament and their colourful private lives, and given the BBC's selective way of approaching the issue, surely such a debate has great merit, because such behaviour flies in the face of the document that was launched yesterday.
Mrs. Beckett: How the BBC handles such issues is a matter for the BBC—and I am thankful that I am not responsible for it. All I can say is that it is always wise for any hon. Member to be cautious when referring to anybody else's private life—colourful or otherwise.
Angela Smith: Is the Leader of the House aware of the great problems associated with the enactment of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, which does not apply to Northern Ireland? That not only means that it is difficult to enforce the Act's import and export provisions for the whole of the United Kingdom, but raises questions about animal welfare and the housing of wild animals in Northern Ireland. I understand that the police, welfare groups and local authorities would welcome legislation in this area. Will the right hon. Lady consider this matter and respond to the House?
Mrs. Beckett: I have recently become aware of the problem whereby legislation governing such matters in Northern Ireland—particularly regarding the treatment of wild animals and the conduct of zoos—differs from that in force elsewhere. A consultation paper seeking comments on such matters is likely to be issued shortly, and I hope that it will ease some of her concerns.
Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Following the publication of the letter from the Secretary of State for Scotland to the Secretary of State for Defence, there is concern in Scotland about the ability of the military to aid the civil power in the event of an emergency. Will the Leader of the House assure
1030
hon. Members that the statement that she has promised about the future of the Territorial Army will address that specific point?
Mrs. Beckett: The contents of any potential statement are a matter for the announcing Department, and the issues that hon. Members choose to raise in response to such statements are a matter for them and for you, Madam Speaker. However, I have little doubt that, were there to be concern that the issue needed to be addressed further, the statement will provide an opportunity to do so.
Mr. Andrew Love: Unlike the Conservative party, which presided over increasing class sizes and the failure by 40 per cent. of 11-year-olds to reach the expected standards in both maths and English, is it not a fact that the Government have not only cut class sizes in the past 18 months but will invest £23 billion in our education system in the coming years? Will my right hon. Friend find time not only to expose the appalling record of the past 19 years of Conservative government, but to show what the Government are doing to put it right?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is entirely correct: the Government have made it plain from the outset that education is our top priority in terms of making the transformation that we believe needs to be wrought in Britain for the sake of our society and our of competitiveness as an economy. My hon. Friend is also right in outlining the steps that the Government have taken already.
This week sees the 18-month anniversary of our election to office, and the steps that the Government have taken in that comparatively short time have done a great deal to reduce class sizes. I believe that 100,000 fewer pupils are now in large classes than when we came to power. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will continue measures in this area, and I am confident that the matter will be debated in the House from time to time.
Rev. Martin Smyth: As I raised the question of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 in the House a long time ago, I trust that "shortly" does not mean after the next general election. Is it possible to have a statement before prorogation about the role of Grand Committees for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, bearing in mind that it would be helpful if they met occasionally in the areas with which they are concerned? That would tie together the House and different areas of the United Kingdom.
Mrs. Beckett: I assure the hon. Gentleman that, when I say that a document will be issued shortly, I certainly do not mean after the next general election. The practice after previous general elections has been outside our control for quite some time.
The Government are considering the future of Grand Committees, along with other issues that flow from the passage of devolution legislation. We hope to be able to address the concerns of hon. Members regarding such matters.
Mr. Mike Gapes: Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on Britain's relations with Germany, historically and currently? That would provide

1031
an opportunity to consider what happened in 1982, when the German Liberals changed sides and put Chancellor Kohl in power without an election, when the party received only a small percentage of the vote. Such a debate would provide an opportunity to draw attention to the ambitions of the leader of the Liberal Democrat party to become the Hans-Dietrich Genscher of British politics.
Mrs. Beckett: Most unusually, I am able to grant a request at once, as I believe that my hon. Friend will be able to raise those matters very shortly.
Mr. Soames: Now that the Chancellor has been miraculously transmogrified from a child of the manse into a reckless gambler, does the right hon. Lady agree that those who do not ascribe bad faith to the Chancellor believe that he must have been fed some very dodgy Government statistics? As it is well known that the statistics supplied by the Government are notoriously unreliable, will it be possible to debate in the next Session—if not in this—how we might improve the quality of Government statistics?
Mrs. Beckett: I believe that my right hon. Friend took account of about 45 different forecasts—not merely the Government's own forecasts—in making the judgments to which he referred in the House.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern regarding the quality of Government statistics. We all share that concern, and we noticed, particularly during the past 18 years, how the statistical service was repeatedly put under pressure and had its work distorted. That is certainly not a course that we propose to follow, and we intend to ensure that Government statistics improve.

Voting Systems
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
Madam Speaker: Let me tell the House that I have had to limit speeches from Back Benchers to eight minutes. I know that about 50 Back-Bench Members wish to speak in the debate. It would be counter-productive for hon. Members to approach the Chair to ask whether they will be called and when they are likely to be called. Two hon. Members have already approached the Chair. I caution hon. Members not to do so for the rest of the debate. Let us get on with it.
4.49 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I am glad to open the debate on a question at the heart of our constitutional arrangements. The choice of 5 November—Guy Fawkes day—for this debate is entirely fortuitous. However, it serves to remind us how long Parliament has been central to the life of this nation, and how, over time, this institution has carefully adapted itself to reflect the will of the British people.
Discussion of electoral reform is not quite as old as Parliament itself, but there were those who argued for elections by a system other than first past the post even before the franchise was extended in the last century.
The Spectator last Friday contained a fascinating article about Winthrop Mackworth Praed, a Romantic poet and Conservative Member of Parliament who, in 1830, bought a rotten borough, which contained seven voters, for £1,000. The following year, he proposed amendments to the Reform Bill to give more seats to the less successful parties.
For hon. Members who are not versed in the verse of Winthrop Mackworth Praed, I refer them to the site on the internet where his poetry can be found: www.geocities.com.athens.acropolis.poems.praed. His poetry includes the immortal lines:

"When Freedom sheds her holy beam

On Negroes, and the Press;

When there is any fear of Rome,

Or any hope of Spain;

When Ireland is a happy home,

I may be yours again!"—

not yours, Madam Speaker. I was quoting the poet.
In this century, the debate about the voting system has continued. It was your predecessor but 10, Madam Speaker—Mr. Speaker Lowther—who convened a Speaker's Conference towards the end of the first world war to consider the most appropriate voting system. That Speaker's Conference recommended a town and country solution—the single transferable vote for the big towns and cities, and the alternative vote for the rest of the country. Ironically, given recent debates, that was rejected by a House of Commons dominated by Lloyd George's Liberals.
In 1931, this House voted for the adoption of the alternative vote as the means of electing Members of Parliament. The Bill was supported by almost every Labour and Liberal Member, and opposed by virtually

1033
every Conservative Member, but wrecking amendments from the other place assured its delay and eventual demise.
The domination of British politics by the two major parties, Conservative and Labour, in the first 25 years after the second world war, to the near-exclusion of the Liberals, ensured that the debate over electoral reform then subsided. Over recent years, however, that has changed. As the Liberals, and their successors—the Alliance and then the Liberal Democrats—increased their share of the vote at general elections, so did the call grow to introduce some form of proportional representation. The idea also found favour with some in my party in the late 1980s.
That pressure led directly to the establishment of the Plant committee to consider the issue. That committee's recommendations prompted our late leader, John Smith, to propose a referendum on electoral reform. The proposal for a commission to recommend an appropriate alternative to first past the post sprang from the joint consultative committee between the Liberal and Labour parties, which reported in February 1997.
In all the debates about the appropriate electoral system for Westminster, I have personally taken one side of the argument—in favour of first past the post. That will come as no great surprise to hon. Members on either side. I therefore remain unpersuaded of the case for change, although I am always open to higher argument.
I have also long believed there should be a proper, informed debate on the issue. Indeed, at my party's conference in 1995, I spoke on behalf of the national executive committee to urge my party to back a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. For it was, and is, my belief that this is an issue that should ultimately be decided by those who matter most in our democracy—the British people.
Following that vote at the 1995 party conference, our election manifesto duly pledged us to create an independent commission to identify the best possible electoral system as an alternative to first past the post. We honoured that pledge within the first few months of taking office. The commission was appointed on 1 December last year, and began its work early this year.
As we discussed in the debate on 2 June, members of the commission were chosen because of their knowledge and expertise, because they were broadly sympathetic to electoral reform, and because they represented a broad spectrum of political views.
Sir Nicholas Lyell rose—
Mr. Straw: I will, of course, give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but given your injunction, Madam Speaker, I ask right hon. and hon. Members to bear in mind that there are 50 hon. Members waiting to speak, and if I give way to everyone, only about 10 of those will be able to speak.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful to the Home Secretary. On the so-called independent commission—the Jenkins commission had the brass neck, and the Government were misguided enough, to describe it as such—the Home Secretary is on record as describing it as
1034
a "relatively independent" commission. Can he think of any commission set up by a Government since the war that was less independent?
Mr. Straw: I can think of plenty—a long list from the Conservative years—but I shall not go down that track. We discussed the matter at great length on 2 June this year. There was never any pretence that the people appointed to the commission were not in favour of electoral reform. Indeed, as I pointed out in the debate on 2 June, even if I had been available for the post, as many former Home Secretaries are, I would be disqualified from serving on the commission. Of course the commission is relatively independent, because in life almost everything is relative, apart from death.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I know the right hon. Gentleman's position on the matter. I ask him not to make an assumption by referring to electoral reform. Reform means that things get better. Many of us on both sides of the House believe that we are discussing electoral change, not electoral reform. It is important to make that distinction.
Mr. Straw: I shall bear that in mind, but everyone knows what we are talking about.
Three of the five commissioners are members of another place—one was drawn from each of the main political parties. The terms of reference are set out in the first pages of the report. The report was published last Thursday. The Government and I are extremely grateful to members of the commission and its staff for their considerable work in bringing together the report in a relatively short time.
As hon. Members know, the commission recommends a two-vote, mixed electoral system. It proposes that between 80 per cent. and 85 per cent. of the members of this House be elected by individual constituencies using the alternative vote system. The remaining number of Members of Parliament—between 15 and 20 per cent.— would be elected by 80 or so areas on a top-up basis, in order, the commission argues, to mitigate the perceived disproportionality in the constituency results.
Mr. Eric Forth: I am grateful to the Home Secretary. It might be helpful to the House if he could tell us roughly how many democracies in the world have a system like ours—first past the post— and how many have the precise system recommended in the report?
Mr. Straw: Sixty-two countries use first-past-the-post systems, which account for 1.85 billion of the world's electorate. That is about 45 per cent. of those who have a vote. If one includes majoritarian systems of the kind that operate in France and French colonies, a majority of the world's population who have elections use first past the post. Various countries, mainly Spanish colonies and others in Europe, use a variety of systems of proportional representation. I am happy to place in the Library of the House the full list in all its glory.
No country uses the precise system that is proposed, but that is not an argument against change. This country and this House have often been in the vanguard, doing what other countries have not done.

1035
I draw attention to the table on page 46 of the report, which provides the projection that the commission produced on the likely results of the 1997 election—the one with which we are all most familiar—had the proposed system been in place, and using the median—17.5 percent.—of the range proposed. That shows that, on this system, Conservative representation would have increased from 165 seats to 168, an increase of three seats. Labour representation would have decreased from 419 seats to 368, a loss of 51 seats, or a reduction. Liberal Democrat representation would have increased by 43 seats from 46 seats to 89. It is estimated that the Scottish nationalists and Plaid Cymru would have increased their representation from 10 seats to 15. There are other exemplifications and other assumptions in the appendices to the report.
It is important to understand how the top-up element will be elected. In each top-up area, the commission proposes that each party will be able to put forward a list of names of up to three people to allow for "spares" in the event of deaths or resignations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Spares?"] This is rather like European elections. It is not really possible to have by-elections. The areas would either have one or two vacancies. They would have to have more people who were actually elected on this system than there were vacancies. [Interruption.] If the House could pay attention—
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Will my right hon. Friend say that again? I could not quite take it in when he said it.
Mr. Straw: I ask my right hon. Friend to listen carefully. As they say in management-consultant-speak, I would like him to park that point before I come on to— [Interruption.] I would like to describe the whole of this top-up arrangement before he asks me further questions, if that is all right.
Voters will then be able to cast their second vote either for those on the list as a whole or for one particular individual on it. Those hon. Members who have carefully followed the proceedings of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill may be reminded of the Belgian system; indeed, it is similar, but not the same. There is one key difference.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is double Dutch.
Mr. Straw: We shall come on to the Flemish-speaking Victor d'Hondt in a moment, because he features in the system.
Although all the votes, whether cast for individuals or the list as a whole, will be used to determine how many top-up seats a party wins—using the now favourite d'Hondt divisor—it appears, although the report is not entirely explicit on this point—
Dr. Julian Lewis: What else?
Mr. Straw: We could have Sante Lague simple or Sante Lague modified. As hon. Members will remember, the Sant Lague modified system starts with the divisor 1.4, which is the square root of two. For reasons of
1036
simplicity the commission has chosen the d'Hondt divisor, where the divisors go seriatim one, two, three, four, five. That is simple.
This is the important point—[Interruption.] I am seeking to explain what the commission says. As I have explained—
Mr. Martin Linton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the system that he describes as the d'Hondt system is the name of an inventor of a system that simply involves taking the average vote, and that the system invented by somebody called Sant Lague is simply one of rounding up or down?
Mr. Straw: Both systems are about rounding up or down when we do not have exact proportions of votes cast to the seats available. That is why a system of divisors is needed.
Given the number of hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate, I shall regard the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) as the last one in my speech.
I wanted to point out the difference between the system that was proposed and is used in Belgium, and the system that appears to be proposed in the commission's recommendation. It appears, although the report is not explicit on this point, that only those votes cast for individuals will determine which particular individuals on a list are elected. Votes cast for the list as a whole do not appear to enter into the equation as to who gets elected, as opposed to which party has those seats. In other words, it appears that those who cast a vote for the list as a whole will be abdicating responsibility for determining which of the candidates on a list should be elected, and leaving the decision to those who happen to vote for an individual on the list.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I took the view, which I hope had the approval of the House, that having a ministerial statement only a few hours after publication of the commission's report would not have given hon. Members sufficient time to read and digest it. We felt that a full day's debate on the issue was a better way to allow the House to consider it.
The commission's report is one of the best written official reports that I have read for many years, and our gratitude for that must go to its chairman, Lord Jenkins. The Government would now like to see a widespread debate about the merits of the report within political parties, in Parliament and among the public at large. Today's debate is an important contribution to that.
As to timing, we have always envisaged that the referendum would be before the next election, and that remains an option. However, plainly, in the light of Lord Jenkins's specific recommendations, this is less certain, because the new system cannot be introduced until the election after next. Nor, in our judgment, is there a need for the Government to come to an early view about the commission's recommendation.
There are a number of important points of detail in his recommended system which Lord Jenkins has left to be resolved. We have always believed that the referendum, whenever it is held, should be a choice of equals—a choice between first past the post and an explicit alternative. Parliament may take the view that, in order that the British people know exactly what they are being

1037
asked to consider, the exact proportion of top-up seats, the way in which the constituency and top-up area boundaries will be determined and the exact method of allocating votes for top-up seats should be determined in advance. It is a matter for Parliament, but if we were to do that, these things would plainly take time.
As I have already explained, the simple truth is that, with the best will in the world, the Jenkins system could not be in place by the next general election. That is because the system that is envisaged would require the number of constituencies to be reduced from the present 659 to about 530 to 560. Every constituency boundary throughout the United Kingdom would need to be redrawn, a process that would take the Boundary Commission some years. That is because the average number of eligible voters per constituency at present is about 72,000. If that number were increased by between 15 and 20 per cent., the average would increase to between 85,000 and 90,000. There are no constituencies of that size except the one that happens to be at Milton Keynes.
In opting for the system it did, the commission acknowledged that
"we cannot realistically expect our recommendations to be in operation at a general election in much less than eight years."
I am not sure that it would necessarily take quite as long as that, but the process certainly could not be completed before the next election.
When we last debated this issue—it was in June, on a Supply Day, when the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) spoke first—I told the House:
"The plan is that the referendum should take place well before the next election.".—[Official Report, 2 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 190.]
I said that in good faith. It was open to the commission to recommend one or other of the well-known options to first past the post—the alternative vote, regional lists of the sort that we intend or propose to have for the European Parliament, and the single transferable vote in multi-Member constituencies.
For each of those, it would have been perfectly possible to legislate for the referendum, to hold the referendum and, if there had been a vote in favour of change, to implement it well before the next election. However, as I told the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) in response to an intervention, the system that Lord Jenkins has recommended, though ingenious, has no parallel anywhere in the world, so one may be forgiven for not fully anticipating its prospect.
There are two other important reasons why the Government will not rush into holding a referendum. The first is that the Jenkins commission is not the only independent committee headed by an eminent member of another place to have reported recently. The Committee on Standards in Public Life—the Neill committee—recently delivered its report on party funding. The Government have strongly welcomed that report, and, as the House knows, a full day's debate on it will be held next Monday.
The Neill committee made a number of detailed recommendations about referendums, the detail of which we shall want to study carefully before we take steps to provide for a referendum on the voting system for elections to the House of Commons. Obviously, we shall take full account of the feelings of the House next Monday in reaching our conclusions.
1038
The second reason for not jumping to an instant conclusion on the Jenkins report is that the recommendations need to be seen in the context of the Government's wider, far-reaching programme of constitutional reform. We need to see how the new election systems settle down in Scotland, Wales, London and the European Parliament. It is particularly important that we look at the commission's proposals alongside reforms to the House of Lords, which will follow the removal of the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the other place. It would not be wise to embark on reform to the House of Commons electoral system until we are more certain of the changes that will take place in the other place.
Mr. Edward Leigh: In 20 years.
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman says, in 20 years. We are advancing the programme for the second stage of that reform by establishing a royal commission.
Thus, a great deal of constitutional change is under way, and the British people would not thank us for moving too quickly without thinking carefully about how any changes fit into the whole. We shall want to see how the various changes bed down and how well the new electoral systems for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the European Parliament work.
My main purpose today is to listen to the debate, but in so doing I wish to make the following points about the context of the debate and how it should be conducted, both here and in the country. First, in this debate, there can and should be no moral or constitutional absolutes. Each of the main British parties has, at various times in its history, or for various purposes, supported both first past the post and proportional representation systems. The Labour party was in favour of proportional representation for the first 23 years of this century, while the Liberals were against. Labour and the Liberals then changed places as the main opposition to the Conservatives, and in doing so changed opinions on PR.
Although the Labour party has not so far advocated a PR system for Westminster since 1923, apart from the alternative vote in 1930, it initiated and approved the introduction in this Parliament of PR for the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the European Parliament. In the 1970s, many Conservatives supported PR for this House. I have a long list of those, including the noble Lord Hurd, Christopher Patten, Lord Lawson, Malcolm Rifkind, Lord Younger and many other luminaries. Indeed, Lord Carr of Hadley, a predecessor of mine as Home Secretary, told his colleagues in the Conservative party in October 1977 that, with a PR system of elections for Westminster,
"the tide of socialism could be halted".
I remind the Conservative party that it supported the introduction of PR in Northern Ireland, including the introduction of a closed list system with d'Hondt divisors for elections to the Northern Ireland forum.
The common thread through all that is that no electoral system can be best for all circumstances. We must seek a system that is most appropriate for the purpose and functions of the bodies in question. My second point flows from that. I am sure that the House will wish to consider the outcome of any change to the electoral system, not some of the more exaggerated claims about

1039
fairness and wasted votes. I believe that all sides in this argument seek fairness, but it is important not to disguise self-interest in the outcome of any electoral system by claiming that one side of the argument has a monopoly on morality.
Lord Jenkins was on strong ground when he said in his report:
"fairness in representation is a complex concept".
Indeed it is. For all the claims of "wasted votes" made by the opponents of PR, and their equally vociferous claims that PR leads not to wasted votes but to wasted elections, there is a simple truth about elections by any system: some people win and some lose—[Interruption.] As I spent 18 years rather than 18 months on the Opposition Benches, I had a long time to spot that consequence.
Those who win form a Government who have power over those who lose. Almost certainly, the Government will then do things to which those who lose take great exception. Those who have lost may well feel that, in the event, their vote has had no effect, and was therefore wasted. In one sense they are right, but that is inescapable so long as we determine elections by the weight of votes, however the elections are conducted or the votes counted.
We must ensure that our voting system is as fair as possible, but mathematically there can never be an identity between the proportion of votes cast and seats gained for a party, and the proportion of power that is then obtained. Proportionality must be measured not only between parties at any one point in time, but over time— over many elections. As a result, what is fair or unfair, and what is proportional or not proportional, can lead to many different answers.
At the beginning of my speech, I referred to the changes that the House has experienced over hundreds of years. It is a testament to the strength of this institution that its members have accepted the need to consider reform when and where necessary. In the 100 years or so after the first Reform Act, successive extensions to the franchise changed the character and position of this place. Many of the reforms to our procedures and rules that have taken place more recently—the introduction of departmental Select Committees and of Wednesday morning sittings, to name just two—have also affected how we operate. It is therefore entirely appropriate for the House to have a full and proper debate on this issue.
There are scores of different electoral systems, and, I suspect, just as many different views on the subject of electoral reform among hon. Members. The Government look forward to hearing some of those views expressed today. We are also keen to see a much wider debate in the country at large. As I have explained, there is no need to rush to a verdict on this issue; nor would it be desirable to do so. The Government want to hear what others have to say about the commission's proposals. The commission has performed a valuable service in setting an agenda for debate. Now let the debate begin.
5.16 pm
Dr. Liam Fox: As the Home Secretary knows, there are not many pleasures in opposition, but one of the pleasures is listening to an intelligent and articulate politician trying to square the circle between
1040
what he instinctively believes and what may ultimately be the Government's position. The Home Secretary did himself great credit today by not trying to pretend that he was entirely without a side in this argument. I noted that, at the outset, the right hon. Gentleman said that he was willing to listen to higher argument as opposed to better argument. That says a great deal about the functioning of the Government. Anyone who believed that the Home Secretary was open to persuasion on this particular matter would believe that a child welfare scheme put forward by King Herod carried political credibility.
There is always a moment in these debates when a word or phrase is uttered which shows the Government's real intention. When the Home Secretary uttered the word "spares"—genetically modified Members waiting to take the place of those who have popped off—it gave away the intentions behind his speech.
We must take exception at the outset to the title of the debate, which refers to the report of an "independent" commission. It could not have been less independent. It was a rigged commission—a sham process—which might as well have begun with its conclusions and worked backwards towards its remit. That is effectively what it did. It was a plan for an arranged marriage between a minority party and a section of the governing party—a relationship in of which neither side knows the outcome. What we can say is that the matchmaker was a self-confessed political colossus who was uniquely placed to judge the relationship between the two, having played a pivotal role in the near destruction of both. We saw today a bravura performance by the Home Secretary—a kicking into the long grass of Olympic standard, on which we congratulate him.
However, there were many things that the Home Secretary said today with which we agree, not least in what I thought was an honest defence of the British first-past-the-post system. As the right hon. Gentleman said, 62 countries use our system—almost half the world's population. Only 0.5 per cent. of the world's population use AV, and only 0.1 per cent. use STV.
We do not claim that our current system is perfect. We know that it is rough justice, and hon. Members on both sides of the House have experience of that. However, it is bizarre that we are accused of defending the current system because it suits us when we were slaughtered in the 1997 election by that system, and that Labour Back Benchers are accused of defending a system that works against them when they have a majority of 179 in the House. That is the sort of defeat that we could happily take. We could swallow a system that worked against us to that extent.
Ms Gisela Stuart: I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's numerical analysis of how many countries use the first-past-the-post system. Could he name one post-war emerging democracy which, on reflection, chose the first-past-the-post system?
Dr. Fox: I know that the Prime Minister recently described Germany as his model democracy. Perhaps we should look at the most stable, economically active and prosperous nation in the world—namely, the United States—which has chosen to use the first-past-the-post system. Why do all those who want electoral reform focus only on mainland Europe, rather than looking more widely?

1041
There are four reasons why we believe that we should stick to our current system. The first is accountability. The advantage of our current system is that all constituents have Members of Parliament, but, more important, all Members of Parliament have constituents. We all know that what we do and say will be scrutinised by constituents who all have a vote to put us out at the next election. That would not happen under any form of top-up.
I hope that it is accepted on both sides of the House that we do our very best between elections to represent all our constituents and not just those who voted for us. I know that many hon. Members resent the suggestion that they represent only the people who voted for them at the ballot box on polling day. That is a gross misrepresentation of how most hon. Members see their jobs. Above all, our system—sadly, on some occasions— gives voters an easy way to send the removal vans to No. 10, as they did last year. We cannot resent that. One of the strengths of our system is the easy way of removing a Government whom the people do not want.
Our system also gives us stability. Our current Prime Minister is the 12th since the war. Italy has had 56. At the opening of Parliament, we know that the Government can be expected to last out a full term. Most systems with coalitions mean that people do not know whether the Government will last six months, one year, 18 months or whatever. That is not a good basis on which to plan for a stable democracy.
The Home Secretary referred, at the end of his speech, to another important issue. Proportionality is a much-distorted argument, and he was correct to look at the proportionality of power. If we define that as the ratio between votes gained and time spent in power, our system is better than many others. It is not a good measure of proportionality that the Free Democratic party in Germany, on 5 per cent. of the vote, should have spent almost 100 per cent. of the post-war period in power; or that the National Religious party in Israel, on 1 per cent. to 1.5 per cent. of the vote, should spend such a long time in power. That is not a measure of proportionality that I wish to see here.
One of the arguments used on 2 June was that our system is not responsive. Several Labour Back Benchers said, "How can we accept our current system when a Government could bring in something like the poll tax?" As the Home Secretary said, Governments will do things on which they will be judged at a subsequent election. I should point out that, because of the responsiveness of our current system, the Government of the day had to jettison the poll tax mid-Parliament, without having to wait for an election.
Mr. Kaufman: With regard to the poll tax, is it not a fact that, in the end, the Conservative Government abolished the poll tax after losing a safe seat in a by-election, whereas under the proposed system, there would be no by-elections for top-up seats?
Dr. Fox: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct and makes the point for me. I must say that if we had had to ditch a policy after every by-election disaster in 18 years, we would not have had any policies left.
Mr. Leigh: Although we should oppose proportional representation for the reasons given by my hon. Friend,
1042
will he—on behalf of the Opposition—say that we should not be complacent about the relative power of the Executive and Parliament; that Parliament needs to reform itself; that we must give increased powers to Select and Standing Committees; and that the Opposition will look at that problem?
Dr. Fox: There are many arguments as to why we need to check the power of the Executive and how we need to look at our practices in both Houses of Parliament. However, that gets to the nub of the argument. Changing the system will not change how the Executive are brought to account. That is one of the great red herrings put forward by those who believe in electoral reform.
Let me turn to the specific proposals by the Jenkins commission—I refuse to call it the independent commission. First, the AV-plus system with the top-up is a dog's breakfast. Hon. Members may be aware of the simple guide which has been produced, providing a simple explanation for voters of AV-plus.
"Mark your candidates in order of preference. Remember that your third preference for the candidate who comes third could be more important than your first preference for the candidate who comes first. The candidate who comes third could be eliminated and if their first and second preferences are for candidates who come fourth and fifth, then their third preference could transfer to the candidate coming second, defeating the candidate who came first but only as your fourth preference. If you want to vote tactically it may make sense to vote first for the candidate who you think might come third in order that they beat the candidate who comes second but who you believe your first choice would find it easier to beat. There will be some extra candidates who didn't win any preferences who are then elected because some other candidates from their Party did not get the right preference. There will be 17 per cent. of these candidates elected to make sure that things are proportional but not so proportional that they cancel completely the preferences of the other 83 per cent."
Simple, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the hon. Gentleman do two things? First, will he acknowledge that he is not reading from the Jenkins report? Secondly, will he give a simple explanation—perhaps in one sentence—of the system by which the Conservative leader is elected by his fellow Members of Parliament?
Dr. Fox: I might as well have been reading from the Jenkins report—which was just about as clear as some of that paragraph. It is entirely up to the right hon. Gentleman to make his own case, and spurious points, later. No doubt he will, because he himself has said some interesting things recently. First, he has said that, under the AV-plus proposal, all votes would be equal. They will not be equal. A vote for the most fringe candidate—the most way-out or wacky candidate—will count more often than those votes for the first or second preferences. Vote wacky, vote often—get your vote counted as often as possible.
It is said that the winning candidate will always have to have 50 per cent. to win, and will be "less despised" by more than 50 per cent. of the electorate than successful candidates under the current system—some mandate! However, all candidates will not reach 50 per cent. Unless the voters are forced by law to rate all the candidates all the way down, the returning officer could run short of

1043
votes before he gets to 50 per cent. What do we say to voters—"Unless you rate all the candidates, your preferences do not count?" It is not clear in the report.
Mr. Linton rose—
Dr. Fox: If the hon. Gentleman can tell me where it explains that point in the report, I will happily take his intervention.
Mr. Linton: Would the hon. Gentleman concede that the recommended wording in the Jenkins report for the second ballot paper is
"Either put an X against the party of your choice OR put an X against the candidate of your choice"?
Dr. Fox: It would help if people had read the report. We are talking about the AV part—not the top-up part. The AV part will cause all the confusion with voters, and the matter is not at all clear in the Jenkins report.
The House should consider where the AV part might cause an even greater distortion than the current system. I wish to refer to the Scottish National party—I see a couple of SNP Members in their places.
As the Scottish National party has no policies at which anyone could take offence—and as the party is merely the political embodiment of the "Braveheart" video—people in Scotland might find it an easy second choice. What if everyone—Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrats—made the SNP their second preference? It might start to win a disproportionate number of seats, and the Labour party might have to use the top-up system to regain some of the seats that it had voluntarily given away.
Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Is not the problem that too many people may make the SNP their first preference in the near future?
Dr. Fox: Yes, that is a danger, not just for Scotland but for the United Kingdom as a whole. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to it.
The second item in the report that causes difficulties is the top-up system. One of the most disturbing aspects for Members of Parliament is the notion of two classes of Members. Our current system makes us all equal: we are all responsive and answerable to our electors. Under a top-up system, a new class of Members would be created—Members who would be answerable not to their electors, but to their party bosses. We should take that very seriously.
I was a Government Whip, and I know the pressures that Whips can put on Members of Parliament to persuade them to vote in a certain way; but what if the pressure exerted by a Whip consisted not of persuasion, but of the ability to remove a Member from a list and deprive him of his living because he does not vote as his party wishes at any one time? That is a real danger. Our democratic tradition, from Magna Carta onwards, has been about how power can be transferred from the unaccountable to the accountable. This proposal seeks to reverse that trend in our democratic process, and to give political power in the House to a group of people who are answerable to
1044
political parties rather than the electorate—to the party bosses rather than the voters. At present, every Member of Parliament is accountable to the voters; under a top-up system, they would be accountable to the party bosses who rank them and allow them to stand for their parties on a list.
There is also the problem of weak government by coalitions. Notwithstanding what some may consider to be the consensual benefit of government by coalitions, they tend to be more short-lived and less able to make decisions. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) has said, decision making in government is a first-past-the-post activity. I think that Ministers are increasingly understanding that.
Under the Jenkins system, there would have been nine coalition Governments since 1950. There would have been two Labour and three Conservative Governments. That has many implications for the way in which our country is governed. A coalition Government will necessarily mean disproportionate minority power—as it does in many countries.
In a television programme in which I took part the other day, a representative of the Greens said, "This system does not help us. We wanted proportional representation, but this system makes it too hard for us to reach the threshold. It will not help those of us who wanted PR." The proposed system is designed specifically to help small parties, but only big small parties: in fact, only one big small party. There is only one winner in this electoral lottery, and the winner is—the Liberal Democrats! What a sham, what a fraud, what a con trick it has all been.
We do not know when we will be given a referendum, although we were promised one. I accept the Home Secretary's arguments about the deeply confusing nature of the proposals that have been made, their unworkability in regard to the time scale required by an electoral commission, and so forth—all of which I welcome. But no doubt when the Prime Minister says, "It is an option in this Parliament", he is saying to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), "Just concede on this sell-out and this principle. Vote with us on that. Get rid of the single transferable vote. Prefer closed to open lists", and who knows what else, while at the same time saying to those who prefer the current system, "Trust me. Keep quiet on this, bear with me for now. I will promise them anything, and dump them at the right time."
That is simply not good enough. We need clarity: we need to know where we are on this subject which is so important to the standing of our democracy. It is not a game. Strong views are held on both sides of the House, but we must do what we do not do often enough. We must hold true to what works, and has been developed in our country's interests; and, above all, we must put the people before the politicians.
5.34 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is a brilliant Home Secretary, but a lousy literary critic. He praised the style of the Jenkins report, which is, in fact, glutinously euphuistic as well as being intellectually shoddy.
As we have just heard, we have a system that is utterly clear and comprehensible. In exchange, the report offers us the following. First, it offers us a system that is

1045
hopelessly complicated. I suggest that hon. Members try to read points i to iii in paragraph 110, which explain the arrangements for allocating top-up members. Secondly, it offers a complex ballot paper with three confusing choices. Thirdly, it involves the alternative vote, which the report itself admits to be unfair, while also claiming that it enhances choice. The report is self-contradictory in the space of only three lines.
Fourthly, the numerical top-up allocation system is entirely arbitrary. The commission could have chosen any number; it chose any number, and it could have chosen any other number. An electoral system that is arbitrary in regard to selection by Government or anyone else is an unacceptable electoral system. Moreover, the top-up allocation system is not only arbitrary, but without any intellectual justification.
Fifthly, the report itself admits that the top-up system is unfair, because it requires—not "makes possible"— disparately sized and disparately elected top-up constituencies. It builds in unfairness, while claiming to get rid of unfairness. Sixthly, the report admits the existence of the potentially insoluble problem of filling vacant top-up seats, to the extent that it actually recommends leaving such seats vacant if they become vacant. Who will be represented with fair votes in a system like that?
Seventhly, the report admits that the new system may not even work. A recommendation popped in at the end suggests that the matter should be looked at, and that there should be another referendum. We do not need that with our current system: our current system works, and will go on working. Eighthly—I do not expect the Conservative party to make this point—believe it or not, I have been elected eight times as a Labour Member of Parliament. An anti-Labour bias is built into the proposed system. For one thing, the report admits in terms that Labour will not qualify for many seats under the top-up formula— [Interruption.] It is in the report. I suggest that hon. Members read it, as I have done several times from beginning to end.
Mr. Stephen Twigg: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Kaufman: No, I have only eight minutes in which to speak.
The basic formula for the alternative vote topped up makes it inevitable that there will be fewer Labour seats, and the extrapolations in the report show that the party will suffer more than any under that formula is the Labour party—just as Lord Jenkins's own party will enjoy the greatest enhancement.
As I said, I have been elected to the House eight times, sometimes during periods of immense electoral adversity. I have sat here for 28 years. I have not sought election 10 times and been elected eight times in order to support a system that is definitely intended to reduce the number of Members of Parliament from my own party. That may be regarded as self-interest, but I must tell my hon. Friends in marginal seats who floated in here, that they will not be here for 28 years with this system.
The report is deliberately aimed at reducing the number of Labour Members of Parliament through a referendum. I offer my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench a serious warning based on the past. They ought not to
1046
support this system when the referendum comes because, if they do, the Labour party will be split in a referendum campaign against a Conservative party that is united.
The Financial Times reported today that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will allow Cabinet Ministers to take either side of the argument in a referendum campaign. We had that in 1975 and the direct result was the split that developed in the party right through to 1980; it was Lord Jenkins who split the Labour party in 1980. In 1980, Lord Jenkins nearly inflicted a terminal split on my party and he is now trying to do that in another way. I recommend to my right hon. and hon. Friends that they should have nothing to do with the report, because it is a poisoned chalice being offered by our ex-colleague.
5.41 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: I do not think that the body elected by the present system is the most favourable one in which to get a sympathetic hearing for radical change in the system, but I had hoped for a little more objectivity, not least from the—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I have heard the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) shout in this Chamber several times. He will not do it again or his feet will not touch the ground.
Mr. Beith: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that he had been elected to the House eight times. I have been elected a few more times. On the last occasion that the electors of Gorton sent him to the House, nearly half of them did not bother to vote. That is a repeated phenomenon in his constituency because it is regarded as a safe seat in which nearly half the electors feel that their vote will not make any difference to the outcome. Right across the country, millions have voted, year in, year out and felt that their vote has made no difference to the outcome.
The first-past-the-post system give us huge majorities that the voters did not give to the politicians. Of course, politicians like it if they can drive through measures such as the poll tax, which the majority of people do not want. Lady Thatcher was able to do that, even though she had rebels in her own party, because she had an artificially large majority, far beyond that given by the voters. Indeed, she did not have a majority from the voters.
The system produces dramatic and exaggerated reversals between one Government and the next. I can tell Labour Members that it may feel comforting to have a large majority today, but previous Governments have seen what they thought was good work built for the future undone, because the next election resulted in a complete reversal of power, brought about not by the voters but by the vagaries of the electoral system. Some of the Governments whose work has lasted the longest and been most successful have been those who have had to look beyond their own ranks for support. The wartime coalition produced measures such as the Education Act 1944, which lasted for decades because it was built on more than the supporters of one party.
The first-past-the-post system produces perverse results, such as that in February 1974 when the wrong party was elected, and it under-represents minorities on a drastic scale. In 1983, Labour got just over a quarter of the votes and a third of the seats. We got just under a

1047
quarter of the votes and a 30th of the seats. That is not fairness by anybody's standards. More than that, it denies some parties seats in vast areas of the country where they have support. There are no Conservative Members in Scotland, Wales or any of the major provincial cities of Britain. The reason for that—
Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that there are no Conservative seats in Scotland and Wales means that the Conservative party is likely to change its opinion when it starts winning them back under proportional representation?
Mr. Beith: I have heard no offers from Conservative Members to decline to stand under the proportional system or not to take the seats given to them by the proportional system in Scotland and Wales. Similarly, the Labour party—
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Beith: I have promised to limit my speech and I must try to do so.
In the southern counties of England, the Labour party has been almost totally unrepresented in most elections. That is not good for the party.
Dr. Fox: On a logical point, if the right hon. Gentleman makes that argument about Conservatives in Scotland and Wales, are we to assume that, because he stands under the first-past-the-post system, he somehow approves of it?
Mr. Beith: I have made it pretty clear over the past 25 years in the House that I seek a change in the system.
The system proposed achieves a much higher level of proportionality while not making coalitions inevitable. It retains constituencies, but uses a system that ensures that Members have to command majority support in the constituencies. It gives the voters a say on who the top-up Members are. It cannot be fixed by the parties—the voters decide which top-up Members come higher on the list. It provides satisfaction for the criteria that the commission has set.
Hon. Members, in both the Labour party and the Tory party, who are opposing this move and who have been elected to this place under the present system, must think about what they are doing. They are campaigning to keep out of here members of their own party in other parts of the country. When north-east Labour Members such as the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) argue that the system should not be changed, they are condemning Labour voters in many parts of the south of England to never having a Labour Member of Parliament. When Conservative Members insist that the system should not be changed, they are telling the whole of Scotland and the provincial cities of Britain, "Do not bother voting Conservative there because we will never win." That is no way to treat the voters.
What are the objections? The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) claims that it is too complicated. The Conservative party elects its leader by a complex system designed to ensure that he has a majority. If that
1048
were not the case, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) would not be the leader of that party now. If the election had been carried out under a first-past-the-post system, the leader would be the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke).
Most other parts of the United Kingdom use proportional systems. Such systems are used in Northern Ireland and are to be used in Scotland and Wales. They are used in the Republic of Ireland and all over Europe. What is it about the Conservative view of the British people that makes them believe that they cannot fill in a ballot paper that people throughout the rest of the world can fill in?
The Conservative party says that the system would produce coalitions, which produce bad government. There would not always be coalitions. The recommendations in the report would have given one-party government in 1983, 1987 and 1997 but, rightly, not in 1992 when no party was anywhere near having a majority of the vote.
Most of Europe operates stable coalition systems of government. We cannot talk about the rest of Europe in the presence of the Conservative party or some elements of the oldest of old Labour because it is foreign and anything that happens in a foreign country must be wrong. However, the Conservative party has suddenly switched the argument and said that we cannot have the proposed system because it is not used in any other country. It will have to make up its mind where its argument lies.
The Conservative party says that there are too many small parties. Ten political parties were elected to the House at the last election under the present system because that system favours small parties that are regionally concentrated, such as Sinn Fein. Two Sinn Fein Members were elected to the House under the present system.
The Labour party has a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum in this Parliament on Lord Jenkins's proposals. That commitment was that it should be before the next election.
Mr. William Ross: The right hon. Gentleman has told the House, correctly, about the number of parties elected to the House. However, he neglected to say that most of those smaller parties operate in very circumscribed areas of the United Kingdom and, therefore, represent not the broad mass of the British people as a whole, but their own local electorate.
Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman is right, but I thought that I had said that. I was making the point that small parties are elected if they are geographically concentrated, but that much larger sections of opinion that happen to be spread across the whole country are not represented.
We should have a referendum during this Parliament. The Prime Minister has confirmed in this House and elsewhere that it is what the Government continue to envisage. That is our view and we see no persuasive reason for delaying it until early in the next Parliament. It will be necessary to introduce the referendum legislation in this Parliament, at least in the Session after next, in order to keep those options open.
It would be desirable for the boundary commission's work to be under way before the end of this Parliament to ensure, in the event of a yes vote, that the system would be in place for the election after next. The Home Secretary

1049
recognised that it would take some time for the system to be established, but I do not agree that it would necessarily take eight years.
Hon. Members would do well to remember that the coalition outside the House for reform of the electoral system is broad. People outside the House are less ready to justify unfairness or absurdity and they are less likely to be resistant to change at any cost. The diehard opponents of change do not represent the breadth of opinion, even in their own parties.
I believe that the British people will welcome change and a fairer system, in which their votes count. Electoral systems exist not for the benefit of parties but to give democratic power to voters. That is what the proposed system does, and that is why I believe that the British people will vote for it when they are given the opportunity to do so.
5.50 pm
Mr. Giles Radice: I entered Parliament as an unquestioning supporter of first past the post, as I understood its simplicity and the fact that it led to regular changes of Government and to Governments who were, by and large, stable. During the 1970s and, in particular, the 1980s, I changed my mind for several reasons. First, the Thatcher Governments were elected on a minority of the vote—43 per cent. was the most that they won—but with large majorities that exaggerated the movement of opinion.
Secondly—this is an important point—the system became extremely unfair to the Liberal party, which improved its share of the vote but only marginally increased the number of seats that it won. The system seemed to become even less fair.
The third argument is geographical. After the 1983 and 1987 elections, the Labour party held only three seats in the south of England—we were becoming a regional party. The same applies now to the Conservative party, which has no seats in Scotland or in Wales. That is not good for democracy.
I believe that the system needs to be reformed in such a way as to take account of the strengths of the first-past-the-post system and our traditions. I supported the establishment of the Jenkins commission and I welcome its report, which is extremely well written. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on many subjects, but I think that he has allowed his prejudices to overwhelm his usual objectivity and fairness about the quality of writing.
The commission has come up with some subtle and well-argued proposals. Many of the arguments of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) were directed not against those proposals but against any reform of the system. That is not good enough, and the hon. Gentleman will have to hone his arguments before the referendum.
All Labour candidates are elected by an alternative vote system, so Labour Members should not say, "This is something quite extraordinary. We have never heard of it." The system is linked to single-Member constituencies, so that the vast majority of Members of Parliament will be elected in constituencies.
Mr. John Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Radice: I have only eight minutes, so I think that it would be unwise to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
1050
There is an element of proportionality in AV-plus, but that element is quite small and is designed to make the system fairer. Because AV-plus is not strictly proportional, the traditional criticisms of proportional representation are irrelevant. We are not talking about the Israeli or Weimar systems—AV-plus will not create unstable Governments. Indeed, under AV-plus, the elections of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s would have produced Governments with workable majorities in every case except the 1974 and 1992 elections, which certainly did not lead to stable Governments. Moreover, the fact that, under AV-plus, most elections would not produce a coalition answers at a stroke the argument about the third-party hinge—Conservative Front Benchers can no longer use that argument.
AV-plus gives voters a bigger choice. They can express a preference and they have two votes. Their second vote need not be for the same party; they may decide to vote differently—and why not, if that is what they want? We are offering voters a larger preference, especially as AV-plus can also operate with an open list system.
No system is perfect, and I agree with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that there are no absolutes in this matter. AV-plus would create two classes of Member of Parliament, and that is a serious fault. However, under AV-plus, the vast majority of Members of Parliament would represent constituencies, whereas the top-up Members would represent small county areas.
Siobhain McDonagh: Since when has south-west London been a county?
Mr. Radice: I should say that most top-up Members would represent small county areas.
Areas such as Surrey, which have never had a Labour Member of Parliament, could have one under AV-plus. [Interruption.] Labour Members may not represent Surrey now, but Labour voters in Surrey would like to have a Labour Member of Parliament.
I support the Jenkins proposals and I look forward to hearing the Government's eventual reaction to them. I also look forward to campaigning and voting for them in a referendum.
Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that, under new Standing Order No. 47, which was passed by the House in June, it is in your discretion as occupant of the Chair to allow extra time so that interventions may be made and taken during time-limited speeches?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Madam Speaker has ruled on the time limit, but I take the right hon. Gentleman's point. It has been agreed that there will be—for want of a better phrase—injury time for interventions. I do not want to waste the time of the House, but I remind hon. Members that all interventions take time away from the total number of Members who want to speak, of whom there are about 50.
5.56 pm
Mr. William Ross: It is a pleasure to speak in a debate on this subject, as I am one of the few Members of Parliament to have been elected by a system

1051
other than first past the post—I have experience of the single transferable vote, proportional representation system.
The Jenkins inquiry was given a restrictive framework—it had to produce an alternative to the current system but preserve what are generally perceived as the merits of the simple majority system. The remit was interesting. First, the constituency link between the Member of Parliament and the electorate was to be retained. Secondly, the system was required to create stable Government—I assume that that means stable Government for the duration of the Parliament rather than the long-term continuation of one party in government.
Thirdly, there had to be broad proportionality of Members to votes and, fourthly, an extension of voter choice. Indeed, the Prime Minister set out similar arguments in his article in The Economist in September 1996. I believe that the current system does all that fairly well, so precisely why a change is required to achieve the same result raises some interesting conjectures.
As the criteria were so clearly and narrowly drawn, it is no surprise that the commission reflected the view that change was necessary. I must protest against the denial of an open and fair appraisal of electoral systems. The simple majority system was denied a hearing—it was condemned, hung, drawn and quartered without mercy or thought about its merits, and it was not allowed to stand comparison with the commission's ideas. This has been our first opportunity to make such a comparison.
On 12 March, I attended the commission's hearing at Queen's university, Belfast. As I noted at the time, the proceedings attracted so much public attention—even in a place such as Northern Ireland—that only nine people attended, one of whom was Mr. Patrick Bradley, the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland. His interest was purely professional. I was moved to ask how many had attended the previous meeting, which had been in Cardiff. The answer was 30 or thereabouts. I do not know what was the attendance at subsequent meetings—I hope that it was somewhat better—but if ever there was a case of silence giving consent, I would suggest that the electors of Wales and Northern Ireland have shown that they are content with the present system.
In a matter of such fundamental importance to the government of our country, it is simply not good enough to draw up the guidelines so tightly and appoint a commission membership that is perceived to be in favour of change. The House demands fairness in appointments to every imaginable quango. No lower standard should have been applied in this case. The Jenkins commission should have included those who are prepared to defend the simple majority system and criticise the PR case.
No effort is ever made to seek out the views of people in Northern Ireland, who have lived with PR for many years. There was, as always, no real desire to learn from those with hands-on experience of the system in action.
We all know that, in our system, very few people vote for an individual. The presence of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) is an exception to the general rule. He is one of those—notably the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley)—who appear because of a conjunction of events in a constituency or a community, but in general individuals rarely endure in the House
1052
unless they create or represent a body of opinion that finds expression by evolving into a political party—either that, or they are absolute political geniuses and giants.
People vote for a party largely on the basis of their general approval of the main course of action that it represents. Personalities and minor themes in a party's structures can affect its standing, but very few individuals survive the sea change of perception of a party and the resulting tidal wave of public disapproval, as was proved only last year.
Much is made of the stability created by coalitions, which are the consequence of PR voting systems. It is said that they are effective and consistent. I consider them, and especially the pernicious system of power sharing proposed for Northern Ireland, not to be consistent but to allow the persistence in government of a particular theme, party or group of personalities long past its sell-by date.
All political parties are coalitions grouped around their natural political, ethical, social and economic centres of gravity. In my opinion, the present system means that people are forced into general political coalitions, to the good of the country, and that is a uniting influence, not a divisive one as PR is.
Owing to their common themes, parties possess a unity that is not possible in the shotgun marriages of convenience and necessity that force disparate groups into the same sardine box after an election. I am a proponent of the simple majority system for many reasons, many of which have been, and will be, rehearsed today. We are all equal in status here, and, despite the protestations of Lord Jenkins, we would not be under the proposed system.
How is there to be an equal work load? How can there be equality in the constituency? How can the additional top-up Members avoid treading on the toes of the constituency Members in the areas that they represent? How is a chosen party hack to have the same status as the Member who had to do the hard, dirty work on the ground before he got elected?
Mr. Beith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ross: No, I have only two minutes left.
Mr. Beith: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Ross: I know, but I have only two minutes left.
We must also consider the simple matter of by-elections, which would be conducted under a form of the single transferable vote system that governs elections and by-elections in Northern Ireland and that is so familiar to us. The simple majority system has much to commend it for the election of constituency Members. It is the experience of all hon. Members that the supporters of other parties approach us with problems and expect—and, I believe, usually receive—the same courteous treatment from their parliamentary representative.
We would all reject the idea that we are partisan between electors who share similar difficulties with public bodies and/or Government. It is our duty to represent them all, and I believe that we do. Indeed, we generally have no way of knowing for whom they vote. I agree with much of what Lord Alexander says in his note of reservation.

1053
The only real power of the electorate over Government is the capacity to put the rascals out of office. I object strenuously to any effort by politicians or parties to diminish the capacity of the electorate to take vengeance on those who have disappointed them, something that the alternative vote system would do. The power of dismissal under first past the post is simple to understand, brutal, merciless and terribly effective.
The effect is a sobering element in the thinking of any Government—or should be, if they have the wit to realise it—or, more likely, on their Back Benchers; that was evident among those on the Conservative Back Benches in the previous Parliament. There is a pressure on Government at all times to explain and to convince their supporters and the wider electorate.
The cleansing effect that first past the post makes possible should not be underestimated. It is cruel, painful to many and brutally effective. It allows the defeated party time to think, to revitalise itself and eventually to return with fresh ideas and new people able to pursue radical policies. No other system would create such opportunities. For that reason alone, it is worth while—indeed, necessary—to retain it.
6.4 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: This is an important debate, whatever view we take, because we are discussing the basis of our authority. I will have been here 48 years at the end of the month, and it seems to me that people want a representative when they vote. The idea that every Liberal or Labour voter supports every item of Liberal or Labour party policy is absolute nonsense. People want to be represented. Introducing proportionality completely destroys the idea of representation.
When we discussed the subject in the Labour party's national executive a few years ago, when Neil Kinnock was leader, I said to Neil that I had a feeling that if we had a party list system my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and I would be at the bottom of the list. He laughed, but in a funny sort of way. That is the direction in which politics is going.
No doubt, all hon. Members will go to their constituencies this weekend. Every person whom we meet in our constituencies is our employer—the bus driver, the street sweeper, the home help, the policeman—and has the power to remove us. Our constituents expect to be represented. They decide whether they agree with our views and whether we have done a decent job.
Any element of proportionality, which destroys that link, could lead to people being governed by a Government whom nobody had voted for, because nobody would know the basis of the coalition on polling day. At least the coalitions of the parties are transparent: people can see them developing and know what they are voting for and what their own Member thinks.
I do not intend to waste much time on the Jenkins report because, candidly, I do not think that it has a cat in hell's chance of succeeding. The idea that the parliamentary Labour party would go through the Lobby to destroy 50 of its own Members, to redraw all the constituencies and to introduce a new group of piggy-back Members is ludicrous. I heard it said by one cynic that the Labour party is so loyal that, if chimney boys were brought back in the name of modernisation, we would all
1054
go through the Lobby; but turkeys do not vote for Christmas. I do not honestly think that this is a serious plan.
The real issue is one that Jenkins neither considered nor was asked to consider the power that people have over the government of their country. This is the beginning of a debate about democracy generally. Unlike almost every other country, we have no vote over the head of state. We have no vote over the second Chamber. If my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reintroduces Edward I's method of appointing peers—when peers began in 1295, they were not hereditary—we will be modernising ourselves back to the feudal period. There will be absolutely no popular control.
The House of Commons has very limited power. After all, the Prime Minister derives his legislative majority from the people, but most of his executive power from the Crown. That is why the Prime Minister has put a spin doctor into Buckingham palace. If the Crown is not popular, the Prime Minister might lose the power to appoint bishops, judges, commissioners, peers and so on. That is how the system works.
It amazes me that the British people put up with that system. What is it about our training and breeding that makes us think that we are not fit to elect the second Chamber or the head of state? Jenkins does not deal with that, because he is an Asquithian Liberal. We have to be very careful.
People ask whether the proposals would lead to a coalition; but they are all about getting a coalition. Those who advocate the proposals favour a coalition. I do not want to be too political in a debate of this character, but it is worth noting that there is a big Labour majority and the leader of the Liberal party is on a Cabinet Committee, but I am not. I met him voting against the lone parents provisions last December. I was threatened with disciplinary action, but he knew that he would be at the Cabinet Committee the next day. There is already a broad perspective of views. For example, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), the former Deputy Prime Minister, has been given a job and the former Chancellor has been given a job. The former chairman of the Conservative party is in Northern Ireland, clearing up the RUC and David Mellor is in charge of football. When we talk about inclusiveness, I just wish some of us were part of it.
In future, unless we are clear about stopping it, all candidates will be vetted by the party machines. That is not about the power of the Prime Minister, but the power of the party leader. All the European candidates have been vetted and put on a list, as have all the Scottish candidates. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) was left off, because he was thought less suitable to be a Scottish candidate, although the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) has suddenly given the Labour voters there a Member of Parliament by changing sides. Candidates for the Welsh Assembly will also be vetted. So the language of devolution is accompanied by the centralisation of power.
I do not wish to overdo the point, but as a Minister I visited the Soviet Union and Brussels many times. In the Soviet Union, we used to meet the central committee, which had not been elected. We met the commissars, and they had not been elected. I went to Brussels and met representatives of the central bank, and that had not been

1055
elected. I met the commissioners, and they had not been elected. The truth is that capitalism and communism have one thing in common—they do not want the people to have a choice of system, only a choice of management. That is the problem that we face. I have not heard anybody suggest that it would be a good idea for the Governor of the Bank of England to be elected, even by first past the post, and he has more power than any of us here. He is appointed, so he depends, like the bishops and the judges, on patronage.
We must face the problem that government now is less about representation and more about management. I get my fax from the party headquarters every morning, with quotations already attributed to me—"Mr. Tony Benn welcomes compulsory homework for pensioners", or whatever it is, and I am supposed to put it back in the fax machine to send to the Derbyshire Times. I feel less and less like a representative and more and more like an Avon lady, who is told what to say when she knocks at the door. If the Liberals had joined the right end of the Labour party, we might have had a progressive party, but the trouble is that they joined the wrong end of the Labour party. I will not go into that now.
Direct representation is the delicate thread that links the people with their Government and the basis of it is that they elect a man or woman they know, can argue with and can get rid of. Do not think that minorities remain minorities for ever. After all, 10 years ago, the environmentalists were bearded weirdos, but it will not be long before Swampy is in the House of Lords. The Dunblane massacre led to the previous Government changing their policy and apartheid ended by popular pressure. Democracy is not what somebody does to us if we vote for them but what we do where we live and work, and Parliament then gets the message. After 48 years here, I can say that Parliament usually gets the message last. We must listen to the people and not try to impose on them a pattern that will provide a permanent coalition and remove real choice from the electors.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was so interesting and entertaining. May we vote for extra time for him?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. MacGregor.
6.13 pm
Mr. John MacGregor: As I read the Jenkins report, I became more and more convinced that proportional representation is an idea whose time has gone. Of course, the report contains some good things. At the beginning, it states:
" We all of us believe that any system has defects as well as virtues."
That is a crucial point, because it is easy for the Liberal Democrats to point to some of the defects of first past the post. The real issue for the referendum, if we have to have one, is which system has the greater virtues and the fewer defects. I am glad that the Jenkins report at least recognises that.
1056
In paragraph 19, the members of the commission admit that
"there is no surging popular agitation for change."
They can say that again. I cannot recall ever receiving any representations from any of my constituents about changing the system. In paragraph 7, the report states that the commission, in its hearings around the country, found a near unanimous opinion of
"distrust of any electoral system which increased the power of party machines."
That is a relevant point to the debate that we are having with the other place on the closed list system for election to the European Parliament and is also why the Jenkins report is in favour of an open list.
The majority report continues with two criticisms of the German additional member system. First, it substantially increases the power of the parties at the centre and, secondly, it gives too much power to minority parties— the report refers specifically to the Free Democrats. It is interesting that the Jenkins report makes that criticism of the additional member, or alternative vote, system, because it draws attention to the fact that the result of the Jenkins system would be more coalitions. No wonder the Liberal Democrats are the only people to have come out strongly in favour of the system: they are the only ones who would benefit. That is why they have always been in favour of coalitions.
The Jenkins report also makes some excellent criticisms of the single transferable vote and rightly comes down against it. After all its criticisms of PR systems around the world and how they might be applied here, what are the report's conclusions? It suggests a system based on the alternative vote whose defects even the majority report acknowledges. However, Lord Alexander's minority report is devastating in its criticisms of the alternative vote. He makes it clear at one point that he believes that it is neither fair nor sound in principle. I hope that all hon. Members will read his report, because his reasoning on the unfairness of the alternative is impeccable and very difficult to refute. He describes the alternative vote as "wholly illogical." In a marvellous phrase, he asks why the second preferences of only those who have supported the least successful candidates should be taken into account. Lord Alexander also quotes Winston Churchill describing AV as
"the most worthless votes of the most worthless candidates".
Mr. Bradshaw rose—
Mr. MacGregor: I shall not give way, because I do not have long left.
The report recommends a system that is difficult to defend and also even less proportional than first past the post. Lord Alexander also makes that point. The commission therefore had to add a top-up system to try to avoid the danger of recommending a system that is even less proportional than that which we have already. I beg all hon. Members to read paragraphs 116 and 117 because they contain three substantial criticisms of the top-up system in Germany and why it would be wrong to introduce it here. The report appears to conclude that it is a rotten system, but just a little of it might be all right here to prevent us from producing a system that is not as proportional as our current system.

1057
The report also did not deal adequately with the question of two classes of Members of Parliament. I once had a constituency with 110,000 voters, and I know what a heavy burden that is. The Jenkins system would take us back to those days and it also does not deal with tactical voting.
This afternoon, in a delightful speech, the Home Secretary killed the Jenkins report with kindness. If we are to have a referendum, I hope that he will take into account the recommendations of the Neill committee, about which I hope to say more on Monday, and the Jenkins report's remarks about the conduct of a referendum. However, it would be much better if we were not committed to holding a referendum, because the best thing to do with the report would be to drop it now.
6.17 pm
Mrs. Anne Campbell: I welcome the Jenkins report as the start of a healthy and much-needed debate on the way in which we elect our Members of Parliament. It has been my belief for some time that we need a fairer system under which Parliament better represents the views of the voters. It is shocking to think that nearly half the people who voted in 1997 might as well not have bothered, because their votes failed to elect anyone. That state of affairs is very bad for our democracy. In areas of the country with a large majority for one party or another, a large proportion of the votes do not count. That deters people from participating and reduces the turnout. It is an unhealthy democratic situation. We must consider how political parties respond to that situation. In 1997, my party concentrated on seats that could be won on a swing of up to 6 per cent. The Liberal Democrats have long since realised that their lack of people on the ground means that they have to concentrate on seats in which they are in second place, and which they therefore have a chance of winning. That means that only a small proportion of the electorate effectively decides the outcome of a general election.
That situation encourages tactical voting, a sophisticated expression that we have heard in recent years. Large numbers of people are voting for candidates who are not their first choice, in order to keep out the candidate they hate the most. I admit that that has resulted in some spectacular victories for Labour and Liberal Democrat candidates. The success of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) in beating Michael Portillo was an outstanding example. Tactical voting at the last election apparently produced around 30 more seats for Labour and Liberal Democrat candidates than would have been the case had there been a uniform swing. That was unfair to the Conservative party. On other occasions, it could equally be unfair to other parties. There is no doubt that the electorate is becoming increasingly sophisticated, and is beginning to use tactical voting more than it did previously.
Mr. Oliver Letwin: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Campbell: No, I have only eight minutes.
The first-past-the-post group of Labour Members has sent me a document, which was written by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), a long-time supporter of the system. The document says that the link
1058
between a Member of Parliament and his or her constituency will be preserved by a first-past-the-post system. I agree that that is important, but Lord Jenkins has cleverly devised a system that will preserve the constituency link while also enabling voters to have an alternative representative.
I represent a Labour seat in the middle of a Conservative area. I know from experience that many people feel uncomfortable about contacting an MP whom they know to have no sympathy with their views. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I say again that I represent a seat in a part of the world in which it has been rare for Labour voters to be represented by a Labour Member. Throughout the 1980s, and until 1992, the voters of Cambridgeshire were represented solely by Tories. Under the Jenkins system, the constituencies may well still have returned Conservative Members, but the additional MP would have been Liberal or Labour. That would have enabled people who wanted to make representations about the poll tax or fox hunting or any of the other issues that Tory MPs felt unable to speak out about, and to ask the alternative MP to raise their views in Parliament. That would have been healthy.
We have heard it argued that the first-past-the-post system is simple, and that is so. However, are that system's supporters going to tell voters that filling in a ballot paper on which they must list candidates in order of preference is too complicated for them? We are talking about an electorate that regularly does the lottery. If voters can fill in lottery tickets without turning a hair, it is not too much to expect that they can vote under a preferential voting system. I would not advise supporters of first past the post to tell the voters that they are not clever enough to vote under an alternative system. The voters would be less than impressed.
Supporters of the first-past-the-post system also argue that it produces stable government. It has undoubtedly produced stable Conservative Governments in the past, which is why one party here is so opposed to Jenkins. The Conservatives want to shut down discussion before it begins. They are terrified that if people start to see the advantages of a better voting system, they will never be elected again.
First past the post does produce strong Governments, but they can implement policies that should never get through any democratic system. The poll tax once again springs to mind. It also produces a system in which there are only two political views—those in favour, and those against. The adversarial system is extremely off-putting to a large proportion of the electorate, particularly women. Parties and politicians spend too much time bickering and attempting to undermine each other.
There is no room in the system for taking on board someone else's view, or to consider a range of opinion. Being in government means taking all the decisions and trying to make sure that they are sold to the electorate. Being in opposition means little effective participation. All the Opposition can do is make a noise and hope that it will convince people to vote for them next time so that they can have the golden prize. That is not grown-up politics. No one is right all the time. Our political system should be sufficiently grown up to recognise that.

1059
Many of my constituents would prefer to see an end to the schoolboy slanging match that so often demeans debate in the House.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Sexist rubbish.
Mrs. Campbell: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his own points later.
The document that I was sent also says:
"In casting their votes, voters may show a preference for a particular party which has no likelihood of forming a government, but they have nevertheless participated in the democratic process as much as a voter who does not cast his or her vote at all and stays at home."
I profoundly disagree. I do not believe that a voter who stays at home has contributed much to the democratic process. For goodness sake, let us have a change of system.
6.26 pm
Mr. Alasdair Morgan: I cautiously welcome the Jenkins report's conclusions. The underlying basis of the system that it proposes has been Scottish National party policy for many years, and it formed the substance of our submission to the Jenkins commission. We did not adopt that stance out of self-interest—the SNP's tactic in the United Kingdom Parliament has been to gain a majority of Scottish seats, and it is far easier to do that under a first-past-the-post system than under any system of proportional representation.
No electoral system is perfect, and none will give us all we want, but the combination of alternative vote and additional Member will balance the needs for proportionality and for the constituency link. I begin to disagree with Jenkins, however, on the number of top-up seats proposed, because that figure is not nearly sufficient to ensure proportionality. The report seems to say that first past the post gives unjustified majorities in many Parliaments, and that that should be corrected if it is a small unjustified majority, but not if it is a large one.
I welcome the split proposed in the top-ups within the electoral regions and the four nations of the United Kingdom. That will allow for regional and national diversity. It will assist proportionality. I welcome, too, the fact that the regions chosen for Scotland are the same as those for the top-up seats for the new Scottish Parliament.
However, there is a substantial difference between the Jenkins model and the Scottish Parliament proposals in the Scotland Bill. At Holyrood, there will be seven additional Members for each region of Scotland, but under Jenkins there will be only one or two. In a three-party system, the availability of one or two extra seats might with a lot of luck just go towards proportionality. However, that certainly will not be so in the four-party system that exists in Scotland.
At the 1997 general election, the Conservatives got 17 per cent. of the vote in Scotland, and no seats at all. In the Scottish Parliament, they would get 17 per cent. of the seats on that vote, but under Jenkins they would get only 8 per cent of the Westminster seats. My own party got 22 per cent. of the Scottish vote at the general election, but only 8 per cent. of the seats. In the Scottish
1060
Parliament, we would hope, if that vote were repeated—and we expect to gain substantially more—for 22 per cent. of the seats, but the Jenkins proposals would give us only 15 per cent. of the seats for Westminster. It seems strange to say that one system is unfair yet to correct only a little bit of that unfairness. The Jenkins report is an improvement, but it is a compromise in an attempt to appease those who are against any kind of change.
My last word on top-up Members is that the proposal does not seem to be such a radical innovation. We have it now in Scotland. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who opened the debate on behalf of the Conservative party, was appointed some time ago as the Tory top-up Member for Scotland.
Jenkins also proposes, or seems to recommend, a reduction in the number of Scottish Members provided for in the Scotland Bill. I accept that the number of Scottish Members at Westminster should be reduced, but I cannot accept the Government's proposal that the link should be maintained between Scottish Members of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Members of the Westminster Parliament, so that, when the number of Scottish Members at Westminster is reduced, the number in the Scottish Parliament should also be reduced. In the light of Jenkins's endorsement of the reduction in Scottish representation in this House, there is no longer any justification to maintain a link between the two Parliaments. There is no longer an argument that the two Parliaments should maintain parallel constituencies. I look to the Government for assurance that they will not try to overturn the amendments that have been passed in another place which seek to sever the links between the two constituencies.
We look to the Minister to ensure that there will be a referendum before the next election. If not, the procedures necessary to put these recommendations in place, were they to be approved in a referendum, are such that we could not get to the proportional system at the election after next. There would need to be a Bill to set up a referendum, a Bill to change the voting system, and a Boundary Commission investigation.
My final point is a small one. Is there any reason why we cannot have the alternative vote part of the recommendations now? Is there any reason why we cannot have AV at the next general election?
Mr. Desmond Swayne: The answer is obvious. The top-up is designed to correct the distorting effects of AV. Therefore, to implement merely AV would make our electoral system even less proportional than it is.
Mr. Morgan: The distorting effect is because we have single-Member constituencies. That is where the main problem arises. The argument used in the minority report is spurious. It is that a vote is worth less if the voter happens to vote for the candidate who comes third—not that the voter knows that his chosen candidate will come third when he votes. I would prefer that the second vote of a voter who voted for the third candidate was taken into account than that all the votes of, for example, 74 per cent. of the voters are ignored, as happens now. That is what happened in the Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber constituency at the 1992 general election. The winner was elected on 26 per cent. of the vote.

1061
That is the kind of nonsense that we need to get rid of. That is why I recommend that we consider having AV on its own at the next election. I suspect that we would need only a one or two-clause Bill to introduce that part of the proposals.
6.32 pm
Mr. Roger Godsiff: I am a strong supporter of electoral reform, but not of proportional representation. The Jenkins commission did the best job it possibly could, bearing in mind that it was set an impossible task of reconciling the irreconcilable. I say that because the criteria that it was set were fundamentally flawed.
The main part of the recommendations refers to the alternative vote, which I strongly support. It is an improved version of the first-past-the-post system. It is not proportionate, and was never intended to be in any shape or form. It allows, for example, Labour supporters living in Newbury who know that their candidate will not come first or second, to vote for the candidate of their choice first and to indicate their second preference. Under the present system, they have to make a choice for one of the other candidates, or vote in the knowledge that their vote will be wasted.
In addition, AV does not force people to mark their ballot paper 1, 2, 3, 4, but allows them to put a 1 or an X against their preferred candidate. The vote would be treated in exactly the same way as it is now. The AV proposals are well argued by the Jenkins commission, and are worthy of support.
The second part of the recommendations refer to the additional member system elected on a county, city or geographical area. As I have said, the commission has done the best it can working with flawed criteria. The report states clearly:
"The Commission shall observe the requirement for broad proportionality, the need for stable Government, an extension of voter choice and the maintenance of a link between MPs and geographical constituencies."
It would have been much better if it had stated that the commission shall observe the requirement for the maintenance of a link between constituency Members of Parliament and their constituency.
Let me explain what I mean. Because of the criteria that were laid down, the noble Lord Jenkins and his colleagues have come up with what he has called a "unique British solution". One of the members of the commission, Mr. Lipsey, is reported in The Observer as saying that the commission rejected "importing foreign muck". I find it surprising if Lord Jenkins takes such a xenophobic attitude towards the British electoral system, given that throughout his political life he has championed everything European. That is by the bye. One of the members of the commission said that and no doubt Lord Jenkins went along with it.
Let us move on to what this unique British top-up system would mean. I shall cite three examples. In Birmingham at the general election, 10 Labour Members and one Conservative Member were elected. Under the Jenkins proposals for AV, there would be eight Labour Members and one Tory Member. The percentage votes were 56 per cent. for Labour, 27 per cent. for the Tories and 11.8 per cent. for the Liberal Democrats. Under the top-up system, both the Conservatives and the Liberals would have an extra seat.
1062
I mean no disrespect to the Liberals, but I cannot understand how a Liberal Democrat could be called the hon. Member for Birmingham when he has been elected on 11.8 per cent. of the vote. It is illogical. If one wants to give more seats to the Liberals, so be it, but there are other ways of doing it. That is essentially what this is all about, but it is nonsense to give them localised democratic legitimacy in this way.
At the general election, every seat in the county of Surrey was held by the Conservative party. It is a rock-hard Conservative area. Under the Jenkins proposals, there would be seven Tories and two Liberals, with a top-up of one Liberal Member and one Labour Member. Much as I respect the work of Labour party members and candidates in Surrey, I cannot accept that a Labour candidate could be the hon. Member for Surrey, because he would not have been elected by any of the 11 constituencies in that county.
Finally I come to Durham, which is an interesting county. It has seven seats. Under the Jenkins proposals, there would be six Labour Members, with one top-up Tory. As my hon. Friends from the north know, with the exception of Darlington, those seven seats are as rock-hard as ever there will be. They have been Labour for time immemorial. In the county of Durham, every vote cast for the second candidate—the list candidate—by Labour supporters would be wasted. It would not matter if the Labour candidate at the top of the list in Durham got 99.9 per cent. of the votes, he or she could not be elected. That is nonsense, and a betrayal of democracy.
I do not oppose giving the Liberals more seats, but if we are going to do that, let us be honest about it and give them seats. We should not make out that we are imposing democratic legitimacy by aligning such seats with a localised area. It will not work, and it will be deeply resented by Members of Parliament who are elected for constituencies, whether by first past the post or by the alternative vote system. That proposal is the flaw in the Jenkins proposals, and I hope that the Government will not go down that path.
6.40 pm
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: We have heard many theories about how our electoral system should be conducted. Theories are all very well for academics, but they do not work in practice. Our first-past-the-post system has developed over centuries, and does work in practice. I am fed up with hearing how there are no Conservative Members in Scotland or Wales. The reason why there are no Conservative Members in Scotland is simply that the people of Scotland, or the vast majority of them, did not want any Conservative Members. They got what they wanted. I am not happy with that, but I accept it, just as the people of Surrey have no Labour Members; long may that remain so.
The talk of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) of wasted votes is nonsense. A vote is never wasted. The talk of safe seats where one's vote does not count if one does not support the party likely to win is also nonsense. I can name at least 100 former Conservative Members who would testify to that, because they thought that they were in what are called safe seats. The people voted against them. I am sorry that they did, but that is what democracy and giving power to the people is about—not the gerrymandering that would become part of our system if the Jenkins report were implemented.

1063
We must not be so arrogant as to sit in academic rooms and examine theories while ignoring the lessons to be learned from other legislatures. With several other hon. Members, I have just returned from New Zealand. Lord Jenkins mentioned in his report the mixed member proportional system introduced in New Zealand for the 1996 general election. He is dismissive of the difficulties that the people of New Zealand are experiencing as a result of its introduction.
I want to present evidence from someone who really knows about the system, the Speaker of the New Zealand Parliament, Mr. Doug Kidd. He explains some of the difficulties in the New Zealand Parliament, and says that proportional representation
"involves members being elected for individual constituencies and also from party lists. Its essential feature is that the overall party composition of Parliament is the same as the proportions of the national vote that parties obtain at the election."
That is all very well in theory. He continues:
"From having a well-established, two party parliamentary system. New Zealand has moved to a multi-party system. There are at present six parties represented in Parliament, with no single party having an overall majority. Coalition or minority government has now become the norm."
Lord Jenkins suggests that coalition and minority government would not be the norm under his system.
Mr. Radice: It is a different system.
Mrs. Laing: Labour Members say that it is a different system, but a proportional system produced that result; it always does. It is arrogant only to look at theories and ignore practice. It is clear that some Members want to stay in the ivory tower of academia. I am talking about what happens in practice, and I am bringing news of exactly what happens in New Zealand.
The Speaker of the New Zealand Parliament adds that the introduction of the system.
"has involved a massive culture shock for politicians who were used to the old system and … for society as a whole which had clearly not appreciated the implications of it and which now appears to be a little uncertain about the results."
That is putting it mildly.
The first question that everyone asks New Zealand Members of Parliament is, "Are you a real MP or were you elected on the list?" That is what happens in practice. It is insulting, because introducing two classes of MP means introducing a difference between them, and one group will always be second-class MPs. The other problems that arise from the New Zealand system are well documented by their Parliament's Speaker, and I should be glad of another opportunity to tell hon. Members about them.
Another problem arises from coalition government. As the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said, the people get a Government whom no one elected. As happened this year in New Zealand, the parties that come first and third in the polls are the ones that matter, because they do a deal to form a Government. Their manifestos are merged, and the people get not what they voted for in the majority, but a mish-mash of the manifestos of the first and third parties. What of those who voted for the
1064
party that came second? They do not count at all. It is nonsense to suggest that a so-called proportional system is fairer; it is not.
Our system is not only fair, but one that people understand. People can vote tactically if they wish to. I was amazed that the hon. Member for Cambridge was so dismissive of the electorate's ability to vote tactically. They are entitled to if they wish. We have an intelligent electorate, who understand how best to cast their votes. They know that their votes are not wasted. My party supports our traditional system, not because it is good for our party—clearly, looking at the Conservative Benches, it is not—but because it is best for our country and for democracy. We put first not the party's interests, but those of the country.
6.47 pm
Mr. Stuart Bell: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), who made a point different from that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). He gave a clear view of where the Labour party stood and she finished her speech talking about where the national interest lay. I shall speak briefly on the national interest. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) that the debate will be constructive, not destructive. We will not fall out on the issue but join the debate, talk to each other and reach conclusions that will eventually be put to the country.
I want to refer to criticism of the Jenkins report from a party that is not represented in the House and therefore has no voice. It writes:
"the use of the Alternative Vote will create as many anomalies as at present;
two types of Member of Parliament will be created, one with a larger constituency to look after, the other free to swan around Parliament furthering his political career;
the proposed party lists will put words into the mouths of the voters;
there is in-built discrimination against independents and minority interests. In particular, independent candidates will not be able to stand for the "top-up" ballots … If there is to be a referendum on these proposals",
the party will campaign against them. As one who will participate in the national campaign, taking up the offer of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the statement of the Home Secretary that we should take the campaign to the country, I welcome the Liberal party to our debate.
Mr. Beith: They are the Wee Frees—the few who did not join us.
Mr. Bell: It is the genuine Liberal party, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) referred to the German situation. Many of us hear that Germany is a stable democracy with a powerful economy. We ought not to relate the two. One can have a stable Government and an economy that is not stable, or a stable economy and a Government who are not stable. After the last election in Germany, it took a month for the German Parliament to come to a conclusion between the red-green parties and the Social Democrats. I picked up a statement made by the German president,

1065
Roman Herzog. He said that the new Government must find the courage for "vital change." He said:
"We need reforms and we don't have that much time. The world won't wait for us."
That does not seem to me a ringing endorsement of the coalition Government who have now been turfed out of office.
We all enjoyed the vignette of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). Literary criticism has been rife in this debate, so it is quite nice to say that it was a vignette. It was a wonderful speech from a right hon. Friend who has been in this Parliament for 48 years. I am glad to be joined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) because he and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield share a common experience. They were in the minority Government from 1978 to 1979—a Government who fell when the Liberals withdrew their support for the Labour Government. The Liberal party refused to support worker participation in the Bullock report. Lord Callaghan, who was the Prime Minister at that time, told me specifically, "We could not get worker participation through that Parliament because there was no support from the Opposition party." We were supposed to have the Lib-Lab pact.
The right hon. Member for South Norfolk referred to a statement made by Winston Churchill in 1930. Jenkins in his report says that the House of Commons accepted electoral reform in 1930. It did so because the minority Government of Ramsay MacDonald had their arm twisted off. They were told by the Liberals that unless he gave them electoral reform, they would not support repeal of the Trades Disputes and Trade Unions Act 1927. The Liberals even then were dictating terms to a minority Labour Government. In the end, MacDonald agreed in order to get two more years in office. He was overwhelmed by the catastrophic international crisis of 1931, and we had to wait until 1945 to see a repeal of the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act 1927.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) said in an intervention that all the emerging countries of Europe had chosen a system of proportional representation. Let me simply quote what the shadow Foreign Secretary of the Czech Republic has said in a letter to The Times. He says:
"We have found that PR leads to an unhealthy, inequitable, fragmented political environment, with larger parties subjected to blackmail by the smaller parties."
That is a statement from a new republic that went down the road of PR and is looking to get back to a majority or first-past-the-post system.
The point has been made often—the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) referred to it—that Lord Jenkins did not have the courage of his convictions. If he had, he would have taken up the proposals of 1917, to which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred. Jenkins said that he accepted them and wished that they would be accepted. The proposals were for a transferable vote and an alternative vote throughout our land. He might have given minority parties a 5 per cent. threshold. The Liberal party, which has had scorn poured over it from the Opposition Benches, might have had a chance of being represented here. The Green party, to whom my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield referred, might be represented in
1066
the House. Even minority parties such as Arthur Scargill's Socialist Labour party might be here, but Lord Jenkins did not go down that road because as president of the Liberal Democrat party, he is trying to increase the number of Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament.
We have heard a lot about the alternative vote. If the alternative vote had been extant at the last general election, it would have reduced the number of Conservative Members to 62 and increased the number of Labour Members to 450. It would have added volatility to the system. The top-up is needed to rectify the volatility. Lord Jenkins's report would create volatility. It is nothing to do with first past the post. He creates volatility through his alternative vote and then seeks to stabilise it with a new system of top-up Members of Parliament.
The first-past-the-post system has given us stable government. It gives us the constituency link. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge referred to accountability; it provides accountability. It also gives us the doctrine of mandate; we have not heard too much tonight about the doctrine of mandate. Every party puts forward its proposals in a general election and the country votes on them. The manifesto is there; we are there to fulfil the manifesto commitments. If we fail, we should say why. If we are not successful, the public have a chance to turn us out.
Our campaign will go to the country. We will debate this issue. We will campaign on it on a party basis in the sense that all those who are opposed to the changes will join together. We will campaign with trade unionists, academics, and business men. We will let the people of our country know what the alternative system means. We believe that when the people can see what is on the table, they will support the present system.
6.55 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan: The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) covered a good deal of recent history, or relatively recent compared with the history of the barons with which we were regaled by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). The hon. Member for Middlesbrough demonstrated how wise the Labour party was before the election to enter into an agreement that the issue of the electoral system should be put to the electors for their decision during the lifetime of this Parliament. For history, and recent history is no exception, suggests that when parties enter Government under a system of election that has favoured them, they are reluctant to alter that system by simple fiat. The hon. Gentleman is in the line of that historical tradition.
It is highly encouraging that so many Labour Members, many of whom have spoken in the debate and many of whom will not have the opportunity to speak because of the duration of the debate, take a more principled view and have argued strongly the case which, although headlined by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, was not developed quite with the logic that it deserves. The right hon. Gentleman, with great passion, reached the climax of his speech with a declaration that "The people want to be represented." To that I say yes. He is entirely right, and that is the justification for the Jenkins commission's report.
It is the people's interest with which we ought primarily to be concerned, not putative views about what the impact of change might be for people who have shown an ability

1067
to adjust to some extent to whatever system they have. The capability of the present system to adjust to take account of people's views has been stretched beyond breaking point. The time has come to recognise the appalling distortions that the first-past-the-post system has caused in our democracy. Those distortions have made the system so incredibly unrepresentative in so many large parts of our country that at this time, there is no voice for Conservatives in any of the great cities in England.
Mr. Graham Brady: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Maclennan: No. I, too, am obeying the rubric about brevity so I will not take interventions on this occasion, although I hope that we shall have other occasions on which to deploy these arguments.
The Jenkins commission was set up wisely and in fulfilment of the pre-election undertaking of the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party. In that sense, it is clear that the commission had two parents. It could also be said to have achieved legitimacy of support when, at the general election, the electorate backed those two parties to the extent of 64 per cent. of the vote. The commitment to hold a referendum within the lifetime of this Parliament was part of that undertaking and we look to the Government to fulfil it. I heard what the Home Secretary said about the complexity of the issues, but no one doubted that they would be complex when the two parties reached the agreement to which he put his signature, along with four other current senior Cabinet Ministers.
If the system is to be tested by the people, it should be tested close in time to the raising of the issues by the Jenkins commission, so that the arguments advanced are germane to the circumstances in which we live today.
Dr. Brian Iddon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Maclennan: I cannot give way, for the reasons I have already given.
The geographical rubric and requirement that the Jenkins commission had to take into account was a wise one, given the extraordinary distortions that the present system has produced. By its compromise, the commission has resolved that difficulty far better than any of the other systems that have been proposed would have done. The Liberal Democrats proposed a single transferable vote, and to those who say that Lord Jenkins was a kept chairman, I can say that he has robustly rejected the arguments that I advanced on behalf of the Liberal Democrats and explained why our proposal would not meet the criteria set down by the Prime Minister. That is undoubtedly true.
There has been a trade-off between proportionality and maintaining the constituency link. On reflection, I think that Lord Jenkins was probably right to take the view that, for many British people, the constituency link remains extremely important. It is the place in which they see their Member of Parliament acting to represent them, which the right hon. Member for Chesterfield regards as being of vital importance.
1068
Now that the right hon. Gentleman has returned to the Chamber, may I take him up on one issue? He suggested that Lord Jenkins's proposals would give enormous power to political parties, but that is not borne out by the recommendations of the Jenkins report, which has clearly avoided the trap of the closed electoral system. Nor can it be argued that the proposed system is in any way worse than the existing system.
In the early 1980s, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield devoted considerable effort to ensuring that Members of Parliament who were not of a like mind to his could be, would be and, in some cases, were deselected by the Labour party. That was a highly controversial matter and it had nothing to do with the electoral system; it had a great deal to do with the centralising tendencies of the Labour party at that time. It is those problems on which the right hon. Gentleman should focus, if he genuinely wants power to be dispersed. The undoubted strength—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order.
7.3 pm
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Earlier, two arguments were advanced of which the House should take no notice. The first is that more than half the electorate at the last election had no hope of electing anybody. If we introduce any system with a threshold of 50 per cent., the 50 per cent. who did not vote for the person who gets 50 per cent. cannot elect anybody either; therefore, the argument is nonsense. The second argument is that we are childish and this place is noisy because we have an adversarial system. I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) to go and watch the Dail Eireann, the American Congress, or Italy's Parliament at work. Be realistic: wherever there are a Government and an Opposition, there will be a row, so that argument does not wash.
Let us look at the proposals. What is proposed is a system that elects Members of Parliament. Good, say I. However, some say that we have to have a system that irons out the imbalances. Well, last night I rang up a mate of mine who lives in Mountain Ash in Wales. I said, "You've got Assembly elections coming up and we are having a debate on Jenkins," and asked his opinion. He is a shrewd old lawyer and he replied, "Yes, after we get a two-tier system in Parliament, I'll have three community councillors whom I can ask for advice; I'll have several county borough councillors; I'll have my Assembly man and my top-up Assembly man; I'll have my Member of Parliament and my top-up Member of Parliament; and finally I'll have my MEP, and sure enough they'll give me a top-up there as well." He went on, "And you know something? They can belong to five or six different parties." That, in a nutshell, is the lunacy of the proposed top-up system.
What is a Member of Parliament meant to do? He is meant to represent his people. He or she is not a servant of his party, but a servant of the electorate and his or her first loyalty is owed to the electorate. If we adopt the proposed system, there will be a group of Members of Parliament who are not the servants of the people, but the appointees of the party. I am sorry, but that is not democracy by any definition.
Let us have a debate. I might be accused of being a dinosaur because I am over 35 and have been through many elections that were won by the first past the post,

1069
but I would remind my accusers that, when I was first elected in the bad old days of 1983,I had 46 per cent. of the vote; I did not have the magical 50 per cent., although I have a lot more than that now. Since 1983, my party has looked at itself and realised that the party we had in 1983 was one of which none of us were proud. In the intervening 16 years, whether we come from the left or the right of the party, we have worked on the electorate, sold our policies, refined our policies and asked the electorate what they wanted.
Eventually, all our efforts came good, but it took a long time. We had once written the longest suicide note in history. The Conservative party took 18 years to write its suicide note and, when it was delivered, the party was executed. I hope that it takes the Conservatives 28 years to listen to the people and rewrite their policies. Perhaps they will win again, but that is democracy; that is the will of the people, and if the people want to get rid of someone, they do so. If we adopt the proposed system, how are we to get rid of the top-ups? Incidentally, how do we hold a by-election during the lifetime of a Parliament? The answer is that we cannot. Are the people to be told, "Mr. Smith has been appointed your Member of Parliament"? Get off with it.
Mr. Swayne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bermingham: No, I cannot.
That is not democracy; it is electoral dictatorship. How are the electorate to overturn a Government in the middle of their term of office if they cannot boot out the Government party at a by-election?
I looked at the list for Merseyside to see how we would be topped up. I am supposed to be grouped with Bootle and Southport—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): And Knowsley.
Mr. Bermingham: And Knowsley, God help me. In fact, Knowsley and St. Helens have a natural affinity with Warrington and the surrounding area, or west Lancashire. In short, there are natural affinities between certain areas, so the proposed system will lead to the sort of rows with the boundary commission that we had in the late 1970s and early 1980s. I should declare an interest at this point: I was the solicitor to the parties who fought the boundary commission in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and I was solicitor to the Labour party. I realised just how difficult boundary-drawing exercises are. Can we not remember that sometimes simplicity is best? We have simplicity in our system, and it is the best.
7.9 pm
Mr. Robert Syms: This is a well-attended debate, I think because we are talking about first principles. [Interruption.] I have attended economic debates with fewer Members present. We are talking about how we derive our authority and do our job. When it comes down to it, we probably all have quite strong opinions about how we want to represent people in our areas.
The key point about the first-past-the-post system is that, far from being a withering, minority system around the world, it is used in 62 countries, by nearly half the
1070
world's electorate. It is simple and quick. It is all very well saying that members of the British public can use complex systems, but there are many elderly and near-sighted people and others who would find it difficult to adjust to a new system. Sadly, even under our simple system, votes are wasted because some people cannot use a ballot paper. I fear that under Jenkins's proposal we will have far more wasted votes from people who cannot understand how to fill out both ballots.
The key point about our current system is that we have coherence and transparency in public policy. Parties coalesce in advance of elections to agree a platform that they put to the public, who then choose whether to back them. In government, that platform—the manifesto—is carried out. After a period, people decide whether they wish that party to continue in office. Under our system, it is possible to elect Governments on a platform which they carry out and on which they are judged. If the judgment is that the Government's performance has been poor, our system is decisive in turning that Government out.
The most valuable aspect of our political system is the power of the electorate to dismiss a Government who lose their way—as the British electorate periodically do dismiss Governments, resulting in the appearance of furniture vans at No. 10. My party was, to some extent, on the wrong side of that last year—quite rightly, because that is democracy—when the electorate gave us a good hiding, but, as a democrat, I have to accept that that was what the electorate wanted. Given that the current Government have only 43 to 44 per cent. of the vote, under any kind of proportional system, we might have stayed in office if we had done a deal with the Liberal Democrats. The reality is that we have a system that can push unpopular Governments—Governments who lose their way—out of office.
We also have a system, rooted in the individual based in a constituency, that tempers party control. We must all be careful that we allow people to be elected to the House who are lone voices; who are out of favour with their party; who can make a contribution with which the majority of us may not agree. Even Winston Churchill was out of step with his party in the 1930s, but he knew that, if the good burghers of Epping Forest supported him, he would be returned here and he could give voice to his views. That is the key.
Jenkins's proposals devalue the constituency link because they create two categories of MP. They would increase the size of constituency—and hence the work load—of geographically based Members, but would reduce the work load for those swanning around, as was said earlier, looking for preferment.
There are times when we all get lots of letters and have to work hard for our constituents. We may think it would be nice not to have any constituents. In reality, however, much of my education comes from my postbag and from meeting and visiting my constituents. That is an important part of our political system.
Over the years, proponents of proportional representation have always said that it would be fairer and better. The real test, and the test of Jenkins, was to come up with an alternative system. Jenkins has come up with an alternative system and has failed the test. The proposals are a ragbag. The alternative vote, as was pointed out earlier, is a volatile system. So we end up with a more volatile system, trying to balance it with a list system. There is no logic in that.

1071
Of the five members of the commission, one produced a note of reservation, which, in a political party, would be called a split. Even the committee does not have a united view. Lord Alexander's comments were perfectly sensible, and attention should be paid to them.
Why the magical 50 per cent. in the alternative vote? Each vote is equal, no matter whether the vote is for someone's first, second, third or fourth choice. Why should someone's fourth choice outweigh someone else's first choice? Votes could be weighted so that someone's second or third choice was worth less and then topped up, but why equal them out? Under the proposed system, the least worthy candidates—the second, third and fourth preferences—outweigh the most worthy candidate, the first preference.
One of the best jokes in the Jenkins report was the suggestion that, because people would need second preferences, the alternative vote would mean that people would be kinder to each other and that there would be a less adversarial system. In the Australian system, which uses AV, water is occasionally chucked across the table— a robust system. No one who knew that system would think that the alternative vote led to kinder politics.
With the list, we would have the unusual system whereby a Government with a majority of one would hope that any death would be of a Member from the list, which would mean no by-election, rather than of someone who represented a constituency where the Government might lose their majority. There is no equity in that at all. At the moment, we are elected on an equal basis. We might argue about the size of our constituencies or the geographical areas that we represent, but in reality we are here on the same basis. There is equality. We speak with the same authority. The proposal diminishes that.
I am strongly opposed to the arrival of a day when we refer not simply to the hon. Member for Poole or North Wiltshire, but to an hon. Member for the list from Birmingham or the list from Sussex. That would be a retrograde step.
Lord Jenkins has not come up with a workable, sensible alternative to the first-past-the-post system. I support the current system. It is not a system under which my party is prospering. There is an argument that because we do not distribute our vote equally, we are deficient. It is for the Conservative party to sort out its policies, to persuade the electorate, to target and campaign and to try and win a majority of seats in the House. If we cannot do that, we do not deserve to be on the Government Benches and to have a majority in the House. That is what we have to do, and that is the thought that we need to hold on to.
7.16 pm
Mr. Martin Salter: I am not in favour of the Jenkins report—for reasons entirely different from those cited by Conservative Members. Many of the arguments were eloquently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff), but there are no absolutes in the debate. There is no perfect system and, to be honest, we are probably the worst people to debate this subject. After all, we are not exactly impartial.
There is a case for change, however, and we should not diminish the arguments of those who put forward the case for change. Yes, the first-past-the-post system is simple,
1072
but the electorate are capable of listing people: 1, 2, 3. As was said in The Guardian recently, most four-year-olds make a more complicated decision when deciding on their breakfast cereal each morning. Some arguments put by Conservative Members against the alternative vote are spurious, to say the least.
The first-past-the-post system is simple, but it produces a confrontational style of politics, and politics is not only what takes place in this Chamber. If the United States is held up as an example of stable government, as a model for us to follow, I would cite yesterday's congressional elections. A 36 per cent. turnout is not something to which we should aspire if we want a participative democracy.
There is the oft-quoted example of the Member who was elected in Inverness—I cannot remember quite when—on 24 per cent. of the vote. More than three quarters of his electorate did not want him as their Member of Parliament. That makes a powerful case for change. But the problem is that Lord Jenkins had four criteria. To hear the howls of protest from Conservative Members one would think that there was some conspiracy at work. But Jenkins had to come up with a system that gave us broad proportionality, retained the constituency link, extended voter choice and produced stable government. There is no conspiracy; those criteria are simply not achievable. No one could come up with a system that met those four criteria—so let us give the noble Lord a break on that one.
The Jenkins report has blown it. I support electoral reform, but not proportional representation. The breaking of the constituency link makes the Jenkins report unsupportable. That constituency link is the foundation stone upon which our system of representative democracy is built. It gives us the authority to speak on behalf of ordinary people in the Chamber. Without that constituency link, we have no authority. Hon. Members have made clear the absurdity of having two classes of Members of Parliament. Whatever happened to first among equals?
Mr. Alan Johnson: It is a rubbish novel.
Mr. Salter: No, it is not. I also believe that the system is a recipe for civil war inside the Labour party. The constituencies of many Labour Members are surrounded by those of other Labour Members. Will we spend the next three, four, five or eight years deciding which of our number will be chopped? I think not. This system is not a recipe for a cohesive parliamentary party.
It is time to destroy some myths about the alternative vote. The Conservatives attack it for not being proportional enough, yet you use it to elect your leader, do you not?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) that he is addressing the Chair.
Mr. Salter: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was addressing the Chair in a roundabout way.

1073
Conservative Members use the alternative vote system to elect their leader. They reject more proportional systems and then attack the alternative vote for not being proportional enough.
Mr. James Gray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Salter: No, I do not have time. The alternative vote is important because it enshrines honest, tactical voting. We have tactical voting in our present political system, but it relies on our second guessing how our neighbours may or may not vote. Politicians play an absurd game of double bluff.
AV has distinct advantages: it rewards parties that work together, punishes extremists, provides Governments with clear, workable majorities and meets three of the four criteria set down for the Jenkins commission. I agree with the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) who said that we could introduce the alternative vote system now. I would prefer to take this debate even further and examine both Houses of Parliament. I think that there is a compelling and powerful case for using the alternative vote—with its clear majority and clear mandate and its generation of stable government—in this place and a pure proportional system in a second Chamber.
I believe that, by breaking the link between a Member of Parliament and his or her constituents, Jenkins has become unsupportable and will be consigned to the dustbin of history.
7.21 pm
Dr. Julian Lewis: Using a rather unfortunate simile, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) compared voting under the Jenkins system to filling in a national lottery ticket. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that that comparison is all too accurate. If the Jenkins system were implemented, instead of voting for what they knew they would get if enough of them voted in the same way, people would be voting for a mish-mash, for confusion, splits, backroom deals and for an outcome that no one could predict in advance.
If ever there were a case of "physician, heal thyself, it is this report. All five members of the commission were committed to electoral reform, but they could not reach a unanimous verdict among themselves. Various right hon. and hon. Members have referred to the dissenting report by Lord Alexander, and I shall put a little of that on the record in the short time available to me. In the second conclusion of the main report, the Jenkins majority admitted:
"On its own, AV would be unacceptable because of the danger that in anything like present circumstances it might increase rather than reduce disproportionality".
The commission drew attention to what is called in the overall report a
"Note of Reservation by Lord Alexander."
Anyone else would call that a minority or dissenting report. However, these guys do not believe in minorities
1074
and majorities, let alone—heaven forbid—dissent. So it is a "Note of Reservation". In that note of reservation, Lord Alexander says:
"AV comes into play only when a candidate fails to secure a majority of first preference votes. It does not, however, then take account of the second preferences of all the voters, but only of those who have supported the least successful candidates. So it ignores the second preferences of the voters who supported the two candidates with the highest first preference votes"—
in other words, the parties that came first and second—
"but allows the voters for the third or even weaker candidates to have their second votes counted so as to determine the result.
I find this approach wholly illogical. Why should the second preferences of those voters who favoured the two stronger candidates on the first vote be totally ignored and only those who support the lower placed and less popular candidates get a second"—
he could have added third, fourth or fifth—
"bite of the cherry?"
Let us move from the alternative vote to the actual Jenkins formula. That formula would create a situation whereby coalition became the norm—it might not always happen, but it would happen much more frequently than in the past. The central question is not whether this system is better than that system which is better than the other— which might be worse than a fourth, fifth or sixth system—but whether a coalition result is a better outcome than a decisive result and single-party government. That is the key to the whole debate.
If we believe that it is more important to have single-party government than coalition government, there is no need to change the present system. However, if we believe that coalition is better, we must defend the disproportionate amount of power that is granted to parties that come third, fourth or fifth in the election result in persuading them to join the Government. That issue is not tackled properly in the report. The commission cites Germany as an example. Paragraph 56 of the report says that, in Germany, the single transferable vote has
"undoubtedly made coalition the norm, but not inevitable."
I would reply that the British system makes coalition the rarity, but not impossible.
Lord Jenkins explains in the report how 13 years of coalition between the Free Democrats and the Social Democrats in Germany were succeeded by 16 years of coalition between the Free Democrats and the Christian Democrats. If we had seen then the result recently achieved in Germany—and the Greens instead of the Free Democrats had held the balance of power—what would have happened at the height of the cold war? This is one of my hobby horses. What would have happened if the Greens had been in the position of the Free Democrats? During the cold war, the Free Democrats were able— using a small minority of votes—to command the foreign and the defence ministries. The Greens have now done much the same. With less than 7 per cent. of the vote, the Greens command Germany's foreign ministry. Is that democratic? Is it proportional?
The reality is that coalition government makes up for the increase in proportionality between the votes cast and the members elected with a decrease in proportionality in the actual distribution of power between the parties. The minority partner in the coalition has a stranglehold on the majority.

1075
I conclude by giving an example using the system that was forced upon the newly emergent democracies. In Slovenia in 1992, a centre right coalition comprised of about six parties was forged after a general election. However, an issue arose that split off the Social Democrats and the Greens. Those parties decided that they did not want to play any more and would take the ball from the field—in fact, they wanted to take the ball and join the opposing team. So the people of Slovenia went to bed with a centre right Government in power, and awoke the following morning to a centre left Government comprised of the Greens, the Social Democrats, the former communists and the socialists. There was a total change of government, and not one vote was cast in an election.
I discussed this question a few years ago with a distinguished British psephologist, Dr. Robert Waller, who encapsulated the essence of the argument more concisely than I ever could. He said that the introduction of proportional representation into this country would be the largest single transfer of power from the people to the politicians in British political history. That says it all, and that is why we must reject that system.
7.29 pm
Mr. Richard Burden: Like other hon. Members, I apologise in advance for the fact that time will prevent me from taking any interventions.
We have had a thoughtful debate. I particularly enjoyed the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). I agree with him that we are discussing the nature of our democracy. That is the key question before us. Before we become too sanguine or too complacent about our electoral system, it is worth reflecting on the disconnection that so many of our citizens feel from the political process. The turnout in the last election was the lowest since the 1930s.
Many factors contribute to that sense of disconnection. The electoral system is an important part of the political landscape. Polls taken recently show a great deal of support among large sections of the British people for changing the system. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) was right when he said that the important debate is not the one in this place, but the one that takes place outside. We must listen to what the people say.
Time is short, but I shall comment on three parts of the Jenkins report. Many of the media attacks on the report have been attacks on things that are not in the report, but I do not find that surprising from Opposition Members. When I turned up for the launch of the Jenkins commission, I was ushered into a room where a Conservative party press conference was taking place. All the pitfalls of the Jenkins report were being pointed out. There was just one problem: the report had not yet been published, and those at the press conference did not know what was in it.
The three issues that I shall address are the constituency link, the top-up and, if time permits, coalitions. On the constituency link, it is true that certain proportional systems abolish that link. The Jenkins system is no such system. If the Jenkins recommendations were implemented, every elector in every constituency would
1076
be able to elect a constituency Member of Parliament. That important principle is retained by the Jenkins commission.
Although we in the House value the constituency link, it is worth while listening to what the people say about it. We do not always get the form of the constituency link right. We need to consider how the hours of the House and our resourcing work with the constituency link. I believe that there is room for improvement. Let us be clear that the Jenkins report retains the constituency link.
The second point concerns top-ups. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) spoke about the New Zealand experience. I have some differences with her analysis, including the fact that the polls in New Zealand do not show support for the return of first past the post. She is right, however, to say that there is dissatisfaction with the mixed member proportional system there. The Jenkins system is not the same as the New Zealand system. It is important to put that fact on the record.
There have been several comments about centralisation in political parties. Those concerns are legitimate. I am also worried about centralisation in political parties, but there is no God-given law decreeing that that happens only under proportional systems. It is political parties, not electoral systems, that centralise power. If we were introducing the first past the post system, hon. Members could argue that that would centralise power, because it would require parties to contest elections with closed lists of one candidate. That is what the first past the post system involves.
Under Jenkins, we are not dealing with straight party lists. The commission makes it crystal clear that the top-up Members of Parliament will be from an open list system. Electors will have the right to vote for candidates, and they will therefore also have the right to remove those top-up Members. The open list system will be used. It is not a centralising mechanism and will genuinely empower the voters.
Another criticism of the top-up system is that it will produce two classes of Members of Parliament. It is true that, under the Jenkins system, there will be more than one person who can call himself or herself the Member of Parliament for a particular area—the constituency Member and the top-up. However, the top-up will not be a floating Member, as has been suggested; he or she will represent a clear geographical area.
Some of us may feel that our constituencies are our personal property and that no one else can have a say in them. I do not feel that. If I did, I do not know how I would work with councillors in my constituency or with Members of the European Parliament. When regional government comes, it will force us to confront the issue. I see no problem in more than one person representing an area.
If it is suggested that there would be two classes of Members of Parliament, let us consider what we have at present. It is true that we all arrive at this place by the same route, but can we honestly say that there is only one class of Member of Parliament? Can we say that the job of constituency caseworker, law maker, member of the Executive, Opposition spokesperson and Government

1077
spokesperson are all the same job? They are not. Members in safe seats are not subject to the same pressures as Members in so-called marginal seats.
Mrs. Laing rose—
Mr. Burden: I am sorry, I cannot give way. I must stick to what I said earlier.
I shall deal briefly with the third point—coalitions. It has rightly been said that, under the Jenkins system, many of the elections that have taken place since the war would have resulted in single-party government. It is not true to say that the Jenkins system would automatically lead to coalitions.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that the Jenkins proposals will split the Labour party. I do not believe that. In the Labour party, we have a body of principles and policies that we share, under whatever political system we operate. However, it is true that every political party in Britain, unless it is a party of one, is a coalition. There are different views in every party.
I ask hon. Members to ask themselves whether it is healthy for coalitions of political parties to operate under an electoral system that forces them all to address the concerns of a few hundred thousand voters in about 100 marginal seats, rather than the concerns of the electorate as a whole. Whether coalitions are good or bad depends not on the electoral system, but on whether the electorate gives a clear view and whether the coalitions are honest, open and transparent. The Jenkins system offers a far greater chance of achieving that than the present system.
The debate will go on. It must take place outside, as well as in this place. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) that we should conduct the debate in a grown-up atmosphere, so that it informs the British people and they can choose the democracy that they—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must resume his seat.
7.37 pm
Mr. Desmond Swayne: On a point of frustration, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you will indulge me. The points that I shall make could easily have been dealt with in interventions, if Labour Members had been a little more generous with their time. I know that the time available is limited, but the Chair has some discretion. This business is killing debate.
Had I been allowed to intervene, I would have dismissed the argument—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member will be allowed injury time as a result of my intervention. May I point out that interventions are perfectly permissible. They do not take time away from the hon. Member who is speaking. It is entirely at the discretion of the hon. Member whether he or she gives way. The point made by my predecessor in the Chair was that interventions simply take time out of the debate as a whole.
Mr. Swayne: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
1078
First, I dismiss the notion that the leader of the Conservative party is elected by some form of alternative vote. If any analogy is to be drawn, it would be to the French system of run-offs, which is much closer to the British electoral system than to any form of alternative voting. The choice of system is a matter of horses for courses. Members of the Conservative party elect a leader, not a Member of Parliament. Those are entirely different things.
Secondly, it is interesting that, as the debate on proportional representation has unfolded during this Parliament, the position of the Liberal Democrats has changed somewhat. We began by being told that, in principle, Liberal Democrats were in favour of the single transferable vote. Interestingly enough, they were given the opportunity in the other place last week to vote for the STV for the European elections. Instead of voting for that in Committee, they voted against it. We were subsequently told, or have subsequently been told—
Mr. Donald Gorrie: What the hon. Gentleman says is untrue. The single transferable vote was not on offer in the other place. What he says is just not true.
Mr. Swayne: That is not my reading of the debate, but I am sure that an examination of the record will prove whatever is true.
We were told also that the hon. Gentleman's party was in favour of open lists as opposed to closed lists. When it was provided with the opportunity to vote in favour of open lists, it voted against them. It boils down to the fact that the Liberal Democrats are interested not in grandiose principles of fairness but in bottoms on seats. That is what this is all about.
Mr. Gray: Will my hon. Friend note that, if the Liberal Democrat party is interested in bottoms on seats, the seats on which it is putting its bottoms now are at restaurants and bars throughout the land and not in the Chamber? That is extraordinary given that the subject that we are debating is one of key interest to the Liberals, of all people.
Mr. Swayne: My hon. Friend makes an effective point. I shall move on to turnout at elections.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Swayne: I shall not give way because I have moved on.
I shall deal with the issue of low turnout. I think that our turnout, despite the most recent election, is pretty healthy, even for a seat such as mine where the winning candidate commands more than 50 per cent. of the votes. My seat is regarded as rock solid for the Conservative party and, typically, the turnout is still 80 per cent. I reckon that that is pretty good.
I suspect that low turnout is a worldwide phenomenon. I suspect also that it will, as a consequence of frustration at not being able to change the Government, be a rather greater problem with systems that are more proportional. The result of the voting systems elsewhere is that, irrespective of the way in which the votes are cast,

1079
politicians stitch up a coalition subsequent to the election. The same faces always appear in government. That engenders cynicism and indifference among the voters.
That brings me to my final point, which is the constituency link. The system proposed by the Jenkins report undermines the constituency link by creating top-up Members who have not effectively been elected by anyone. [Interruption.] I agree to differ with Labour Members on that. Of course I accept that there are arguments to the contrary. However, as no one has voted for those candidates specifically—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, they have."] To an extent, the electorate will have done so in an open list. I grant that. However, given that they do not geographically represent a constituency in the same way as other Members, they lack a legitimacy. I believe that that has a corrupting effect on the entire polity.
I take Germany as an instructive example. As an aside, I thought that it was grotesque, watching the results of the German election, when Chancellor Kohl, rejected by his constituents and turned out by the voters in precisely the way in which voters in this country can turn out someone, appeared again as a Member of the German Parliament as a consequence of his place on the list. It is something of a sport on election night in this country to be able to knock off the leading lights of the various parties and to gloat over their fate. It is perhaps not an edifying sport, but it is one that voters enjoy. It would be denied them under proportional systems, as it was denied to the German voters.
It is instructive that, under the German political system, a large proportion of the population has been deeply sceptical, troubled and preoccupied for years about the notion of abolishing the deutschmark. However, that attitude has not been reflected by German politicians. It is extraordinary. The answer, I believe, is that, under the list system, politicians have to address the preoccupations of the party managers and not those of the voters. That leads to a division between the voter and the political class. That is profoundly unhealthy. To prevent that, we must hold fast to the constituency link and the British electoral system.
7.45 pm
Mr. Peter L. Pike: I am grateful to have the opportunity of making a few comments in an important debate. I am a strong supporter of the present first-past-the-post system. When we come to the referendum, I shall be campaigning for that system. However, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) that, if we are to ask the people to tell us the way forward in our democracy, we must also link in the other place and the way in which people should be elected to it. I do not necessarily reach my hon. Friend's conclusion, when he said that there should be proportional representation. We must recognise that this is an extremely difficult debate. Once we give the other place a mandate, it will argue that its mandate is equal to that of this place and it will therefore not want limited powers. That in itself raises an extremely difficult argument.
Clearly, there are different views on the changes that should be made and I have grave doubts about the nature of the referendum that we shall put before the electorate.
1080
Should there be only one alternative? Should the electorate not have a wider choice than that with which the Jenkins committee has come forward? That issue should be examined carefully as we proceed along what I consider to be a dangerous path. As I have said, I want to remain with the present system.
For those who argue that every vote should be an equal vote and want proportional representation, the Jenkins recommendation is not the answer. If we say that 43 per cent. of the electorate vote one way and that those electors should have 43 per cent. of the seats, it is clear that the system that Lord Jenkins is proposing will not produce that result.
I have been in the Labour party for more than 40 years and I was a party organiser. Against that background, I find it extremely strange that it is being argued by some Labour supporters and Members that we should adopt a system that will produce fewer Labour Members. I can understand the Liberals, who will be clear gainers under almost any new system that we might adopt, wanting change, but not the Labour party.
We should remember the closest election result in terms of numbers of seats that we have had since the war, which was in February 1974. The same sort of result could be the outcome if we adopt the sort of change that is proposed. The Prime Minister of the day was defeated in February 1974, having been rejected by the electorate. However, he hung on in power for a few days trying to do a deal behind the scenes with the Liberal party. In the end, the Liberals, to their credit, said no. They said that it was a defeat and it was Harold Wilson who was finally called to the palace to form a Government.
A more recent example has been presented to us in Germany with Chancellor Schroder, who had to do deals to get a coalition Government in place. We have read reports of that in our press. In the German press, there have been more reports than in ours. However, we do not know what has gone on behind the scenes in dark, smoke-ridden rooms where deals have been done to produce a coalition. I have grave fears about such a system and now we have the Jenkins proposal. It seems to be trying to maintain the link with constituencies, which I believe is crucial. Lord Jenkins has tried to move towards proportionality, but only marginally. He has also tried to propose a system that will avoid too many coalitions, and thus too many of the problems to which I have just referred.
The report is a poor fudge, as it deals with none of the problems with which it was supposed to deal. The system that it proposes is nonsense. It plucks 15 or 20 per cent. out of the air to provide a limited combination of an additional member system and a top-up system. It seems crazy. As for vacancies or deaths in that top-up system, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred to "spares" being brought in to fill gaps. If there were no spares, seats would be left vacant. That is nonsense.
I remind hon. Members that by-elections can change a Government's policies. Let us remember the by-election results after the poll tax. Ultimately, the by-election in Ribble Valley next door to my constituency made the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), decide that the poll tax had to go and that council tax legislation had to be introduced. Despite an overwhelming Conservative majority, that by-election changed the poll tax policy. The Conservatives knew that

1081
the election could not be delayed beyond 1992, and they feared the consequences. I accept that, if it is a direct election, there will still be a by-election, but it could just as easily be within the 15 or 20 per cent. top-up. Again, that must be nonsense.
New Zealand has been referred to. I went there just over a year ago. In New Zealand, the National party won 44 seats out of 120—New Zealand First, led by Winston Peters, won 17 seats. It did a deal, part of which was that it was over-represented in terms of both ordinary and Cabinet Ministers. It dictated the terms. Some people have moved away from that party since, and other changes have taken place. New Zealand First is certainly cracking up and the coalition no longer exists.
Although the prospect of having a system that is fair to minority parties may be the basis for our debate, ultimately, the tail always wags the dog. The minority dictates the terms and gets more than its fair share. That is nonsense. We may look at what has happened in New Zealand and other parts of the world, but our system has worked well. I strongly support it and hope that the House will not go along with change. If we choose to hold a referendum, I hope that people will say that we should keep the system as it is because it has worked well for many years.
7.52 pm
Mr. John Hayes: There has been much talk tonight about stable government, which has been produced by the first-past-the-post system. Appropriately, there has also been talk about the possibility of coalitions.
The Liberal Democrats, though, have talked less than one might have expected about Lord Jenkins's failure to come up with a proportionate system. Advocates of proportionality in electoral systems—principally the Liberal Democrats in modern times—have not been true to their history and their principles. No one would argue that, even with a top-up, AV is a proportional system. We have had some honesty from those on the Labour Benches tonight. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) was honest enough to acknowledge that the system was not proportional and to give an empirical analysis of it. However, we have heard little from the Liberal Democrats, who seem to grasp at any alternative to the current system, regardless of its merits.
I want to speak not about coalitions and stable government but about a subject referred to by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn): this debate is, above all, about power and the people. It is about the relationship between the elected and electors. Electoral systems are not just about elections; they are about the subsequent nature of representation. Their effect is to establish a relationship or partnership between politicians and the people.
Being a Member of Parliament is about making laws, but it is also about speaking and fighting for ordinary people, and I am not ashamed to say that I have a disproportionate responsibility to speak and fight for those who are least able to do that for themselves. I am surprised that more hon. Members do not regard that as the most significant and rewarding part of their job.
As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) said, there are many types of politicians, both in government and on the Back Benches, but a
1082
unifying, binding factor is their common accountability to their constituents. They must all hold a constituency surgery and go to boring as well as interesting meetings in their constituencies.—[Interruption.] The meetings that I go to are implicitly less boring. Politicians have to open fetes, visit hospitals and schools, and are in touch with their electorates, all of which informs them and keeps their feet on the ground. Heaven knows, many people who are attracted to politics find it hard to keep their feet on the ground. That constituency link—the communication and contact with the average elector—is the principal means by which politicians retain their ordinariness.
Roy Jenkins does not appear to value that highly. We can see from his political background that he is a different type of politician. He is certainly very different from me. Although he is not quite a carpetbagger of Gladstonian proportions—Gladstone represented six seats during his political career, one of which he is reported never to have visited—Jenkins was certainly never in tune with what electorates now expect of their representatives. More than ever before, people want a Member of Parliament to whom they can relate and with whom they can empathise—someone who lives in their community and shares their interests. A Member of Parliament totally unlike Lord Jenkins one might argue. A story persists about Lord Jenkins holding his constituency surgery at the railway station because he did not live in the constituency.
We should move away from such politicians, but those on a top-up list would be of exactly that type. Although those politicians may have some notional connection with the county—Jenkins has given us that palliative—imagine a county like mine, Lincolnshire, with an extra top-up Member floating about somewhere between the Isle of Axholme and the Fens. Would he go to those boring meetings with boring people, or would he be down here hobnobbing and fine dining with the Westminster cognoscenti at one of Lord Jenkins's six London clubs? I think I know where he would be, and it would not be in Lincolnshire.
Mr. Maclennan: I was brought up in the Glasgow constituency to which Lord Jenkins was twice elected. He was not a native son of Glasgow, but he was more than acceptable.
Mr. Hayes: Lord Jenkins never lived in Stechford when he represented it for 27 years and he never lived in Glasgow when he represented it either. Many hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber moved to their constituencies when they were elected because they believed that they should be at the heart of the area that they represented. I am not impressed by Lord Jenkins's track record. Given that he has been outside mainstream politics for some 15 years, that he is 77 years of age, and that his best political days were when he was a member of the Cabinet a generation ago, he was an odd choice— I put it no higher than that—as chairman of the commission.
This debate is all about power and people. A factor that has only been scantily mentioned is that, if the system were introduced in a constituency like mine—assuming that the boundaries were redrawn and I were reselected—I would represent a constituency that was 15 or 20 per cent. larger than my current one. In a seat like mine, which covers 350 square miles, I could not do that without delivering a lower quality service to my electorate.

1083
I would be taking on an extra 20,000 people. We have moved away from that. The idea of constituencies of 100,000 people was abandoned by the boundary commissions because they believed that constituencies should conform to a uniform smaller size. The current proposal is surely a step in the wrong direction. Perhaps the commission underestimated the impact of that.
Mr. Andy King: It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to argue ad hominem, which undermines a debate which is long overdue in this House. Is the hon. Gentleman frightened of having the support of 50 per cent. and above of his electorate? It sounds to me as if he would benefit from the top-up Member to assist him with his work in Lincolnshire.
Mr. Hayes: I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman thinks that I am not making a useful contribution to the debate. Being a Member of Parliament is about representing people and caring for people. It is about articulating people's needs, fears, aspirations and hopes. That is more important to me than the machinations of the Westminster cognoscenti, of which the hon. Gentleman is clearly fond.
I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman thinks so little of my contribution to the debate, but I can tell him that for myself I am frightened of nothing. I got 49.5 per cent. of the vote, and I am confident that I could have picked up a few of the second choices from some of the other candidates. I am frightened for the British people though because I care about them being properly represented in an informed, modern democracy.
The debate is about power and people, and the Jenkins proposals would take power further and further away from the British people. That has been recognised by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, by myself and by many people who are better informed than myself. I will fight hard to retain power with the people by retaining our current electoral system.
8 pm
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I do not believe that the debate is about the report of an independent commission. Frankly, how can a Liberal Democrat Lord chairing a commission offer us an independent outcome? I do not blame Lord Jenkins, however, who has jumped at the chance afforded to him to have the floor and to argue his case at length.
Some of my hon. Friends have expressed fear about the list system. Some people have said that Jenkins is not talking about a closed list, but an open one. Nevertheless, the introduction of the top-up system for the Westminster elections would make it far easier for party headquarters to centralise the decisions about the selection of candidates, whether it was an open or closed list.
I do not fear coalition Governments. Every Government in this country is a coalition one. The Tory party is a coalition, as is the Labour party. Any wise party leader recognises that his party contains a right wing and a left wing. That is why Attlee chose to accommodate both Aneurin Bevan and Ernie Bevin in his Cabinet when he became Prime Minister in 1945. However, Jenkins is
1084
proposing to create a situation where coalition Governments of more than one party would be more likely to be in power more often—and would, very often, be inevitable.
If we moved to the proportional system, as recommended by Jenkins, it would be true to say that whichever major party was in office, the Liberal Democrats would always be in power. It is no wonder the Liberal Democrats favour proportional representation, although there is no record of the Liberal party supporting PR in 1906 or in the days of Gladstone. I do not blame the Liberal Democrats. They are politically motivated, as are we all to an extent.
Under our system, the voters vote for the coalition with which they are familiar—whether it is Labour or Tory. The voters understand that. PR would mean coalitions being cobbled together in back rooms by politicians. It is an electoral system for politicians. The first-past-the-post system is an electoral system for the people of this country.
Some new Labour Members may not recall the history of the Liberal Democrats. It is often assumed that if we moved to a proportional system, the Liberal Democrats would always support the Labour party. That is not true. We have seen what has happened in Germany. Helmut Kohl became Chancellor in 1982 not because of an election, but because the Free Democratic party—a party which, with the exception of four years, has always been in government in Germany—chose to move from supporting from one Helmut, Schmidt, to another Helmut, Kohl.
The Liberal party in this country has switched support as well. I recall the elections in 1951 and 1955, when Conservative candidates stood down to allow Liberals to win seats in Bolton and Huddersfield. I can even remember the day when The Guardian—which was then thought to be the house magazine of the Liberal party— called on people to vote Conservative in 1950. That was despite the fact that the Labour Government after the war had created the welfare state and maintained full employment—the sort of things which the Liberals should have supported.
In 1979, we had the Lib-Lab pact. The Liberals' opposition to the Labour Government on a confidence motion helped to give us 18 years of Tory Government, many under the extremism of Thatcher. Is it fair to Labour and Tory voters that the minority who choose to vote Liberal Democrat should nearly always be in a position to determine who should govern? Following electoral defeats in the 1980s, many Labour activists thought that we should perhaps look at changing the electoral system. In 1983, it looked as though we had a mountain to climb; in 1997, we did not just reach the summit—we touched the stratosphere with the result.
Jenkins has made a number of errors in his report. On page 13, paragraph 47, the report says that there was no certain control of the Attlee Government from 1950 to 1951, or of the Wilson Government of 1964 to 1966. How many times did those Governments lose in the Division Lobby? The answer is that they never did. If we had had PR in 1964—when the Labour Government had a tiny overall majority—Wilson would have been unable to exercise the option to call an election in 1966 and to come back with a stable, overall majority of 100 for the Labour party.

1085
We should fantasise just a little. Imagine if, in 1997, the Labour party had been elected as the largest single party, but in a hung Parliament. Who would have had to give way to accommodate the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown)? Would it be the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs? Would it be the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Maybe it would be the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
8.9 pm
Mr. Andrew Stunell: I do not want to confront others with errors, but I think that the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) crammed more errors into his speech than any other Member who has spoken tonight—although there have been other errors. But I want to spend my allotted time speaking up for disfranchised voters, and especially for disfranchised Conservatives. I am not going to talk about those who have been disfranchised in Scotland and Wales, because, as has been pointed out, a top-up Member has been appointed for them by the Conservatives here; but in my region—and in the northern region, where there are no Conservatives—there are serious problems.
Greater Manchester has 28 parliamentary seats. The Conservatives have two of those 28 seats, although they have 25 per cent. of the popular vote across Greater Manchester. It takes 154,000 Conservative electors in Greater Manchester to produce one Member of Parliament, which should certainly not be the case. Mention has been made of Surrey, which has the opposite problem.
In the general election of 1997, those 28 contests in Greater Manchester had one feature that is common to all the elections in the present first-past-the-post system. Each involved a closed list of one candidate per party. Those who fulminate against the idea of a proportional system and the control of parties have clearly failed to observe the present circumstances. As is so often the case, it is easier to look out of the glass house than to spot the glass that surrounds us.
In last year's general election, the election results in Greater Manchester had one unusual feature compared with results elsewhere. In 25 of those 28 contests, the winning candidate gained more than 50 per cent. of the vote. It should be borne in mind that 44 per cent. of hon. Members sit here having received less than 50 per cent. of the vote in their constituencies.
I must say that I look forward to a referendum campaign in which Conservatives visit my constituency— where I did receive more than 50 per cent. of the vote— and try to persuade my voters that they are so dumb that they cannot understand any alternative voting system that is put to them. I hope that those Conservatives will make clear their belief that voters in my constituency are dumber than the Germans, dumber than the French, dumber than the Italians and dumber than the Spanish— because I have a feeling that my electors will reply, "We were smart enough to see through their arguments at the general election, and we are smart enough to see through them in a referendum campaign."
It has been alleged that one of the consequences of the proposed change would be weak government. Let us take the period between 1945 and 1998. In that period of
1086
53 years, we have had 35 years of Conservative government and 18 years of Labour government—strong government, provided by the other parties, as I am sure they would agree. In that time, the Germans have overhauled us and taken on East Germany; France has overhauled us; Italy is snapping at our heels; and the Spaniards, who have had only half as much time in a democratic system, which took over from a dictatorship 25 years ago, are now very close to us. All that has been supplied by "weak" coalitions—by the proportional government that the Conservatives so despise.
It has been said that the proposed system is a recipe for minority government. Anyone who observed the Major Government may have wondered exactly who was wagging the dog. Was it the Europhobics? Was it the Ulster Unionists? And what about the mysterious change without an election? What happened when the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) took over from Mrs. Thatcher? Let us not concern ourselves with the nature of the Conservative party's voting system; what about the votes that were offered to the people of this country? There were none at all. We do not need lectures about parties changing course in midstream without elections.
Let us be clear about one thing: the Jenkins proposals would not produce the results cited by their opponents. It is evident that many of them have not even read the report. They have not read the academic evidence in the CD-ROM—because, I imagine, they are still using quill pens. If they did so, they would learn that, in four of the last five elections, a majority party would have been elected.
There is a saying that those who live by the sword must die by the sword. The Conservatives have adopted a different policy: they have decided that those who die by the sword must die by the sword. They have a system that is destroying them in Parliament and in local government, and they are urging us all to stick with it. Some of us are almost tempted to say yes to that.
Let us have a look at this business about strong and weak government. We need not look to France or Germany; we can look to Doncaster and Westminster to see why powerful single-party domination of any political culture leads to more corruption and worse government than a more representative system. [HON. MEMBERS: "Like Italy."] Like Italy, which, in fact, has pulled up its economic bootstraps over the last 50 years, and has developed its political culture. I gather that the view is that Italian voters are so stupid that they cannot run the system.
It is said that we have one class of Members of Parliament in the House. Only three months ago did we finally and formally get rid of the distinction between right hon. and hon. Members, and anyone who believes that there is no class distinction or separation of powers between different Members of Parliament here has been living in a dream world.
I do not think that the Tories' big fear is of being replaced by Liberal Democrat or Labour Members. I think that their fear is of being replaced by Tory Members of Parliament from Scotland, Wales and Greater Manchester. There would be more Tory Members of Parliament as a result of a new voting system; but they would be more representative, they would know what they were talking about, and they would be in a position to serve the country far better.
8.16 pm
Ms Claire Ward: Some hon. Members may well feel that the report, and the debate, have been long awaited—especially those who stand to gain most, the Liberal Democrats. Surprisingly, however, the Liberal Democrats have been unable to muster even a 50 per cent. attendance.
I believe that those who claim that there is a great desire for change are talking nonsense. In the 18 months that I have been a Member of Parliament, and during the many years in which I have campaigned with the Labour party—both before elections and in the interim periods— not one person has said to me, "I will vote Labour because I want proportional representation," or, "I will vote Labour because I want to change the electoral system."
Let us be honest: people do not vote for a political party because they want a change in the electoral system. They have much higher priorities, as I am sure most hon. Members can tell us on the basis of their surgeries and constituency correspondence. I do not believe that there is any real clamour for change. I think that the 1997 election result showed us that the current system can deliver huge swings, and that people are capable of making up their minds to get rid of a Government, or a Member of Parliament, whom they do not believe to have represented them adequately.
It is wrong to believe that proportional representation— or, indeed, the Jenkins report—will bring more democracy. The truth is that democracy ends the moment the ballot box closes. When people have voted for a party, they may well end up with a Government who are a coalition of parties none of which they supported. Under proportional representation, there is a much greater risk of a mish-mash of policies and deals done in back rooms after the people have had their say.
We need only look at other countries in which the system is operating to see that that is so. The most recent example is Germany, where the smallest party has held the balance of power for many years. Even at the last general election, it took nearly six weeks for the Germans to agree on a coalition Government for whom the people had not voted, although more people voted for Schröder's party than for any other.
I shall deal now with some of the specific issues in the Jenkins report. I am surprised that those who support proportional representation support the Jenkins report, because it does not meet the criteria set out by those who believe in PR. The use of the AV system does not give equal weight to votes. If an elector votes for the Monster Raving Loony party or the Let's Have A Party party or any other fringe or minority party, in a seat where there are two main parties, the second preference will be taken into account to determine the overall winner. A person voting for either of the main parties will have only their first preference taken into account. How can that be democratic? How does that give equal weight to votes? It will inevitably give undue weight to minority parties.
The AV system has a tendency to produce random results depending on which party is placed second in the first count. One party may gain far more first preferences than its main rival, but second, third, fourth or even fifth
1088
preferences may carry that second party over the winning line. I do not believe that that is democratic. The Jenkins commission has failed to fulfil its terms of reference.
Mr. Andy King rose—
Ms Ward: I will not give way, because of the time.
Jenkins was told to come up with a system that kept the constituency link, but he has failed to do that. The top-up breaks the constituency link and creates two types of Member of Parliament. It does not matter that Jenkins recommends that those Members of Parliament should be treated the same in the House. We all know that, in reality, that will not happen. One type will be elected on an expanded constituency boundary and one type will be elected on a top-up, on a county or city list system.
We would need to increase the size of the constituencies, which I believe are large enough already. Members of Parliament have enough responsibility serving 70,000 or so electors without increasing that to an average of 90,000. Also, those top-up Members would have no direct relationship with the people voting for them.
I shall take as an example the constituency area that Jenkins has suggested for Hertfordshire, in which Watford would be one component part. The people in Hertfordshire already have no real direct contact with the county council. They have no idea what the organisation is or what it does. The notion that they will have any more idea about the top-up Members of Parliament on a county-based system is nonsense. They want a local Member of Parliament whom they can hold accountable, who knows the area and who will be waiting to listen to their views. Top-up Members will be floating around the county and, in Watford, we will never know where on earth they are.
Mr. Hayes: They will be down here in the Tea Room, dear.
Ms Ward: Yes, more than likely.
Where vacancies occurred in the top-up list, there would be no opportunity for a by-election. Parties would simply put forward their next highest placed candidate to take the seat. Surely voters are entitled to elect their representatives and not to rely upon parties to put up whomever they choose without any endorsement. It has already been said that it is important to have a system in which by-elections can cause changes to the Government so that it makes them sit up and listen.
The Jenkins report is a half-baked plan. It requires an electoral commission to fill in the details that he has been unable to provide. In my view, we should stick with a first-past-the-post system, which is simple in concept— one cross, one vote. It is easy to count and it is clear. The electorate vote for a party and a candidate to form a Government.
I do not believe in the concept of a wasted vote. The important principle is that a voter has his or her say through the ballot box. It is a fact of life that some parties will not win and that some people may feel that they have not voted for a party that will win. That does not mean that we should change the system. Just because minority parties have been unable to convince the electorate of the value and credibility of their policies is no reason to change the system.

1089
Labour Members who have fought for many years for a Labour Government believe that we should stick with a system that will be representative of those we serve. We want a Labour Government who will be implementing their policies, not forming a coalition with the Liberal Democrats and doing nothing to tackle the issues concerning most people in my constituency.
8.24 pm
Mr. Christopher Fraser: The first question that comes to my mind this evening is why the noble Lord Jenkins is not in the Gallery listening to this debate. My suspicion is that he is being topped up in another place.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Although we are debating the Jenkins report, we should remember that the noble Lord Jenkins is a Member of the other House. It is usual to refer to all Members of the other House with courtesy.
Mr. Fraser: I shall take that on board, Mr. Deputy Speaker. These are serious issues.
The first-past-the-post system has served the country well and has generally provided what I think we all believe has been stable government. It has the confidence of the voting public. I am curious as to why the Jenkins commission has not been allowed to consider the advantages and disadvantages of our current voting system, which has served our democracy in this country. After all, as has already been said in the debate, 62 countries around the world have the same system, and they represent about half the world's electors.
Why did the commission come up with a complicated system that is not used anywhere else in the world? Seven alternatives exist, but none was good enough for Jenkins. We must ask why not. It is yet another excursion into the unknown. I believe that this is Jenkins's revolution, but it is certainly not evolution. I believe that it is change for change's sake. Without being too disingenuous about the noble Lord, I suspect that it is an old man in a hurry, trying to make a mark. That is a pity, because, with the Jenkins commission proposals, the voter and democracy will be poorer. His proposals do not do what he set out to achieve.
How can voter choice be extended in a system in which votes for the least popular candidate can be more important than votes for the most popular? How can voter choice be extended if voting for one's preferred candidate can harm his or her chances? How can voter choice be extended if a large number of so-called top-up Members are selected from closed party lists? Some may even have been rejected by the electorate in their constituency, but may enter Parliament as if appointed by a quango. How can voter choice be extended if Liberal Democrat Members become established by default, irrespective of their performance on election day?
None of us in the House would argue against the case for stable government, but we would not argue for stable government at all costs. Under the current first-past-the-post system, the voter understands that the Government can be called to account at the polls if they fail to deliver. The Government of the day have the support of Parliament for their policies and promises. They have the ability to carry forward those policies and there is a clear-cut accountability to the electorate.
1090
What happens under the proposed system? As was eloquently pointed out by the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward), after an election, policies would be cobbled together in smoke-filled rooms in the pursuit of power and the interests of survival. What seems compatible at the outset may turn out to be wishful thinking when times get tough, particularly if expediency results in a coalition with a political party some way down the voters' preference list which has extreme or single-issue views. Small parties would enjoy disproportionate influence.
Policies would be muddled, accountability would be obscured and the ability to remain in power would be a matter of compromise. The classic criticisms of proportional representation have not been addressed in the hotch-potch system that has been advocated in the Jenkins report. That concerns me at constituency level as well as at national level. The direct link with the electorate on which our Parliament is based is understood and appreciated. Our constituents may not entirely understand our role, but they do understand that we, and we alone, represent them and their interests. A Member of Parliament is a single point of contact for every person of voting age.
As Members of Parliament, we have nothing to lose and everything to gain by diligence and service to the local community and the individuals that we represent. We work directly for the whole constituency, not only for those who voted for us. We know and understand the complexities of our patch, and we speak in the House against that background. Our constituents judge us on what we do in and for the constituency, at least as much as on what we do in the House.
Candidate selection—in the Conservative party, at least—remains largely a local matter. Every vote at every level counts. If we fail at local level, we pay the price, and someone else will be found to take on the job.
The proposal for top-up Members should be thought through carefully. What is their remit? Whom do they represent? I believe that they represent no one. How are they to be judged? How can voters identify with then-work and their performance? How can they be called to account? How can their performance in the House serve democracy?
Lord Jenkins's support for proportional representation is long-standing and well known. He has at last found a Prime Minister who might be prepared to listen and be swayed by his enthusiasm for coalition politics.
The commission was not allowed to consider the advantages of the current system, so we must voice them in this debate. Under first past the post, Government stability is almost always achieved. There is a close link between voters and their elected representatives. Electors understand the system, and have confidence in it. A party in government ignores the electorate at its peril. The fate of the Government is in the hands of the voters.
Even the Jenkins commission has acknowledged that there is "no surging popular agitation" for change in this country. It has failed to make a compelling case for forsaking a system that has served us well, and I do not support it.
8.31 pm
Mr. Alan Keen: My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) said that, if Labour voters in Surrey were asked whether they wanted

1091
a top-up Member of Parliament, they would say yes. I have lived and voted in Surrey, but I have still felt exhilarated in the polling booth when I voted—despite the overwhelming majority against Labour and despite the fact that, when I stood for the council, I was roundly beaten. I think that we know what the answer would be if Labour voters were asked the whole question—"Do you want a Labour top-up Member even though that means that there would be 50 fewer Labour Members of Parliament?"
If this debate were about a choice between the Jenkins proposals and a fully proportional system, the people who are arguing for the Jenkins proposals would be ridiculing them, saying that they were unfair and ludicrous. I do not expect hon. Members to admit to that, but they know, when they think quietly, that it is true.
Those people who claim that it is easy to vote cannot have met people like the ones I have met during the past two elections—perhaps about 10 of them—who have not voted before and have no idea what to do. I tell them how to vote, saying, "Go and give your name. Tell them where you live and they will give you the ballot paper. Go into the box and put a cross against the name of the person you want to vote for." We should not forget the fact that many people are frightened and have never been in a polling booth before.
Any major change to the system is serious. If there is no demand for a change, why should we cause such chaos? The demand comes not from the people, but—of course—from politicians. Some hon. Members—from both sides of the House—have so many axes to grind that it is surprising we can hear the debate for the noise.
If a perfect system existed, there would be an argument for ditching first past the post, but we know that such a system does not exist. People who have argued for proportional representation over the years would call the Jenkins proposals ridiculous if they had a more proportional system to support.
To change to the proposed system would be damaging. It would damage relationships between people in the same political party and it would be costly in time for party workers, who keep our political parties going and get us into Parliament.
If we accept the proposals, what would we lose? The public understand the current system, for all its deficiencies. As I said, when I voted in Surrey, I did not mind that my vote would not count. I was happy to let the people of Wales, the north-east and Manchester make my vote count—
Mr. Kaufman: Hear, hear.
Mr. Keen: Especially Manchester.
Governments are invariably thrown out; the electorate do not really vote for us. At the general election, people may have found the Labour party's proposals acceptable, but, on the whole, they wanted to throw the Government out, as Conservative Members have been honest enough to admit. People vote largely to get rid of politicians. I do not think that they like or trust us, and I do not blame them—if they have been watching this debate, their views will have been confirmed.
1092
Proportional representation will make it more difficult for the electorate to throw politicians out. Even if, under AV plus, only one election in the past 25 years would have resulted in a coalition, that is more than enough to make me want to throw out the proposals.
The report is flawed. Paragraph 7 of chapter two says that the
"unanimous opinion…expressed…distrust of any electoral system which increased the power of party machines",
yet the commission still recommends AV plus.
Moreover, paragraph 10 of chapter two—this is worth mentioning, as it highlights what other hon. Members have said—states that the role of Members of Parliament is "to represent their constituencies". I want to change that slightly; instead of "constituencies", it should say "constituents". That shows the difference in philosophy between the Jenkins commission and me.
The commission is described as independent, but I remind the House of what Lord Cocks said in early October:
"People asking for information about the electoral system are referred"—
by the commission—
"to the home page of the Electoral Reform Society. Surely this organisation has a massive vested interest in the whole subject."
That is hardly independent.
Lord Cocks also described the consultative meetings that were held. He said:
"I drew attention to the average attendance of 80 and said this represented 0.0000625 per cent. of the electorate. Even this figure is doubtful.
At the recent Labour Party Conference I collected the annual review…of the Electoral Reform Society. There I see that, apart from society members writing to the Commission,
'a large number have also attended the Independent Commission's hearings to present their arguments for change and in particular STV'."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 October 1998; Vol. 593, c. 684.]
Again, that is hardly independent.
The other day, I heard someone trying to justify the role of top-up Members by arguing that they would be more in touch than directly elected Members. I am nothing special, but to serve my constituents, I hold four advice surgeries a month in different locations. I am worried about the people who do not have their own transport, so I travel to them.
Feltham and Heston is a small, suburban constituency, but for top-up Members to give the same service, they would have to attend 36—four times nine—locations, from Cranford by Heathrow to as far away as Carshalton. Not that I know where Carshalton is; I know it is past Kingston somewhere, but I do not want to offend anyone who represents it. [Laughter.] I doubt whether even 1 per cent. of the people of Feltham and Heston would know where Carshalton was. If they went there, they would probably love it. They would probably love it more than they love Feltham. That is why there are lots of problems in Feltham.
The report talks about better representation in Parliament of women and people from ethnic minorities. If we are serious about electoral reform, perhaps we should go further and consider term limits. That is turkeys voting for Christmas. Term limits would give a more rapid turnover and we would get a more representative—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I call Mr. Gerald Howarth.
8.39 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth: We have seen the House at its best today. I hope that the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward) will wait a second before she disappears. When the public see us debating issues that concern the House, they see us at our best, arguing with passion about important issues that affect everybody in this country.
This fascinating debate was well opened by the Home Secretary, to whom I pay tribute, and my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) responded well. There was a splendid contribution from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). I agreed with virtually every word that the hon. Member for Watford said. I say that with no deliberate intention of harming her career. She made a good speech, and I think that she was absolutely right when she said that the Jenkins report was fundamentally flawed.
The remit that the Prime Minister gave Lord Jenkins was to examine all the alternatives to first past the post and to recommend one. The report is a wonderful grand tour, as one would expect from someone so versed in claret, of not only Europe but the whole world, and it gives us some marvellous cameo histories of various countries. It spends about two pages on the present arrangements and goes on for no fewer than 17 pages, seeking to demolish the case for first past the post. The document is not an independent report recommending one of the alternatives to first past the post. Its objective is to destroy support for first past the post and only then to come up with a proposal to put to the Prime Minister.
I cannot promise any great new illuminations, but I hope that, in reinforcing points made by others, I will be able to advance the cause in which I believe. The new system is complicated. As the hon. Member for Watford said, the present system is easy, it does not take long to count, and one does not end up having to work out who will form the Government. As we have heard, it has taken six weeks to form the Government in Germany. It is a good job that there have been no major crises in that time.
It is not sufficient to say that we should rule out a system merely because it is complicated. There are other grounds on which the system should be ruled out. It gives disproportionate power to small parties—that is the inescapable logic—and that is why the Liberals want it. In Germany, the Greens, whose vote went down at the most recent elections from 7.3 per cent. to 6.7 per cent., ended up as the power brokers.
It has been said many times tonight, but it bears repeating, that the Free Democrats in Germany were able to remain in office while the main party changed. The tiny FDP stayed throughout and was never subjected to being booted out. The report is interesting on that. It says:
"Mostly the FDP has been the hinge, and has done very well out of the role."
Lord Jenkins got it in one. The hinge—the disproportionate power of a small party—in this country would fall to the Liberal party, which would do very well out of it. The House is entitled to ask whether it is no accident that Lord Jenkins is the man who started up the Social Democratic party and then merged it with the Liberal party.
I resent the way in which the Liberals parade themselves as not being involved for party political reasons. They rise above the dirty business of politics in
1094
which we and the Labour party are engaged, because they are interested only in the principle. Garbage: every single alternative system that is produced for our consideration results—lo and behold—in their party doing extremely well, thank you very much indeed. I do not mind, but why do not they simply own up to it and say, "Yes, we do rather well out of it"? That is what Lord Jenkins says, in any case.
I know that the Conservative party does not enjoy the unmixed support of Fleet street these days, but let me quote from The Times, which, in an editorial on 30 October, headed "Too clever by half, said:
"There is every chance that the Liberal Democrats would hold office on a semi-permanent basis regardless of their performance at the polls."
I am more inclined to believe The Times than the Liberal party, which is trying to seduce us into the new arrangements.
The new system would unquestionably create two classes of Member of Parliament. I say earnestly to those who are new to the House: beware. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was absolutely right when, in his letter to The Daily Telegraph, he pointed out that the voters had booted out Mr. Kohl, but that he was back a few hours later because he was top of the list. What kind of democracy is that?
I see that the hon. Member for Enfield, Soufhgate (Mr. Twigg) is present. I lost a very good friend at the election, when his predecessor, one of the finest of Members of Parliament, was defeated. He and I had about the same notional majority, and he had a safe seat. It is not true that it is not possible to remove people in so-called safe seats, and the hon. Member for Southgate is the proof of that pudding.
We need to be careful about the top-up Members of Parliament. The Home Secretary wonderfully described them as "spares", and I think that it was the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) who called them "clones". The spares will be in our constituencies. If the arrangements go through, we shall have two in north Hampshire. They will have no constituency responsibilities, and they will not go even to the exciting events, let alone the boring ones. The spares will be there, undermining the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) and seeking to take her seat from her. That will be the effect of the system that she supports.
I believe that the report is fundamentally flawed. It is an exercise in posturing by Lord Jenkins. Hon. Members should guard jealously their freedoms and responsibilities and should not lightly give up their direct connection with their electorate.
8.47 pm
Dr. Tony Wright: It is a special pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth). I defeated him in 1992, in a fairly muscular first-past-the-post election, which is almost enough evidence to make me think that it is a rather interesting system—but not quite.
I think that it was Adlai Stevenson who said that a politician is a person who approaches every question with an open mouth. Some of our debate has been interesting, but some of it has been as though the Jenkins report had never been written. Some hon. Members simply rehearsed

1095
positions that they would have held anyway. The real challenge of Jenkins is to invite us to get into some new and interesting territory. Either we respond to that challenge or we think that we can simply go on rehearsing the old arguments.
On the first page of Jenkins, in typical Jenkinsese, it says:
"we have endeavoured to seek relative virtue in an imperfect world."
Incidentally, there are some lovely examples of Jenkinsese around. I know what "fissiparous" means, but I am not so sure about "inspissated". Perhaps it is what one becomes if one spends an evening with the claret.
Hon. Members should approach the subject with some humility—although those who have protested how excellently they do the job have not shown much. No doubt they are excellent, but we should have some realism, too. Hon. Members puff out their chests and say that they represent all their constituents, but in at least half the cases, most of their constituents have voted for other parties. Members of Parliament go through the Lobbies night after night, voting with their party. If they were representing their constituents, they would vote for the views of the majority of their constituents who have supported other parties, but they do not do that. Under our system, with all its merits, we first get ourselves selected—the selection is far more important than the election—by a very few people. We are not selected by first past the post but by some other system. We then get ourselves elected, often by a minority of the electorate, and we then claim that we represent everybody, even though by our behaviour we do not. Then we invent conventions that tell everybody else to keep off our patch. That is an interesting system, but we need to be honest when we describe it. Although I enjoyed the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), whom I respect greatly, I could not help remembering that he and his friends opposed the extension of the vote to all members of the Labour party so that they could choose their representatives. It is a funny kind of democratic argument that leads to such conclusions.
The Jenkins report has managed to square a difficult circle. It makes it difficult for those who have supported other systems and for those who want to defend the old system. Lord Jenkins was given criteria to meet, and he has met them. In particular, he has confronted the question whether it is possible to combine more representative government with effective government. Traditionally, we have thought that that was not possible. In devising a home-grown British system that combines the disparate criteria ingeniously and imaginatively, Lord Jenkins has managed to strengthen the constituency link in many ways while adding some fairness. That is a considerable achievement that takes us into new territory.
Where do we go from here? The Government gave the commission the task of devising a concrete alternative to the existing system, so that we did not carry on a debate about some unimagined alternative that might be better. We now have that concrete alternative which we can discuss, as we have tonight.
I regret that the Government now appear to say that we will not have a referendum on the matter, having told the people that we would have a referendum and having made
1096
it central to the rest of our constitutional reform programme. It would have been the only referendum in which my constituents and the people of England would have voted. People in Scotland, Wales and London have had a referendum, but the referendum on voting reform was the one that everyone was to have.
It is ludicrous to propose more debate, because we have had a debate on the subject for most of the century. We have now at last been offered a concrete alternative to run off against first past the post. The Jenkins report makes it clear that there are good arguments on both sides and we should not be ideological in our approach. What are we afraid of in turning the matter over to the British public for them to decide? We could finally resolve an issue that has gnawed at British politics for decades and we might end up giving a little more energy and strength to our democracy.
8.54 pm
Mr. Donald Gorrie: I have great pleasure in following the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) and some of his arguments. The voters will choose in a referendum, so the argument that the commission is biased is irrelevant. The commission was not a royal commission tasked with producing a great new method of running social services or whatever. It was asked to propose an alternative proportional system to set against the status quo, and it has produced a compromise. The idea that the report is some sort of Liberal Democrat stitch-up is complete rubbish, because the commission has not proposed a fully proportional system. If the Liberal Democrats had had their way, the commission would have recommended a single transferable vote system that was fully proportional. Lord Jenkins and his colleagues have tried to take account of different points of view and have produced a system that is more proportional than the present one; gives more voter choice; and has retained the link with the constituency. It is not a fully proportional system and, therefore, coalitions are not inevitable. The report makes it clear that the majority of elections since the war would not have produced a coalition. It is not true that the system would produce a permanent coalition and give the Liberal Democrats an easy ride.
Mr. Hayes: If the hon. Gentleman's principal argument against the current system is that it is not proportional, and the Jenkins system is, as he has just said, not proportional either, what is the incentive for change?
Mr. Gorrie: The system taken as a whole, with the AV members and the list members, is much more proportional. Lord Jenkins and his colleagues had to balance the desire for proportionality with the desire for a personal link with the constituency. They have produced a compromise that is acceptable to the Liberal Democrats because it is a great step towards proportionality.
Much of the argument tonight has centred on the allegation that the alternative vote system is wrong and unfair and that the worst votes for the worst people somehow decide the outcome. AV is not at all like that and is in fact used in many internal party elections. The system requires the voter to mark the candidates in order of preference. If someone has voted for candidates C or D and the contest ends up being only between candidates A and B, the person's preference will be taken into account. Ultimately, the whole electorate decide the

1097
run-off between candidates A and B and it is all done at one time, instead of coming back a week later—or two weeks later, as the Conservatives do in their leadership elections. The suggestion that some votes are more equal than others is not true—and nor is the idea that the constituency link would be lost. All 100 per cent. of the voters would still have a personal constituency link, and they are the people who count. Eighty per cent. or more of Members will still have a constituency link. The link has been kept, and it has been strengthened.
The idea that Members vote for the benefit of then-constituents is complete rubbish. They vote as their Whips instruct. I am sure that some Members here tonight have constituents who were not in favour of fees for students or altering benefits for single parents. Members voted as the Whips directed.
Mr. Hayes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me a second time. Surely he will acknowledge that the vast majority of our case work and the letters in our postbags have nothing to do with issues that divide the parties. Most of our work is about solving individual problems for individual people for whom those problems, which may to others seem trivial, are the biggest thing in the world. It does not matter to those people whether their MP is a Liberal, a Tory or a socialist. What matters is that the MP cares and helps them to solve their problems.
Mr. Gorrie: The new system does not alter that one bit. Members will still represent the constituency. They will merely have a greater degree of proven support than they do now.
The proposals will increase voter choice. The idea that it is too complicated to ask a voter to put 1, 2, 3 and 4 opposite names in one list and X opposite a preferred person on another list is ridiculous. Filling in a football pool or doing the national lottery is much more complicated.
Lord Jenkins has suggested that the top-up should be on a local basis so that top-up candidates are also chosen by the people in a county or a city. To argue that we would not have the fun and games of by-elections is rubbish. Eighty per cent. of Members will be elected in constituencies that could require by-elections.
Do the Conservatives seriously believe that it is good for the democratic health of Scotland that there are no Tory representatives of Scotland in Westminster? I believe that that is bad. Any Members who say otherwise should look into themselves quite seriously.
The question is whether the new system would improve democracy. We seem to have a hatred of coalitions, but we might reflect that the occasions on which the country has been faced with the gravest problems—the two world wars—produced coalitions, and the country came out of those wars successfully. We might learn from that success.
The Conservatives should consider the graph on page 11 of the Jenkins report which shows that the present system builds in disadvantage for them. They must obtain 6 per cent. more votes than the Labour party to get the same number of seats. There are serious defects in the present system. We want a referendum. Those who want change can argue for it; those who want the present system can argue for that; and the people can decide. That is what democracy is about.
9.1 pm
Mr. David Watts: It is difficult to join the debate at this stage because most of what I wanted to say has been said. However, I will emphasise a few points as quickly as I can.
No one believes that the first-past-the-post system is perfect. However, I believe that of all the different systems on offer, first past the post is the best. Is proportional representation on offer? We have heard that it is not. We are being offered a mixed bag of proposals that the Jenkins report has pulled together, but they cannot be described as PR.
It is not really for those of us who support the first-past-the-post system to make a case against the Jenkins report. A system exists, and it is up to Jenkins's supporters to make a clear case that deals with the positive issues that have been raised in our debate. There can be only two reasons for changing the present system. First, we should do it if there were an overwhelming wish for change among the general public. We all know that that is not so. I have been in politics for 35 years, and I have knocked on doors up and down the country. I have never met anyone who has demanded a change in the electoral system. Jenkins admits that there is no demand for change.
The second reason to change would be if change would improve democracy. I find it hard to understand how a system that would leave 20 per cent. of Members accountable to no one other than their party would be an improvement. I have heard no argument in defence of that position. It would mean that 20 per cent. of Members were no longer directly accountable to voters. The centralisation of power and control of Members would take a step further forward. I believe that the vast majority of the general public do not want that. Constituents expect us to speak on their behalf and to be as independently minded as we can. That would be less likely if Jenkins were adopted.
We must ask ourselves whether the proposals have met the criteria laid down. As I understand it, Jenkins was asked to come forward with a fairer, more democratic system that enhanced choice. I have not heard any Member argue today that that is what has happened.
As people look in more detail at the report, they will worry increasingly over other issues. We have heard a great deal about what the outcome of the past few elections would have been had the system been in operation. How are the estimates in the report made when it cannot be known how people would vote for their second preference? That would alter the outcome dramatically. There is much in the report that is supposed to be fact but is not.
A further practical problem is that the recommendations will lead to fundamental boundary changes. Many of us are being lobbied over the 1974 boundary changes even now and referendums have been held up and down the country. Only about six months ago there was one held on Merseyside about changing boundaries and structures. We would get even more of that.
In one constituency in Liverpool, the Member would represent a Liverpool seat, yet some of his constituents would be over the water in the Wirral. The River Mersey would divide the constituency. The system, then, would not connect that Member more closely than the present system does to his constituency. It is important that the

1099
Member is accessible. Most of us have a constituency office which many constituents visit. Will the proposals mean that a constituent in the Wirral would have to take a boat over the Mersey and then catch a bus to raise a matter with the Member? Such practical problems will not be welcomed by voters.
There have been a lot of red herrings about whether PR will improve the economy, yet there has been no evidence that it will.
The recommendations are nothing other than an attempt by some politicians to win seats. The Liberal Democrats support the proposal, not in principle, but because they see it as a way of getting more seats out of the system than they do at present. I am a practical politician and I have never met someone from another party who wants to give away their seat. Throughout my political life I have tried to defeat the Liberal Democrats and the Tories. I do not believe that politicians will willingly give them their seats. That is not a practical possibility.
7 pm
Mr. Alan Johnson: I came to praise Jenkins, not to see the report buried. It has been unkindly, indeed scurrilously, said by Tory Members that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will try to do both. That is not possible. As President Nixon famously said, "Once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it is impossible to get it back in again."
As we approach the 21st century, we are having a debate on our democracy. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright)—I am surprised at some of the comments from this side of the House—that, if we are committed to reforming the second Chamber, decentralisation, a Scottish Parliament, devolution for Wales and incorporating the European Bill of Human Rights into British law—something, incidentally, similar to a freedom of information Bill, a matter that has never been raised on a doorstep with me anywhere—we cannot just screech to a halt when it comes to the system for electing Members to this Chamber.
This can be a healthy debate. There is no need for any rancour or divisions. We can change the system devised by a small political elite at a time when working-class men, let alone all women, did not have the vote. For the very first time, we shall give the British people a say in the type of voting system that is crucial to our democracy. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said, it is a foundation stone of our democracy.
In this debate, we must accept that the Conservative party will be united against us on the referendum. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that would be terrifying. I do not find it so, but of course they will be against us. That is the stance of the Conservative party. It is against all constitutional change, conservative in every sense of the word. Labour can have a healthy debate because we are committed to moving it forward.
I go some way along with it, but it is depressing to hear the argument that we are dearly loved by our constituents and that they elect us because of our special skills and talents. I arrived in my constituency 18 days before polling day, halfway through the campaign. The posters
1100
for the previous candidate were in the windows but I was still elected. The preening, self-regarding argument that everything in Parliament is perfect has come up again and again. It is suggested that new Members who come in on the top-up will spend their time in the Tea Room, that they will be lesser politicians than us, as if none of us ever went near the Tea Room.
The argument, especially for Labour Members, must be about whether we are committed to change and whether there is a case for change in the Jenkins report. Jenkins is not the only one to examine our system and come out for change. There was a Speaker's Conference in 1917 and a Hansard Society commission on electoral reform in 1976. Labour set up the Plant commission. Plant did not convert to electoral reform and proportional representation until he had been through that process. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that we should change.
I do not accept that narrow party political advantage should colour our judgment. As others have said, turkeys do not vote for Christmas. We are the first party in power to decide to go to the country to give it the chance to change the system that gave us power.
There is an important lesson for Labour Members. Not only votes for women and the universal franchise but electoral reform were founding principles of our party from 1900. We sought electoral reform until 1945, when our landslide—the precedent for our general election victory last year—led to a sudden loss of interest. We thought that, if we could win Hastings, and Hove, we had no need to worry about electoral reform. However, in 1951 our Government received the largest vote ever for a political party in Britain—250,000 votes more than the Conservative party got—yet lost the election by 26 seats and spent 13 years in opposition. That is why I want us to address the issue properly and give the people a chance. Let us start the debate in the right way by accepting that, while there will be different points of view, in the end, we shall agree that there must be a referendum of the British people because it is their decision.
9.12 pm
Mr. Alan Hurst: I am glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson). When he talked of a scheme devised by a political elite, I assumed that he meant the Jenkins committee, but he was referring to our forebears.
Jenkins is being misjudged in many ways. He was not asked, as though he were King Solomon, to devise the perfect electoral system; he was asked to present an alternative to our system. His alternative greatly flatters our present system because, whatever else it is, it is not proportional representation. There may be a hint of proportionality, but that is like saying that a man is a little bit honest. It is not what the Liberal party has campaigned for from about the time that the Labour party took the other side of the argument. In the end, all the arguments about proportionality are based on electoral calculations, although I concede that political principles run through the system.
I am surprised that the Liberals are prepared to go with the Jenkins recommendations. Ever since I can remember, the Liberal party has supported the single transferable vote, and, whatever the Jenkins system may be, it is not that. I have a feeling that the Liberals have been hoist by their own petard. Having supported the single transferable

1101
vote for so many years, and having now won some seats by tactical voting, they would rather like to jump to the alternative vote, but it is very difficult to eat 60 years worth of words, is it not?
So the Jenkins position is neither proportional nor anything else. I do not blame the noble Lord for that because, within the terms of reference, it was impossible to produce something that was broadly proportional while retaining the other features that he was asked to include.
There is a case for the alternative vote in single-member seats, but I do not endorse that for the following reason. We should not be seen to be playing politics with the electoral system to our own advantage. If the voters perceive that we are coming along with calculations for different systems, they will lose even more faith in our democratic process than some of them have already lost. I would sooner quote Adlai Stevenson, but my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson) mentioned Richard Nixon. A famous quotation from Richard Nixon is, "Winning is a lot more fun". I think that that is what all those calculations are about, but we should not base our judgment on that. I am wedded, as other hon. Members are, to the single member seat so that a Member represents an individual division, irrespective of who voted for him or her. That is the kernel of the argument. That can be retained with the alternative vote, but I believe that it would be wrong to be perceived to do that.
I come to the ultimate danger of the proposal before us. At the start of the debate, we heard about the Conservative romantic poet—that is like the Jenkins system, something that is almost impossible to combine—who was the Member of Parliament for a rotten borough. The rebellion that produced the Great Reform Act was, among other things, against the fancy franchises. I fear that the Jenkins system is the fancy electoral system, rather like the curry dinner that one has stiffened up or weakened down, depending on one's taste. One can increase the proportionality or diminish it according to the party political calculation of the result.
I can only think that the noble Lord had asked focus groups about what would have happened in the 1950 election had we had various systems. We do not know, and, in view of the risks inherent in change, I wish to stay with the system that has served this country well for so many years.
9.17 pm
Siobhain McDonagh: This is only the second time that I have spoken in the House since the election. I come tonight to speak just because I feel so strongly about the issue. I find it difficult and off-putting, but in considering the role of the Member of Parliament in the past 18 months, I should like to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson) that I represent a constituency in which I was born and brought up, a constituency that I fought three times. I would not want to represent anywhere else in the country. So, for me, the local link is incredibly important.
I am worried about top-up Members of Parliament because I see a society in which people feel more and more alienated from what is around them. Young people feel alienated. Banks, building societies, the Post Office and the benefits system are removed from our high streets,
1102
more distanced and moved further away from people. The journey towards top-up Members of Parliament strikes me as going in that same direction. People are finding themselves further away from the Members of Parliament whom they want to represent them.
I do not believe that I am anything wonderful. I do not believe that most of the people here are anything wonderful, but I believe that, whatever party they represent, they represent their constituents and listen to their constituents' problems. I am sure that no one here asks, "Who did you vote for?", before helping them with their housing inquiry or benefit inquiry. That lie has to be nailed because we shall get increasing alienation if that sort of image comes across.
What will top-up Members of Parliament do? Lord Jenkin outlined two roles. The first was that they could liaise with local authorities and Whitehall. Do we not all represent our local authorities? Do we not all get our council leaders in to see Ministers when there are problems? Do any of us want to delegate that job? No, we do not, because we live in our area and we know our local councils. I do not know Sutton as well as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), nor any of the other boroughs included in the area into which my borough is to be put as well as the local constituency Members of Parliament. How will the top-up Member of Parliament know the five boroughs better than any individual Member of Parliament? If that is the best system for top-ups that the noble Lord Jenkins can come up with, it is doomed from the start.
The top-up area containing my constituency is a bizarre and wholly arbitrary construction, covering Feltham and Heston, Brentford and Isleworth—areas north of the Thames and those out in west London. It happily tramples over the huge distinctions between inner and outer London as though they do not matter. It ranges from deprived Mitcham council estates to leafy Surrey suburbs. It is a totally artificial construct, which fails almost every test that any self-respecting boundary commission would set. It adds nothing to local democracy and accountability and takes no account of the needs of the people it contains. It has been brought into existence purely to fulfil some psephological criteria and, as such, should be strangled at birth.
The second justification for the innovation is that it will guarantee a greater political spread of parties represented. Thankfully, the commission rejected the German level of top-up Members and in doing so attempted to avoid the scenario of a rival and equally active Member of Parliament of an opposing party being on the scene. However, that is precisely what the proposed system will deliver, and it takes no great leap of imagination to envision top-up Members of Parliament being played off against constituency Members of Parliament. I would find it extremely difficult if a top-up Member of Parliament who had been elected by people who, in the main, lived 15 or 20 miles away from my constituency set him or herself up in opposition to me—the Member of Parliament directly elected by the people of Mitcham and Modern—over a local issue that directly affected my constituents. What possible democratic justification could there be for a system that enabled that to happen? Such a system would remove accountability.
How would voters get rid of an individual top-up Member of Parliament whom they disliked? If Michael Portillo had been a top-up Member of Parliament,

1103
he would still be sitting on the Opposition Benches, instead of making television documentaries that nobody watches. The people of his constituency replaced him with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), which was an excellent decision, even though my hon. Friend is wrong on this particular issue. The people of that constituency had the power, and democracy worked.
The introduction of top-up Members of Parliament is a step in the wrong direction and, yet again, highlights the essential absurdity of the so-called compromise. Lord Jenkins has produced a system that is neither one thing nor the other. He calls it "unique" and says that it is the "best solution for Britain". However, the only reason why the report shoehorns an entirely arbitrary number of top-up Members of Parliament into the system is to give it a veneer of proportionality. Removing the top-up element leaves a system that is hardly proportional at all.
It is wrong that a major constitutional innovation, containing all the inherent weaknesses that I have described, has been proposed, purely to graft a proportional element on to an otherwise modest set of reforms. It is not the best solution for Britain. It is a report which, to coin a phrase used by the noble Lord Jenkins, plays the fuddled fiddle in the muddled middle. I, for one, would have great difficulty giving it my support.
9.22 pm
Mr. James Plaskitt: In a sense, those who speak in this debate should declare an interest: we are all the product of the current system, so we all have an interest in it. However, it is not our system, it is not our democracy and, as some speakers have said, they are not actually our constituencies. We need to raise our sights above self-interest and party interest, which is something about which we have heard a great deal in the debate. We have to look critically and objectively at the system that sent us here and we need to test the reform proposal, not against our interests, nor those of our party, but against the public interest. That is where we find the current system wanting and why we should reform it.
Three groups of arguments against reform have been used and I might have time to look at each of those. The first argument—that the proposed system is too complex—is the one that I find the least reputable of all the arguments ranged against reform. Voters are asked to complete two ballot papers—well, they often have to do that already. In addition, they are asked to rank candidates in order of preference—it really is as easy as one, two, three. The hon. Members who have argued that the system is too complex are insulting the electorate's intelligence.
The counting may be complex, but voters will not be asked to do that. The transition may create upheaval, but, again, voters will not be involved in that. Different electoral systems exist throughout Europe and all have higher turnouts, but in none do the voters complain that they are too complex. I do not understand why that argument is being wheeled out.
The second argument is that reform leads to coalition politics. The Jenkins report aptly reminds us that, for 43 of the past 150 years, first past the post has delivered us coalition government, and for a further 34 of those years, Governments were propped up by minority parties.
1104
If the past four elections were rerun on the Jenkins system, three would have had clear winners and only the 1992 election would have had an indeterminate outcome.
Another point to consider is that voters might want cross-party co-operation. Why should they not? That is a perfectly legitimate choice. Who are we to deny them that choice if that is what, in certain elections, they want?
Related to that is the argument that a reformed system would offer too much power to minorities. In many senses, so does first past the post, especially if the minority is geographically concentrated. At the 1974 election, the Scottish National party, with about 1 per cent. of the national vote, had almost as many seats as the Liberal Democrats with 19 per cent. of the national vote. Therefore, small parties can hold the balance of power under the first-past-the-post system.
The criticism of reform is that it would give too much power to minorities. That charge could be brought against the first-past-the-post system. It delivers outright wins and total power to parties which have secured less than 40 per cent. of the vote at a general election. That is what I call giving too much power to minorities.
The third argument is that electoral reform is irrelevant and that there are more important things to do. I would argue that electoral reform is important. It is about a greater maturity in, and greater credibility for, our democratic process. It is not acceptable to cling to a system that is unfair and that distorts people's choice.
We did not hear much about electoral reform between 1945 and 1970 when two political parties garnered between them about 95 per cent. of the vote, but that was an unusual period in British politics. For most of the 19th century, for the first half of this century and for the past 30 years, British politics has been a multi-party system, which first past the post does not fit in with and which leads to distortions.
We should have a system that aspires to be democratic, to make votes count and to make them count equally. I commend the Jenkins report. Some proportional representation systems are terrible. They create instability, fracture the political process and foster extremism. I welcome the Jenkins report because it steers us away from those failed proportional representation systems and offers instead a system that builds on what is best in British electoral tradition—constituency links, local identity and ease of use.
9.27 pm
Mr. Gordon Prentice: I shall be brief because many of my colleagues want to speak.
We hear much about the third way. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister tells us that the third way is work in progress. Nothing could illustrate that more than what is happening in the sphere of constitutional change.
Proposals for a reformed other place should link in with proposals to change the electoral system. We now have a multiplicity of voting systems in the United Kingdom. We have the supplementary vote for the London mayor and other city mayors and the closed proportional list system for the European Parliament, and we still have first past the post for local government. So it goes on. We have the single transferable vote in Northern Ireland and the first-past-the-post additional-member system for the new Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. There is no coherence there.

1105
Commentators rightly say that we do not have the faintest idea of where the dismantling of the British state is taking us. The Prime Minister has an obligation to start painting the big constitutional picture. I have no idea yet what that big constitutional picture is. I want to know whether changing the voting system is part of the project, because I do not yet have a clear idea what the project is. If we are turning completely on its head the way in which this country is governed, Members of Parliament, members of the Labour party and people in the community must have a vision of where those changes are taking us.
I wish to raise a point that has not been made in the debate so far. I refer hon. Members to the Plant report, which was published in 1991. In that report, Lord Raymond Plant says that there is
"no ideal electoral system and each one has its defects and its drawbacks."
That is a statement of the obvious, but he continues:
"but it has to be understandable. We believe it is important for citizens to be able to understand the electoral system in which their democratic rights are exercised."
I have read the Jenkins report several times, and I do not think that most people will understand it. In an article in The Daily Telegraph on 30 October, Lord Alexander, a member of the Jenkins commission, wrote that the alternative vote is no alternative. However, he was describing the supplementary vote. So a member of the Jenkins commission, writing in The Daily Telegraph, has completely misunderstood what the Jenkins report says. If a member of the commission can get it wrong, I am sure that the rest of us can do the same.
9.30 pm
Mr. Oliver Letwin: If I had realised what a memorably splendid speech the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) would make, I would have requested that he be given more time in which to do so.
In 1917—which, I admit, is a long time ago—the subject of proportional representation was debated in the House. A splendid figure named Colonel Sanders told the House that "extraordinary people" are returned to the House of Commons. The Home Secretary is indeed an extraordinary person. His brilliant stratagem of ministerial charm—I do not know why more of his ministerial colleagues do not follow suit, but I hope that they will not—was exercised tonight highly destructively and to great purpose.
The Home Secretary told us at the beginning of the debate something of which the whole House needed to— and, on the whole, did—take account. He said that we ought not cynically to decry the motives of people on either side of the debate. During the progress of the debate, we were given ample reason to follow that advice. Tonight, a combination of Conservatives, who lost abundantly the last election, sided with Labour Members, who won abundantly the last election. It is difficult to construct a single interest that joins those two groups who take a common view. We opposed Labour Members, who won the last election, joined with Liberals who have never won any election.
Mr. Straw: Early in the century.
Mr. Letwin: I apologise. I mean that they have never won anything as the Liberal Democrat party. The real
1106
Liberal party opposes the whole scheme in any event. I admit that the Liberal Democrats have a self-interested reason for proposing the scheme. However, Liberal Democrat Members offered some real arguments in favour of the scheme, and I do not think that we should decry their motives either.
There are principles at stake, and the debate revealed two clear principles: one positive and the other negative. The positive principle is that the current British system— the simple majority system—has inestimable advantages. As we were reminded frequently during the debate, the system is used in half the world. Why? It is used in half the world because the system affords clear government and clear and robust debate—which is a central part of the political and judicial culture of this country. We believe in debate in the law courts and in Parliament and also in clarity, and our system delivers those things. The hon. Members for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), and for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) made that point most clearly this evening.
Secondly, our British system ensures that all Members of Parliament represent all their constituents. That point was emphasised over and over this evening. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—in what was a splendid performance, even by his standards—told the House what that meant to someone who has been here for a very long time. My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who made a characteristically robust speech, emphasised the same point, as did the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), from whom we might have heard more with great pleasure.
There is a third inestimable advantage attached to our British system. Again and again this evening the point was made: our system delivers coalitions, but it delivers them before elections. It forces politicians in the great parties to join together and argue the toss, and then to put to the electorate a single platform and programme, which the electors can accept or reject. That is known as voter choice.
The point was made repeatedly and forcefully by my hon. Friends the Members for Poole (Mr. Syms) and for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), and by the hon. Members for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and for Watford (Ms Ward). I hope that I have not forgotten any other hon. Members.
Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman says that parties are elected on manifestos and are expected to carry out their manifestos. Is it not interesting that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) asked us to hold to our manifesto by having a referendum before the next general election, whereas when the Liberals had power during the Lib-Lab pact in the 1970s, they prevented us from carrying out our manifesto?
Mr. Letwin: Indeed. With his customary acuity, the right hon. Gentleman makes a point that is deep, as well as amusing. It is a function of post-electoral coalitions to muddy the waters. As many hon. Members pointed out, they create manifestos for which no one has voted, and they end up by preventing either of the parties in the coalition from fulfilling its manifesto. We should add that the Liberals during that period also did not fulfil their manifesto. That is par for the course.

1107
There is a fourth feature and a further inestimable advantage of our simple British system. It delivers what has been christened "removal van democracy." We know that—we were in the removal van last time, hundreds and hundreds of us.
Mr. Graham Allen (Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household): Not enough.
Mr. Letwin: Even the hon. Gentleman ought to have been satisfied by the scale of that removal.
Our system allows the British people to make a choice to get rid of their Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) made the point strongly, but before the debate began, someone else made it to me even more poignantly. That person will be recognised by Labour Members, some of whom worked with him.
I spent a little time this afternoon with the noble Lord Callaghan. He told me what he thought about the elections going back a long time—longer than I had imagined anyone could—since 1935. He pointed out the striking feature that even in the cases where there was an apparent disproportion between votes cast and seats won, if one asks the historical rather than the statistical question, "Did the product roughly correspond to what the people of this country wanted to bring about?", broadly it did. That was a grand old Labour politician speaking, who has won and who has lost.
Mr. Allen: He was pulling the hon. Gentleman's leg.
Mr. Letwin: Contrary to the hon. Gentleman's statement, I do not believe that Lord Callaghan was pulling anybody's leg. He spoke with passion and from conviction.
The argument is not based solely on the inestimable advantages of our system. If it were, we would be on weak ground. Although I have described the great advantages, there are of course arguments against our present British system which, like any system, has its defects. The strength of the argument relies on the fact that allied to the real advantages of our present system, the system proposed by Lord Jenkins has grotesque disadvantages.
First, as one of the members of the Jenkins commission pointed out, its report is self-contradictory. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) made that clear. The report contains abundant contradictions, above all because it starts out by establishing one part of a system—AV—only to find that that contradicts the essence of what the commission is trying to achieve, and therefore has to add a contradictory system of top-up. That is an odd thing to do.
Secondly, critically and ironically, the proposed system is not a proportional system. It does not even claim to be a proportional system. It is what the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) described as a fancy franchise. The hon. Members for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Keen), for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) and others pointed out that the proportionality in the proposed system is strictly limited. AV-plus it may be; proportional representation it is not.
1108
It has another feature. I agree that it is not compelling by itself but surely it is one that is enough to make one have doubts. The proposed system has never been used anywhere else in the world. However, that is less remarkable than the fact that so far as our researchers have been able to unearth it has never even been proposed for discussion anywhere else in the world. People have been talking about proportional representation for more than 200 years. There are—I have so far been able to count only a portion of them—more than 120 books written in the English language on the subject yet no one has ever come up with the system that has been proposed. That must give one cause for thought.
Mr. Linton: Even though the proposed system is put forward as a unique British system to suit British conditions and therefore does not purport to be like some other system, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are 27 countries that have mixed proportional and majoritarian systems, that seven of them are additional Member systems, including Germany and Italy, and that one of them uses a preferential system combined with a majoritarian system? To say that the proposed system is unique is not quite true.
Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman, alas, neglects the fact that one half of the proposed system has never been combined with other half in any other place; nor has it ever been proposed that it should be so combined. Most of the problems with the system arise from that very combination.
Thirdly, like every other proportional representation system known to man, to the extent that it is proportional it has another tendency. That is inevitable. It is the logic of the thing. It tends to produce weaker coalition Governments. It has been said that the present British system can also produce coalitions. That is true but a proportional representation system is likely to produce them more of the time.
It has been said that in three of the past four elections the proposed system might not have produced a coalition. That is slightly untrue because it probably would have in two. Even if three of four were true, that hardly makes the point. Of the past 15 elections, seven at the very minimum, eight probably and possibly nine would have produced coalition Governments under the proposed system. It has a greater tendency to coalition and hence to weakness than our current system.
Next, and most importantly—indeed, to my mind conclusively—the proposed system would create coalitions in the opposite way to that under which our present circumstances direct us. It would create coalitions after elections. The politicians would create the coalitions and not the voters. The proposed system denies voters choice.
I regret to say that that does not worry Lord Williams of Mostyn, Minister of State, Home Office, who in the other place was defending the Home Secretary's splendid proposals for a closed list, when he said that the open list would give voters too much choice. That is one of the most remarkable statements ever made in any parliament. It was something that worried the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) and it also worried

1109
Ramsay MacDonald. All those years ago Ramsay MacDonald, well known to some Labour Members, of course, said:
"The present method, at any rate, compels candidates, whilst they are still candidates, to declare where their cohesion is, who their colleagues are, and what party they have got to work with, so that, on the whole, the majority in this House is a representative majority and not a scratch majority."—[Official Report, 22 May 1917; Vol. XCIII, c. 2232.]
I could not have put it better myself.
Mr. Beith: I do not remember that at the start of the Government led by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) he announced to the world that to get the Maastricht treaty through he would have to seek the support of another party—the Liberal Democrats—in order to do so, but that is what happened.
Mr. Letwin rose—
Mr. Bermingham: The right hon. Gentleman paid the price.
Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman says exactly what I was about to say and very well. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) paid the price.
Irony of ironies, and finally, the proposed system of Lord Jenkins of AV-plus produces a disproportion of power. It may produce proportionality to some slight degree in seats and votes but far more powerfully it creates a disproportion, I think uniquely among all the systems of proportional representation proposed anywhere. It excludes all the tiny minorities and gives permanent or near-permanent position of power to one party, a party which by pure coincidence is the party of the chairman of the commission.
I have only a minute or two left so I shall bring my remarks to an end. This has been a good debate and, I think, a fair one. I think that it has been one in which the arguments have been put well. On the whole, as a matter of fact, the right side has won, but that is not my point. It has been a fair debate because it has been conducted by the rules and because the House has rules that we all observe and respect.
My final plea is directly to the Home Secretary. I am sure that he is a decent man. He has a reputation for integrity. His position on this matter is well known, though it is not entirely shared by the whole Cabinet. Let us have, in this and all cases, a fair referendum, which is also conducted by the rules. Those rules should be settled by a genuinely independent commission, appointed by the Speaker or some other utterly independent person. They should govern access to the media, and funding so that we do not have a one-sided campaign. They should ensure that the people of this country genuinely decide, on the basis of real understanding, with the arguments made fairly on both sides. If the arguments that I have put forward do not win the day, as democrats we shall accept that. I expect that, on the contrary, we shall overwhelmingly win such a referendum.
9.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): It is traditional to say so, but this has been an interesting and
1110
wide-ranging debate. As the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) said, we see the House at its best when we debate a subject which, for once, we all understand. The prospect of any change to the way in which we are elected to this House is of fundamental importance to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. If my mathematics is right, 38 hon. Members have spoken in the debate. There are few debates in which so many hon. Members have has the opportunity to speak.
In opening the debate, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary typically kept us guessing throughout his speech about his point of view on this subject. He made a plea for as wide a discussion as possible to take place, not just in the House but throughout the country. Today's debate has been an excellent starting point.
Before dealing with some of the points that have been raised, I should like to say a word about the report, its purpose and the process that it has triggered. Like others, I pay tribute to the commission and its chairman, the noble Lord Jenkins, for the manner in which they have conducted their inquiry and the result, which, as many hon. Members have said, is both readable and faithful to the terms of reference that were given. Some might disagree that the report is readable, but I shall return to that in a moment.
During the debate, and in comments in the media, for example, much has been made of the role and motivation of the noble Lord Jenkins. Those who made such comments include the hon. Members for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) and for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin).
It is both unfair and short-sighted to malign the character or motivation of Lord Jenkins. It is certainly unfair to those who sat on the commission with him, as it implies that they played only a passive role. From what I know of those concerned, it is unlikely that they would behave in that manner. Baroness Gould is the commission member I know best. I have known her for many years, and on several occasions have really feared her—she was formerly general secretary and a senior official in my party. Anybody who knows her will agree that she is the last person to be used in such a way.
The prose style of the report bears all the hallmarks of Lord Jenkins. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), who had to leave early, mentioned some of the words used in the report. I looked up one in the Oxford dictionary, but could not find a definition. Nevertheless, the report was extremely readable. The analysis and thinking in the report, with the possible exception of the note of reservation from Lord Alexander, was the product of a consensus between the members of the commission as to how the terms of reference could best be met.
Leaving aside my views, my reading of the report suggests—several hon. Members have taken issue with this—that the members of the commission have arrived at a recommendation which comes as near as possible to meeting the terms of reference that they were given to work with. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) made that point, as, implicitly, did my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst).
If we are to have change—and ultimately that will be, quite properly, a decision for the voters—we now have an alternative, whether we like it or not, alongside which the

1111
status quo of the first-past-the-post system can be judged and debated. In that important sense, the commission members have done us a service.
The report gives us an excellent starting point for a debate which can take place, hopefully—as, for the most part, it has done this afternoon and this evening—in a considered manner as part of the process leading up to the referendum. Surely—as has been pointed out—this is a grown-up way of doing things, and I hope that we can continue in that way.
Some aspects of the report will excite those of us who stand for election. There is no question about that. These are important issues, and strong views are held on all sides. However, that is no reason to stop us having a proper and informed debate on the subject. In order to have that debate, it is necessary to have a considered alternative to the status quo. Otherwise, we will end up debating the first-past-the-post system against all other systems. Frankly, that will take us nowhere.
Mr. Bermingham: Let me ask my hon. Friend a simple question. When the referendum comes, will it be a question of Jenkins or the status quo? Could it be that a new way will emerge?
Mr. Howarth: Certainly the referendum question will be drawn from Jenkins, but it would not be sensible to say at this point quite how it will be framed. The hon. Member for West Dorset referred to the issue, and Neill had something to say about it. We will debate that on Monday. For the moment, it is best to leave the question in that setting. It is not that I do not wish to engage in debate, but it would not be right to hurry into such a dialogue.
Perhaps I could briefly cover some of the points raised in the debate. I wish to refer in particular to the speeches by my right hon. Friends the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). Both have wide experience of this House and of the process of government, which gives added weight to their arguments. It has often been said in the debate that not all Members of this House are equal. In an important sense, the kind of experience that both my right hon. Friends have had makes them slightly more equal than others.
Knowing the strong views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield on many subjects—particularly constitutional issues—I wonder if it gave him pause for thought to find so many right hon. and hon. Members from the Conservative party agreeing with every word he said. That phenomenon has not always been familiar to him.
Mr. Benn: It's the third way.
Mr. Howarth: My right hon. Friend calls it "the third way". My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton has, on many occasions, expressed his displeasure in a very elegant way—a way that I have often admired. He did not let us down on that score today, and he has wide experience that he brings to play.
I wish to single out two speeches by Opposition Members—the hon. Members for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) and for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis).
1112
The hon. Member for New Forest, West made a speech—I say this in a true spirit of friendliness—which was one of the most surreal I have ever experienced in this House. In an eight-minute speech, he had to concede that almost every one of the points that he made was wrong. Indeed, he conceded that on more than one occasion. I suspect that, if the hon. Gentleman is completely honest—which I know him to be—he will have to agree that he has not read the report as thoroughly as he might have. The hon. Member for New Forest, East, however, has at least read some parts of the report. We know that for certain, because he read them out to us.
I am worried about one aspect of the report. Paragraphs 114 to 116 discuss, in terms, the concern that the proposed system would create two classes of Members. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) mentioned that when he opened the debate for the Opposition, and it was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and others. Having been a Member of Parliament for some 12 years, I—like many other hon. Members—would take some convincing that a system involving constituency Members and top-up Members representing larger sub-regional areas would not turn out to be a recipe for local instability. It might well produce greater national stability, but at local level it could create problems.
Let me put it bluntly. The proposals contain the seeds of a system that could lead to permanent electioneering at local level, not only between political parties—which, of course, is very healthy—but between elected representatives within parties. That is a real fear, which must be dealt with in the debate that we will have in the future.
A further issue that arises from the proposed new role for top-up Members of Parliament is accountability. Several speakers have raised that issue. The report itself makes it clear that all Members of Parliament take pride in, and bear in mind, the fact that, once elected, we represent all our constituents, irrespective of whether they voted for us. My hon. Friends the Members for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) made that point very effectively, in their own way.
Between elections, however, we are held to account in various ways. There is the pressure of local opinion; there are our surgeries; the way in which we perceive policies may affect our constituents. There is also the oft-quoted postbag. Several of my colleagues have developed novel ways of being held to account, such as forums and question times. Tomorrow night we are holding a Member of Parliament's question time in my constituency, in Knowsley village, for the first time. I am interested to see how that will work, and I consider such experiments to be useful.
However, one of the main ways by which we are held to account is through our constituency parties or associations. In some important respects, between elections, local party members and organisations stand proxy for the wider electorate. They hold us to account. In my experience, that is not a means by which the party machine subverts us in smoke-filled rooms; it is a more subtle, but nevertheless important, process. Inevitably, top-up Members would not readily have such means available to them. I fear that, in trying to establish themselves, they would step on the toes—or even, dare I

1113
say, more sensitive parts of the anatomy—of those representing constituencies. That brings us back to the problem that I mentioned earlier.
We are all aware that the Government are embarked on a process of enacting major constitutional reforms, and it is important for us to see that as part of a bigger picture. The real issue, however—as many hon. Members have said—is that the final decision should not be made by politicians, or even by the House of Commons. Whatever prejudice, or whatever objective view, some of us may or may not hold, the people should make that decision. It is appropriate that there should be a referendum at the right time. It will be a big decision, with far-reaching consequences.
I believe that this has been a useful debate. The House has started a process. All the arguments have been rehearsed and, in a real sense, the House has performed a useful function. As many hon. Members have made clear during the debate, in due course it will be for the electorate to decide, and rightly so.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With the leave of the House, I will put together motions 2, 3 and 4.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Monday 9th November, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Message from the Lords relating to the Scotland Bill shall have been received.
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Tuesday 10th November, paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) shall apply to proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. William Hague as if this day were a half-day Opposition Day allotted under paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business) and the questions on that Motion shall be put at Seven o'clock.
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Tuesday 10th November, notwithstanding paragraph 1 of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community Documents), the Speaker shall put the questions on the Motions in the name of Mr. William Hague relating to the Personal Equity Plan (Amendment) Regulations 1998, the Individual Savings Account Regulations 1998 and the Individual Savings Account (Insurance Companies) Regulations 1998 not later than one and a half hours after the start of proceedings on the first such Motion.—[Mr. Allen.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together motions 5, 6 and 7.

COMMITTEE ON MODERNISATION OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
Ordered,
That Mr. Mike Hall be discharged from the Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and Mr. Ivor Caplin be added to the Committee.

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Ordered,
That Mr. Christopher Leslie and Mr. Phil Hope be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. Gerry Steinberg and Mr. Stephen Twigg be added to the Committee.

PROCEDURE COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That Mr. Damian Green be discharged from the Procedure Committee and Mr. Robert Syms be added to the Committee.— [Mr Allen.]

Theatres and Opera Houses
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Allen.]
10 pm
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: This is a tale of two cities. One is inhabited by white, middle-class, elderly citizens, outwardly genteel and soft spoken, but inwardly grasping and greedy with a belief in their divine right to use and, if necessary, empty the public purse for their own purposes. When they visit the Royal Opera house, they shuffle uneasily in the presence of unwelcome strangers wearing smelly trainers. When they leave, they step gingerly over beggars wondering what the world is coming to, blissfully unaware that all the brilliant entrepreneurial strategies for pulling this chaotic, shambolic and dysfunctional organisation from the brink of financial ruin consist of little more than begging for increased public subsidy to be paid by those who are considerably less well off than themselves. Were it not for the fact that I am an opera lover, I might be tempted to comment critically on that absurd situation.
A couple of miles away in the other city, a younger, more eclectic audience, streetwise and sharply dressed, many of them black, some of them Turks, a few of them Vietnamese and none of them rich, makes its way to the Hackney Empire. It is easily the largest and certainly the finest theatre in east and north London, with its wonderful proscenium arch and Frank Matcham's inspiring and dazzling interior.
It is not that those theatre-goers envy the patrons of the Royal Opera house—I dare say more of them might get into opera if the house dropped its sneering policy of paying only lip service to education—it is simply that those who live in the east end are a world apart from the AB social classes of the ROH. Profligacy and conspicuous consumption are not part of the east end lexicon. The Hackney empire audience is puzzled as to the whys and wherefores of how the British arts establishment works.
Those in the Hackney empire audience see that the toffs at the Royal Opera house have no difficulty in getting funding for their building. They sense that it has something to do with establishment cronies in the opera world moving through revolving doors. They worry that their Government may be giving middle England and metropolitan London a higher priority than disadvantaged London. They get angry when they witness the shenanigans and financial improprieties of the Royal Opera company. The minds of the Hackney empire audience can only boggle when they witness the ROH receiving a lottery grant of £68 million for a new building, followed by the promise of increased public subsidy, at a time when there is anarchy at the house and the company is building up a £20 million plus deficit to take with it into the new millennium.
Let us not beat about the bush. If the Royal Opera company was treated as it should be, like a private trading company, the members of the board and management of that bankrupt company would be up on charges of fraudulent trading. Millionairess Mrs. Vivien Duffield, the deputy chairman, would be carted off to Holloway prison. Sir Colin Southgate, the chairman and Lord Eatwell, two new Labour stalwarts, would find themselves being treated by Her Majesty, not at Buckingham palace but at Wormwood Scrubs.
1116
When the Royal Opera company offers Sadler's Wells £1 million in compensation for breach of contract, it is offering the ballet company a bouncing cheque, as it has no money in the bank, only a mammoth pile of mounting debts—the Royal Opera is insolvent. That is a financial scam, based on the creditors' assumption that the Government will, in the end, always bail out the Royal Opera.
Even more bizarrely, as the Chancellor tells every firm in Britain to increase productivity or we die, the Minister for the Arts tells the Royal Opera company that, if it closes down its operation and reduces productivity to zero, a lot more subsidy will be on the way. That is obscene—a damnable disgrace.
It is no wonder that audiences at the Hackney Empire felt so cheated when the lottery application to preserve the theatre's stunning building and to provide modern facilities was turned down after the Arts Council's peremptory deliberations when, as a result of a change in policy, the new apparatchiks took over. It is no wonder that the "Save London's Theatres" campaign is up in arms and has told the Secretary of State and Gerry Robinson, the chairman of the Arts Council, so in no uncertain terms. It is no wonder that those who believe in fairness feel sickened at the way in which the Arts Council of England and the London Arts Board have told the Hackney Empire to get stuffed.
The Arts Council made its decision on the basis of a new policy to cut the size of bids. That policy was not approved until the Hackney Empire had spent £1.5 million on feasibility and development work with money provided by the lottery. What a wanton waste.
The Hackney Empire also seems to have run into the anti-London bias that has been developing at the Arts Council, a bias that the London Arts Board has, to its shame, done little to stop. There is also an element of snobbery and elitism that frowns on popular culture, although I do not want the House to be misled on that point. The Hackney Empire puts on first-class opera and has produced some of the best Shakespeare that I have seen, in addition to dance, music hall entertainment, comedy and alternative comedy. In October, we had a fortnight of "As You Like It" and "Antony and Cleopatra" directed by Michael Bogdanov and performed by the English Shakespeare Company. This week, we have the Carol Straker Dance Foundation and, next week, the Venice baroque orchestra Accademia Di San Rocco. This is state-of-the-art culture.
I am both saddened and pleased to be able to report that an insider at the Arts Council has confirmed my understanding that the council concocted the reasons it gave for rejecting the Hackney Empire bid. The true sequence of events—in so far as the Minister's brief from the Arts Council differs, it falsifies the record—is as follows.
A £1.5 million award was made by the Arts Council national lottery panel in October 1996. The purpose of the award was to contribute to the costs of feasibility and design studies to restore and upgrade the Hackney Empire, and to rebuild and add essential facilities. Part of the award was for the purchase of the Samuel Pepys public house. The size of the bid—£28 million—was determined partly by the need to integrate physically three sites and to dig out the basement, and also by the request for first-class architecture from all concerned.

1117
Following European Union procurement procedures, a full design team, headed by a small group of architects, was appointed during July and August 1997 after an exhaustive series of interviews. Hackney Empire management and the design team developed the design brief and began the design process in August 1997, with an agreed deadline for completion to design stage—ready for a planning application—by the end of February 1998, and an agreement to submit an application for full lottery funding by the end of April 1998. Regular contact was maintained with the Arts Council, through written reports, the Arts Council's appointed project monitoring team and face-to-face meetings at the Arts Council offices.
On 17 November 1997, the Arts Council made the strange announcement that capital lottery awards were generally to be limited to £15 million. However, a statement was also made that an additional £200 million was available for
"large scale projects of national or international significance",
with a clear inference that the Empire was eligible.
On 21 November 1997, in anticipation of a meeting arranged for the beginning of December, Hackney Empire's chairman wrote to the national lottery director at the Arts Council of England's lottery unit, saying that he was assuming that the Empire would come under the national significance classification and stating that it was essential that the Arts Council's position be made clear at the December meeting.
At no time did officers from the Arts Council state that Hackney Empire could not be considered in the national significance classification. In a meeting at the Arts Council on 11 March 1998, the progress of the project was discussed. Once again, outline costs were given and nobody said that the Empire's bid was too high. The bid was supported by English Heritage, which liked the mix of modern and traditional architecture; the Royal Fine Arts Commission; the Theatres Trust; Sir Ian McKellen; Julie Christie; Griff Rhys Jones, the fundraiser, who had an enormous £7 million in place; Sir Norman Foster; and Sir Jacob Zunz, the engineer for the Sydney opera house, who was so excited by the scheme that he joined the Hackney Empire board. It seems that all those people knew nothing about theatres but that the Arts Council, with its new policy, suddenly did.
The lottery application was submitted to the Arts Council of England on 30 April 1998 and finally discussed by the council on 29 July 1998, in what was reported to be a two-hour meeting that considered more than 130 applications. The bid was rejected. Hackney Empire believed that it was part of a process, starting in October 1996. The approximate project costs were known at an early stage and were reported back to Arts Council officials. The expectation was that the bid would go through if the Empire kept in contact with the officials. Enormous pains were taken to follow the procedures outlined by the Arts Council.
For many reasons—not least its unique audience and its widely acknowledged architectural importance—Hackney Empire continues to believe, as I do, that it is of national significance. If the Empire had made a decision to redraw the scheme to fit into the sudden, arbitrary £15 million limit, it would have been unable to fund the scrapping of the original scheme and the complete rethink that would have been required. In that event, it would undoubtedly have missed the agreed deadline for submission.
1118
Despite all that, the Hackney Empire continues to present approximately 240 events a year in the main theatre, and 380 on the Samuel Pepys site, which currently houses a studio theatre and a small cabaret stage. About 150,000 people use the Empire each year. With the lottery grant, the number of events would rise by between 10 and 15 per cent., with a corresponding increase in audience size.
If the Minister is tempted to plead that he cannot intervene because of the arm's length principle, I remind him that the Secretary of State's finger, thumb, palm and foot prints are to be found all over the ROH fiasco. The arm's length principle is a myth and has been so for more than a decade. I gave a lecture at City university a few weeks ago devoted entirely to that subject.
I beg the Minister to instruct the Arts Council to get together with the Hackney Empire board to discuss a renewed lottery application, and to ensure that the council does not foul up a second time.
I end unashamedly on a personal note. A few weeks ago, Audrey Sedgemore, my ex-wife, almost died at the Hackney Empire. It was a Sunday—an open day—and, with other volunteers, she was showing people around. Suddenly, she fell and fractured her skull, ending up in the intensive therapy unit of the Royal London hospital, helplessly wired up to any number of machines. I am not asking the Secretary of State or the chairman of the Arts Council to die for the Hackney Empire, but I am asking them to produce a rescue plan, for the sake of Audrey Sedgemore and all who love the Empire and for theatre, art and culture in our capital city.
10.14 pm
The Minister for Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) on securing tonight's Adjournment debate. He has expressed his views with characteristic trenchancy and, as he put it, unashamedly. I wish to address some of the particular issues he raises, but also to look beyond to the wider arts policy scene, which is one of great change and much promise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch has understandably raised issues on funding for theatres and made a comparison with funding for opera. There has, of course, been much coverage of the latter in recent months. There is much public interest and concern about both theatre and opera, which is as it should be. The Hackney Empire and the Royal Opera house are very different. I do not believe that one either does or should prosper at the expense of the other. The policy of this Government is access to excellence for all: culture as a shared experience, not a divisive one. I would remind my hon. Friend that, although £78 million of lottery money funds have been spent on opera and ballet, £145 million have gone to theatre.
I will speak only briefly about the Royal Opera house. It is essential to find a long-term solution to the problems of the Royal Opera house. The artistic merits of the Royal Opera and Royal Ballet are not in doubt: both are world-class companies. I would add that the Royal Opera house has a highly developed educational programme. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have made it clear that we are wholly committed to securing a proper long-term future for opera and ballet of the highest quality

1119
in the redeveloped Royal Opera house. Covent Garden, after its reopening, will be one of the most advanced and exciting venues for lyric theatre anywhere, and will provide the stage for world-class opera and ballet. The redevelopment represents a significant investment from both the public and private purses, and we are committed to securing the future of the ROH.
Unfortunately, standards of financial planning and management at the Royal Opera house have not always in the past matched the high standards of the companies. The financial situation had deteriorated to such an extent that the ROH was on the verge of insolvency this year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State approved the appointment of Sir Colin Southgate as chairman of the ROH board with a clear mandate to remedy the financial situation, complete the redevelopment, and ensure the long-term artistic and financial success of the ROH. It was clear at that stage that to maintain the status quo was not an option. In September, Sir Colin announced a radical strategy to put the ROH's affairs on a proper footing. My right hon. Friend and I support this strategy.
I deplore, in the strongest possible terms, the aspersions cast by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, taking advantage of parliamentary privilege, on Sir Colin, Lord Eatwell, and Mrs. Vivian Duffield, whose generosity to the Royal Opera house and museums and the arts throughout the country deserve admiration and gratitude. The new board and generous donors deserve our appreciation, not abuse.
Of course I understand the disappointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch about the decision by the Arts Council not to fund the proposed redevelopment of the grade 2* Hackney Empire in his constituency. He has rightly praised the theatre for the important role it plays not just in the local community but as a magnet to audiences from outside the borough. Although primarily a receiving house, providing a venue for touring productions, it has, as my hon. Friend noted, been reclaiming a reputation as an important theatre able to combine popular culture with Shakespeare and opera. I admire and welcome the contribution of the Hackney Empire in developing audiences of people for whom the theatre may not have formed part of normal cultural experience and for whom it has been difficult to find such an opportunity. To experience performances at the Empire has, I am sure, been a revelation and a delight for them.
It is not for me to go into details of the application itself. However, I know that the Arts Council took the decision to reject the application with reluctance. Mr. Hewitt has told my hon. Friend that the decision to reject the application was taken on a proper assessment against the published criteria. It should at least be noted that although the Hackney Empire bid failed, Hackney has benefited from lottery funds of £11 million since the lottery began.
The lottery, as the House will acknowledge, has done much to improve Britain's arts infrastructure. We have recognised, however, that it was not sensible to restrict the use of lottery funds to capital projects and to spend money on buildings while the artists that we want to perform in them lack funds. The new National Lottery Act 1998 will change that so that lottery distributors, including the Arts Council, will be able to use lottery funds more strategically. They will be able to fund people
1120
as well as buildings, and if particular parts of the country or sectors of the arts world seem not to be sharing in the lottery as much as we would expect, the distributors will be able to solicit applications so that lottery money can go where it is needed and where people up and down the country can benefit from the differences that it makes.
We are changing the lottery for the better. I am pleased to say that an extra £50 million will go to the arts over the next three years or so. That has become possible because the lottery is set to deliver higher levels of income than forecast, which is another testament to its success. We are changing the lottery for the better, and we are changing the relationship between Government and the arts. The new contract with the arts between Government and the bodies that receive public funding, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in the summer, re-states the arm's-length principle, but makes clear what we expect in return.
In July my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced spending plans for the next three years. I am delighted that my Department will receive an additional £290 million of which £124 million will go to the arts between 1999 and 2002. That is very good news after years of standstill funding. The arts, and our cultural life in general, have been a political afterthought for too long. The comprehensive spending review places them again at the heart of Government and reflects the central role that all my Department's sectors, including the arts, can play in delivering wider Government priorities. The arts are, of course, important in their own right, but they are also generators of employment and economic growth, a key educational resource and an important way of asserting and enhancing community identity. We want to create a healthy and stable arts sector and to make sure that the arts play their part in advancing our social and economic goals.
The additional funding announced will be linked clearly to outputs, so that the taxpayer can see what the funding is buying. It will allow progress on our principal objectives: the promotion of access for the many, not just the few; the pursuit of excellence and innovation; the nurturing of educational opportunity; and the fostering of the creative industries. Those are the Government's priorities, and the arts are well placed to help us deliver them.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has also announced proposals for revising the structure and mechanisms through which Government support will be channelled in future. The principle of arm's-length funding will remain and Ministers will, rightly I believe, not seek to intervene in individual funding decisions. Equally, it is right that my department should give a clear policy lead in the context of the overall strategy.
In January, Mr. Gerry Robinson was appointed Chairman of the Arts Council with a clear mandate to bring about changes. Mr. Robinson has recently announced his strategy to restructure and redefine the Council's future role, and the Secretary of State and I fully support him in that. I want to put on record my appreciation of the way in which Mr. Peter Hewitt, the chief executive of the Arts Council, has set about addressing the responsibilities entrusted to him.

1121
The Arts Council has already committed itself to delegation. The aim is to devolve as much as possible of what is currently dealt with by the Arts Council to the regional arts boards, including in particular grant-making and stewardship responsibility for regional clients. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch may welcome that development, which will enable the new national body to give a strategic lead across all its sectors and to set the framework within which regional bodies operate, taking into account their own local circumstances and priorities. This will of course mean in my hon. Friend's case that responsibility for the Hackney Empire will be devolved to the London Arts Board which already provides its grant-in-aid funding— currently £120,393.
1122
We will be taking steps with the Arts Council to assure ourselves that the regional arts boards have the necessary capacity and systems in place to take on the additional responsibilities required of them.
This is a time of great change in the arts and a time of great opportunities, too. I have been struck by the willingness of the arts community to embrace that change and its determination to make a success of it. The Government share that determination and, in setting out their new approach to the arts, have made clear their belief that the arts have a central role to play in improving the quality of our lives. We look forward to working with, and through, the arts to achieve that.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Ten o 'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Millennium Exhibition
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his latest estimate for the price of entry tickets to the Millennium Exhibition in Greenwich for(a) adults, (b) children, (c) families, (d) people with disabilities and (e) pensioners. [57211]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 29 October 1998]: The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) will announce the price range for tickets to the Millennium Experience at Greenwich in due course. The NMEC will ensure that prices are set at a level which will encourage as many people as possible from across the UK and abroad who wish to visit the Millennium Experience to do so. The prices will offer good value for money compared to other major attractions; whilst maximising income for the Company. There will be discounted rates for children, students, families, senior citizens and groups.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list(a) those companies, organisations and individuals which have so far committed sponsorship to the Millennium Exhibition at Greenwich, (b) the projects or zones to which their sponsorship is committed and (c) the amount of sponsorship still to be committed to each zone. [57213]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 29 October 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 27 October 1998, Official Report, columns 129–30.

  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will ensure that the Millennium Dome incorporates an area devoted to the contribution to philosophy and politics made by John Locke. [57768]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) aims to reflect the great wealth of British tradition which exists across many disciplines including philosophy and politics. However, it is not feasible for the contribution of every eminent individual in these fields to be reflected.

  Fairness at Work
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what studies he has carried out into the compliance cost to businesses of the proposals in the Fairness at Work White Paper. [54669]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The White Paper on Fairness at Work proposes a balanced framework of workable and practical measures with the objective of supporting a new culture of partnership at work which will contribute to national prosperity. A regulatory impact assessment, considering costs and benefits, will be published when legislation is brought before Parliament.
  624

  Planning Consents
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received concerning demands for payments by freeholders for retrospective consents relating to planning applications; what plans he has to investigate such cases; and if he will make a statement. [57942]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 4 November 1998]: None.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to ensure(a) the Working Time Directive is implemented in full by employers and (b) employees are informed about their entitlement under the Working Time Directive. [57719]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 4 November 1998]: The Regulations implementing the Working Time Directive provide a number of rights, some of which are enforced by the health and safety enforcing authorities (the Health and Safety Executive) and Local Authority Environmental Health Officers, who will investigate any alleged breach of the measures, and others will be enforced by workers bringing complaints to Employment Tribunals.

  The Department has run a public awareness campaign in the national press and made guidance material on the new legislation available through a number of public outlets (Libraries, Citizens Advice Bureaux etc).

  Medical Research Council
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce measures to require the Medical Research Council to allocate a proportion of its funds to projects specifically designed to improve women's health. [58115]

  Mr. Battle
  The MRC has a broad national remit which must cover all areas of research relating to human health. The Government's relationship with the MRC is governed by the Haldane Principle whereby the Council is responsible for determining research priorities.

  Research relevant specifically to women's health forms an important part of the MRC's portfolio, with around £47 million committed to research relevant to all areas of women's health, including reproductive health and other conditions such as breast cancer, ovarian cancer and osteoporosis.

  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will list the amount spent by the MRC on commissioning research on pregnancy-related issues in each of the last five years; [58165]

  (2) if he will list the projects funded by the Medical Research Council undertaking research on (a) pregnancy and (b) obstetrics for each of the last five years. [58116]

  Mr. Battle
  The MRC supports a significant portfolio of research into reproductive health, covering pregnancy and obstetrics, and also closely relevant areas such as infertility/fertilisation and conditions of the cervix. There are currently about 20 studies at the MRC's own research
  625
  establishments, principally the MRC Reproductive Biology Unit, and also the MRC Dunn Nutrition Unit (including the Dunn Nutrition Group in The Gambia), the MRC Human Biochemical Genetics Unit, the MRC Medical Sociology Unit, the MRC Laboratories in The Gambia and the MRC Molecular Haematology Unit. The MRC also supports some 50 studies through grants to universities, including 6 major Programmes and 9 clinical trials. The total value of this research (both establishments and grants) is estimated at £4.8 million in 1996–97 and £5.3 million in 1997–98.

  The above research excludes a further body of related work covering embryology and foetal development, for which the MRC currently supports 10 studies in its own establishments and 60 studies in universities.

  Details of current projects have been placed in the Library of the House. Information on previous projects is not available.

  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the criteria by which the Medical Research Council decides its priorities for funding projects. [58114]

  Mr. Battle
  All research proposals received by the MRC are evaluated using the same fundamental criteria:scientific quality of the proposals;
  significance and importance of the research topics;
  proposals' contribution to the published scientific strategy of the MRC and the Department of Health (and, where appropriate, that of other Government Departments such as DFID);
  value-for-money.

  The claims for resources of particular proposals in one field are assessed against those of proposals in others, on a competitive basis.

  Competitiveness
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to publish the White Paper on Competitiveness. [57067]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I intend to publish the White Paper on Competitiveness in December.

  Genetic Testing (Insurance)
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Government plan to publish their response to the Human Genetics Advisory Commission's report on the Implications of Genetic Testing for Insurance. [58945]

  Mr. Mandelson
  My noble Friend the Minister for Science today published, in conjunction with the Minister for Public Health, the Government's response to the HGAC report. In undertaking consideration of this issue, the Government have placed great importance on ensuring fairness of treatment for people seeking insurance cover. The response sets out a number of proposals which seek to build on the progress already made by the Association of British Insurers in developing industry-wide standards on underwriting and confidentiality. In line with the recommendations made in the HGAC report, the proposals include the establishment of an independent 626
  mechanism to evaluate the scientific and actuarial relevance of any genetic tests before they can be taken into account by insurers. Copies of the response have been placed in the Library.

  Chile
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact of his remarks concerning the arrest of Senator Pinochet on behalf of the Spanish legal authorities on trade between Chile and the United Kingdom. [56571]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 28 October 1998]: The United Kingdom has well established trade links with Chile and I expect those to continue. We are one of Chile's main export markets. Although there has been a modest downturn in bilateral trade during the year to August, Chile still enjoys a substantial balance of trade. UK companies remain amongst the biggest group of foreign investors in Chile.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those Ministers with whom he has discussed the arrest of Senator Pinochet and the dates on which the discussions took place. [57430]

  Mr. Mandelson
  It is the normal convention under this and previous Governments that discussions which take place between Ministers are not routinely disclosed. On this occasion, however, it has been made public that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear to the Cabinet on 22 October that there should be no discussion at Cabinet given that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary might in due course have to address the issue in a quasi-judicial role.

  Start-up Grants
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many companies have re-paid start-up grants in the last five years. [58118]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]: Fifteen.

  Siemens
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 22 October 1998,Official Report column 1174, when the payments of regional selective assistance were made to Siemens; and to what purposes the sums offered but not allocated were transferred. [58120]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]: Payments of RSA to Siemens were made in March 1996 and March 1998.

  The offer of grant to Siemens was reduced by £5 million in March 1998. This saving was returned to the central budget along with a number of other changes. A payment of £3 million, due in 1998/99, remains within the RSA budget at present. Final allocations for the Department's 1999/2000 budgets, when the final £4 million was due to be paid to the company, have not yet been made. This sum has not, therefore, been specifically allocated elsewhere.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Cricket
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the impact on cricket in Wales of the decision by the England and Wales Cricket Board to grant live television coverage rights to Channel 4. [56598]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 4 November 1998]: S4C has recently announced that it will transmit a substantial proportion of Channel 4's live Test match coverage of Wales, subject to other scheduling demands. Channel 4 has announced plans for substantial investment in the promotion and development of cricket over the next four years. Cricket in Wales will benefit from this additional funding and from the continued exposure of a good proportion of the sport's flagship events to wide television audiences.

  Creative Industries
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what quantitative assessment of the benefits which accrue from the investments in the development of the individual's imaginative and creative capacity the Government and Governmental agencies currently make. [57766]

  Janet Anderson
  The creativity and imagination of the British people are among our greatest strengths, shaping our culture and our position in the world. We will tomorrow be publishing an analysis of the economic benefits of our creative industries. These sectors, which we define as those which have their origin in the talent, skill and imagination of an individual and rely on the generation and exploitation of intellectual property for job and wealth creation, turn over nearly £60 billion a year and employ l½ million people. They also constitute the fastest growing section of the national economy, earning us £8 billion in exports.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list by name and stated political affiliation those persons appointed to non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department since 1 May 1997. [57306]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 29 October 1998]: My Department does not collect details on the political affiliation of those appointed to public bodies. However, information on political activity is collected and published at the time of appointment in line with guidance issued by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

  This information is noted in a table which has been placed in the Library and which includes all appointments which fall under my responsibility or where my role is to advise my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and, through him, Her Majesty the Queen.

PRIME MINISTER

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the nature of his discussions with President Menem of Argentina with particular reference to the latter's statement that negotiations over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands will start within three years. [58418]

  The Prime Minister
  I met President Menem on 29 October. We had an extensive discussion of various issues including bilateral relations, the global financial crisis, Mercosur and the future of Europe. I welcomed President Menem's public renunciation of the use of force against the Falklands, and raised our concerns over the proposed Argentine oil and fish legislation. President Menem reiterated Argentina's view on the Falklands. In turn I made it clear that the United Kingdom does not regard the sovereignty of the Falklands as negotiable. As we have repeatedly said, there will be no change in the status of the Islands unless that is the wish of the Islanders themselves.

DEFENCE

  Reigate TA Centre
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the likely receipts arising from the sale of the Reigate TA Centre. [57583]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  It is not our practice to make public information on the market value of individual TA Centres (under Section 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information) as it would prejudice my Department's position in any sales negotiation.

  Defence Diversification
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he proposes to publish a White Paper on Defence Diversification. [58476]

  Mr. George Robertson
  We have today published our White Paper "Defence Diversification: Getting the most out of defence technology", as Cm 4088. It describes how we intend to create a defence diversification agency, in fulfilment of our election manifesto. It follows the process of consultation set in motion earlier this year by our Green Paper, Cm 3861. We are most grateful to all those organisations and individuals who contributed to this process.

WALES

  Playgroups
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how he proposes further to assist pre-school playgroups; and if he will make a statement; [57440]

  (2) how many registered accredited playgroups there are by county; and if he will make a statement. [57441]
  629
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The number of registered playgroups in each local authority area in Wales as at 31 March 1998 was:

  Local authority area

  Number

  Blaenau Gwent

  14

  Bridgend

  53

  Caerphilly

  45

  Cardiff

  141

  Carmarthenshire

  80

  Ceredigion

  48

  Conwy

  58

  Denbighshire

  51

  Flintshire

  63

  Gwynedd

  62

  Isle of Anglesey

  57

  Merthyr Tydfil

  14

  Monmouthshire

  38

  Neath Port Talbot

  19

  Newport

  46

  Pembrokeshire

  58

  Powys

  87

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  73

  Swansea

  37

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  59

  Torfaen

  44

  Wrexham

  76

  Total

  1,223

  Voluntary playgroups do very valuable work with young children in the years leading up to compulsory school age. Our aim is that the playgroup movement should continue to play a key role in the education and care of this age group. We have made £50,000 available this year in Wales through the Wales Pre-school Playgroups Association and Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin to help ensure the survival of good playgroups under threat of closure. Funding is also available to the new partnerships planning early years education and childcare to develop childcare to complement early years education provision. We hope playgroups will take a full part in these new developments.

  Funding decisions for next year are dependent on the outcome of the consultation on the Comprehensive Spending Review. Those decisions will be announced in due course.

  Floods
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will establish an independent inquiry into the South Wales floods between 21 and 28 October. [57904]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The Environment Agency has kept me and my right hon. Friend informed of the effects of the very heavy rainfall on flooding in Wales. I have great sympathy for those who have been adversely affected by the flooding, but I am not aware of circumstances that would warrant an independent inquiry.

  Hill Farmers
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the income for hill farmers in Wales as(a) a total and (b) an average per farmer in 1997–98; and what are the predictions for income in the current financial year. [58014]
  630
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Estimates of hill farm incomes will be pubished by the department on November 30, with accompanying statistical tables placed in the library of the House.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Sudan
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what initiatives she is assessing to aid relief efforts in Southern Sudan. [57795]

  Clare Short
  Since the current crisis in Southern Sudan began last February we have committed over £28 million bilaterally to provide humanitarian relief to the most vulnerable areas. We are working with Operation Lifeline Sudan and its partners to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and impartiality of the relief operation. But a just peace in Sudan is the only long term solution to the problems in the south. We continue to work with Inter governmental Authority on Development and urge all parties to the fighting to agree an immediate full cease-fire and to approach peace talks in a positive and constructive manner.

  Debt Relief
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the progress of debt relief for post-conflict countries. [58186]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  At the Commonwealth Finance Ministers' Meeting in Ottawa, the Chancellor stated his commitment to assisting post-conflict countries, urging the IMF and World Bank to move forward quickly on proposals which recognise their special needs.

  Post-conflict countries were also discussed at the recent Annual Meetings of the IMF and World Bank in Washington. The Development Committee of the IMF and World Bank recognised that for a number of countries, especially those with large and protracted arrears to multilateral institutions, the international community should explore additional ways to provide assistance more quickly and effectively. Bank and Fund staff were asked to develop guidelines and to report back to the Committee at the Spring Meetings in April. It was also agreed that interim assistance to post-conflict countries would be taken as counting towards their track-record under the HIPC Initiative.

SCOTLAND

  Police and Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to improve the relationship between the police and ethnic minority communities. [56715]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 2 November 1998]: I am satisfied that all Scotland's Chief Constables have already developed and are vigorously pursuing progressive race relation policies both within their forces and reaching out to the communities they serve. These

  631
  policies were developed in collaboration with leaders of ethnic communities. Police officers are required to give full weight to and robustly investigate racial incidents. A new offence of racial harassment and a requirement on courts to take account of any racial element in an offence were introduced in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and demonstrate our commitment to forging greater harmony within our communities.

  Chefs
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the current number of vacancies for chefs in Scotland. [57064]

  Mr. Dewar
  The figures available refer only to vacancies notified to Employment Service jobcentres. Estimates suggest that about a third of all vacancies within the UK are notified to jobcentres, but this can vary by area and type of job.

  In July 1998, there were 1,367 unfilled vacancies for chefs and cooks at Employment Service jobcentres in Scotland.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the number of Scottish catering course graduates who find employment as chefs in the Scottish tourism industry. [57063]

  Mr. Dewar
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the catering profession in the Scottish Chefs Centre. [57065]

  Mr. Dewar
  I have occasion to visit catering establishments from time to time, when I both meet members of the catering profession and enjoy the fruits of their labours. But I have not visited the Scottish Chefs Centre.

  Measles, Mumps and Rubella Vaccines
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will assess the findings contained in the papers by Robert E. Weibel and others in Paediatrics March 1998 on the links between acute encephalopathy associated with attenuated measles vaccines; [56969]

  (2) if he will assess the findings contained in the paper by Gina Delgiudice-Asch MD and Eric Hollander MD published in CNS Spectrums May 1997 on a review of clinical observations with respect to the possible auto-immune basis or autism a copy of which has been sent to him. [56971]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 24 October 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the Answers given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health on 4 November 1998, Official Report, column 617.

  Autism
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking (1) to ensure that educational authorities in Scotland have sufficient funds to develop new services for autistic children; and if he will make a statement; [57615]
  632
  (2) to instruct each education authority within the meaning of section 145 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962 to provide him with information on the provision of special educational facilities for children who suffer from autism or other forms of early childhood psychosis; and if he will make a statement; [57618]

  (3) to issue specific guidance on education services for autistic children in Scotland; and if he will make a statement; [57616]

  (4) to ensure that each child with autism in Scotland receives a relevant educational service; and if he will make a statement; [57617]

  (5) to collect information centrally on autistic children in Scotland; and if he will make a statement; [57620]

  (6) to issue specific guidance on services for autistic children in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [57619]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Education authorities have a statutory duty to secure the adequate and efficient provision of education for the children in their respective areas, including children with special educational needs. The services which any particular authority chooses to provide for its area and the nature of educational provision deemed suitable for any particular child at any given time, including a child with special educational needs, is a matter for it to decide in the first instance. The costs of services provided by authorities are met from their general funding.

  The Framework for Mental Health Services for Scotland published in September 1997 provides a template by which Local Authorities and Health Boards in Scotland will work together to respond to the assessed needs of their local population in respect of the organisation of mental health services including where appropriate services for children and adolescents.

  The Scottish Office Education and Industry Department commissions research and development work over a range of special education issues aimed at helping education authorities and other interested organisations to offer more effective provision. In June 1997 it published Interchange No. 46: Educational Provision for Children with Autism in Scotland (ISSN 0969–613X). This reports the results of a study examining where and how children with autistic spectrum disorders throughout Scotland are being educated. The project aimed to:
  (a) develop an educational definition of autism to identify those children who need specific forms of education regardless of whether there is a formal diagnosis of an autistic spectrum disorder;
  (b) identify the number of children reported to have autistic spectrum disorders in Scotland and the type of educational placements they attend;
  (c) identify the kinds of educational practice with respect to these children and to highlight any issues of satisfaction or concern with those practices, as expressed by parents and professionals; and
  (d) identify good practice in the education of these pupils and to make recommendations based on examples of good practice in Scotland and elsewhere.

  A copy of Interchange No. 46 was distributed to all headteachers, directors of education, teachers'

  633
  associations and voluntary organisations in Scotland. A copy has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  The Government wish to improve provision for special education needs and in May this year it issued Special Educational Needs in Scotland: A Discussion Paper. This paper seeks views on how the existing arrangements for special educational needs provision can be improved and made more responsive to the requirements of children with special educational needs and their families. Both Autism (Scotland) and the National Autistic Society have submitted a response. The response to the Discussion Paper as a whole is currently being evaluated and the Government will respond shortly.

  Information on the school population is collected annually by the Scottish Office in the school census. The census undertaken in September 1998 requested for the first time information on children with autistic spectrum disorder.

  "Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland"
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will publish the next edition of Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland. [56980]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 29 October 1998]: I refer to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mrs. McKenna) on 9 July 1998, Official Report, column 605.

  Scottish Environment Protection Agency
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Second Annual Report of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency will be published. [58944]

  Mr. Dewar
  A copy of SEPA's Second Annual Report and Accounts will be placed in the Library on Tuesday 10 November. It contains details of the progress made by SEPA during the period 1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998, the Agency's second year of operation.

  Health Funding
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional funds he has made available to health boards, the Common Services Agency, the State Hospital and the Scottish Council for Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education for(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02. [58946]

  Mr. Galbraith
  My right hon. Friend has today announced how the extra £1.8 billion flowing from the Comprehensive Spending Review will be allocated to the National Health Service in Scotland for the next 3 years. The extra allocations are £280m revenue and £20m capital, £547m and £43m, £852m and £58m for 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02 respectively.

  For 1999–2000 £60m of the £280m revenue is being earmarked along with £80m of existing recurring funds for a new long term Modernisation Programme. This Programme is designed to improve the services provided for patients and ensure the National Health Service in Scotland is prepared for the 21st century.
  634
  In the Modernisation Programme £43m will be directed centrally for planned strategic developments in, for example, areas of information technology, education and training, and to implement proposals arising from the Acute Services Review and the forthcoming Public Health White Paper. The balance of the Modernisation Programme funds (£97m) will be distributed with Health Board allocations, again for implementing national strategic developments such as improving care in the community, reducing waiting times and waiting lists and investing in information technology.

  Details of the Health Board allocations for 1999–2000 and the indicative allocations for the Common Services Agency, the State Hospital and Scottish Council for Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education are shown in the table.

  NHS in Scotland allocations: 1999–2000 and indicative allocations: 2000–01 and 2001–02

  £ million

  Health Boards

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Argyll and Clyde

  393.751

  414.838

  439.166

  Ayrshire and Arran

  335.768

  354.137

  375.292

  Borders

  97.582

  102.651

  108.835

  Dumfries and Galloway

  140.081

  147.476

  156.022

  Fife

  290.922

  306.994

  326.431

  Forth Valley

  234.283

  246.863

  261.378

  Grampian

  423.730

  445.450

  470.605

  Greater Glasgow

  848.876

  897.550

  956.075

  Highland

  192.958

  203.484

  216.192

  Lanarkshire

  471.483

  497.621

  527.675

  Lothian

  630.340

  664.481

  705.830

  Orkney

  19.013

  20.049

  21.294

  Shetland

  22.155

  23.264

  24.545

  Tayside

  368.672

  387.424

  409.207

  Western Isles

  34.007

  35.743

  37.751

  Common Services Agency

  84.800

  80.200

  80.500

  SCPMDE

  129.000

  134.000

  139.000

  State Hospital

  14.694

  15.502

  16.309

  Total

  4,732.115

  4,977.725

  5,272.108

  Note:

  These figures may not add due to roundings.

  Children's Safeguards Review
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends announcing the Government's response to the Children's Safeguard Review prepared by Roger Kent; and if he will make a statement. [58947]

  Mr. Dewar
  Action is being taken on a number of fronts to safeguard and promote the welfare of children living away from home. Today I am pleased to announce that the Government's response to Mr. Kent's Review has been made available in the Libraries of both Houses. We consulted widely on the Review and its 61 recommendations. We see it as an important milestone in raising standards and improving services for looked after children. Our response demonstrates our practical commitment to this process and sets out priorities for action. That commitment will be underpinned by resources.

  I can announce today that an additional £36.7m over the next 3 years will be made available to improve children's services, £15m of which will be allocated specifically for implementation of key proposals in the Review. The Government's response, supported by

  635
  additional resources, is a clear indication of the importance we attach to this task. It will be made widely available to local authorities and voluntary organisations so that they can play their full part in helping to protect and secure better outcomes for this vulnerable group. We owe them nothing less.

  Food-related Scientific Services
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the independent group appointed in May to undertake a review of food-related scientific services in Scotland is due to report. [58950]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The Review Group led by Professor Morag Timbury provided me with their final report on 23 October and copies are available in the House of Commons Library. I am very grateful to the Chairman and Members of the Group for undertaking this complex review of a service which is an essential element of the food law enforcement and surveillance system which directly helps to safeguard public health. The detailed recommendations presented by the Group will be very carefully considered in order to ensure that all necessary changes to the existing system can be introduced to secure an efficient and effective food-related scientific service.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Senator Pinochet
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements were made by or through his Department for the arrival of Senator Pinochet in the United Kingdom. [57042]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) on 4 November 1998,Official Report, column 601.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all representations and telephone calls made by his Department about Senator Pinochet between 14 and 17 October; and to whom they were made. [57966]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 2 November 1998]: This Department made no representations and does not keep comprehensive records of telephone calls. But there were a number of calls with the relevant authorities at the time of his arrest, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary received a telephone call from the Chilean Foreign Minister on 17 October.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) of 22 October 1998,Official Report, column 1206, and to the answer given to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) of 27 October 1998, Official Report, column 124, if he will list the precise dates on which Senator Pinochet has been in the United Kingdom since 1 May 1997. [57659]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 2 November 1998]: Pursuant to an answer given by my right hon. Friend the
  636
  Secretary of State for the Home Department to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on 27 October 1998, Official Report, column 124, our records indicate that Senator Pinochet arrived in the United Kingdom on 29 September 1997 and left on 21 October 1997, with a break abroad between 5–17 October. He arrived in London on his current visit on 22 September 1998.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communications his Department received from the Embassy in Chile in the week prior to the arrest of Senator Pinochet. [58417]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  On 9 October, the Embassy inquired about Senator Pinochet's health and whereabouts following press inquiries it had received that he had died that afternoon in London. The Embassy afterwards faxed a note of this incident for the record to London. On 16 October, the Embassy commented on reports of Spanish judicial moves against Senator Pinochet.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives were rejected during the United Kingdom presidency of the EU by Spain consequent to the dispute over the status of Gibraltar. [55981]

  Ms Quin
  [pursuant to her reply, 26 October 1998, c. 86]: An administrative error led to an incorrect reference to the number of instruments adopted at the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 28–29 May. A revised answer is printed below.

  Before the start of the UK Presidency, Spain objected to various draft instruments in the Justice and Home Affairs field because of the terms relating to the inclusion of Gibraltar. We fully consulted the Government of Gibraltar throughout the ensuing negotiations during our Presidency. The Government of Gibraltar reluctantly decided that Gibraltar should be excluded from these instruments rather than participate as part of the UK legal jurisdiction. Two instruments were adopted at the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 28–29 May on this basis (ie with Gibraltar excluded): the Driving Disqualifications Convention and the European Judicial Network Joint Action. Gibraltar was excluded from a third measure at the JHA Council which has not yet been adopted (the Eurodac Convention).

  Visitor Visas
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he collects regarding the numbers of people who, having been refused visit visas to enter the United Kingdom, have subsequently been granted visas as a result of a new application at a later date. [57334]

  Mr. Fatchett
  This Department does not record this information.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people, and from which countries, had visitors' visa applications rejected by UK officials in each of the last three years. [58286]
  637
  Mr. Fatchett
  The number of visit visa applications (including short term students) refused at overseas Posts in the last three years is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1995

  65,209

  1996

  69,791

  1997

  60,019

  Our statistics are recorded by country of application but do not show the country of origin of the applicant.

  Antarctic Treaty Secretariat
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects progress to be made on the establishment of an Antarctic Treaty Secretariat; and if he will make a statement. [58231]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Antarctic Treaty Secretariat may be discussed at the next meeting of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties to be held in Peru in May 1999. The need for an Antarctic Treaty Secretariat has long been acknowledged by Consultative Parties, including the UK. But consensus on its location has not yet been reached.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent initiatives his Department has taken to resolve conflict in Sierra Leone. [57796]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We are playing a leading role in helping to promote lasting peace, democracy and prosperity in Sierra Leone. Britain is hosting the first meeting of the Sierra Leone Contract Group on 5 November. The meeting is intended to boost the efforts of the International community to build peace and reconciliation in Sierra Leone. Britain is also helping to resolve conflict by supporting the disarmament and reintegration of ex-combatants, through a £6.5 million pledge from the Department for International Development.

  International Forum for Federalism
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the planned participation by representatives from(a) the United Kingdom and (b) European Communities institutions at the inaugural conference of an International Forum for Federalism to be held by the Canadian Government. [58276]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We are aware that the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada suggested the idea of an International Forum for Federalism in a speech to the London School of Economics and Political Science on 29 October. However, it would not be appropriate for HMG to make a statement on this initiative which, we understand, is only at an early stage of development.

  Tobacco (EU Aid)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Government's policy on European Union aid to tobacco growers. [57182]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have been asked to reply.
  638
  The Government strongly disapprove of the Common Agricultural Policy support regime for tobacco. We believe that the Community should progressively disengage from support for tobacco production on grounds of health and cost. We continue to press for further progress in this area following the reform of the regime agreed in June of this year.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Waste Recycling
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of waste from the London boroughs of(a) Edmonton and (b) Lewisham is recycled. [56749]

  Mr. Meale
  Information from the Department's Municipal Waste Survey shows that the percentage of waste collected for recycling in 1996–97 in the London boroughs of Enfield (which includes Edmonton) and Lewisham were:

  London borough

  Percentage

  Enfield1

  6.4

  Lewisham

  2.8

  1Total waste includes amounts collected at North London Waste Authority civil amenity sites situated in the borough of Enfield. Waste collected for recycling includes material recovered through mechanised metal extraction.

  Driving Test Centres
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) of 26 October 1998,Official Report, column 7, what plans the Driving Standards Agency has to re-establish a test centre in Stafford. [57486]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Driving Standards Agency remains committed to re-establishing a driving test centre in Stafford. The search for a suitable site is continuing.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to amend the remit of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment; and what proposals for public participation in any decision relating to such changes he intends to make. [57412]

  Mr. Meacher
  The terms of reference for the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment already include the provision of advice on request to the Secretary of State. In future we shall be seeking advice from ACRE not only on the direct and indirect effects of genetically modified organisms into the environment but also on the possible resultant changes in agronomic practice and the subsequent effects on biodiversity. ACRE's advice on these questions will be made public through the DETR public register.

  Recycled Land
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 28 July 1998,Official Report, column 110, if he will publish the Oxford Brookes University research on the use of economic instruments to make it attractive to develop new housing on recycled land. [57928]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As part of the Modernising Planning initiative this year, Oxford Brookes University were commissioned to lead some seminars with stakeholders on the development of planning obligations, including the role of economic instruments, in connection with a wide range of development interests, including housing. The seminars were held under 'Chatham House' rules, with participants contributing under the assurance of confidentiality. Following the seminars Oxford Brookes University prepared a report to the Department with their findings. The Department is now considering these but has no plans to publish the report.

  Jubilee Line
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much Bechtel is charging per day to take over the project management of the Jubilee Line extension. [58202]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The contract between London Transport and Bechtel covers the provision of personnel with a structured charging mechanism, the details of which are commercially confidential.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the estimated start date of the Birmingham Northern Relief Road. [58108]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The start date is subject to the early determination of any appeal against the High Court judgment of 20 October on the statutory challenge to the orders for the scheme.

  Kyoto Agreement
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of progress towards implementing the Kyoto agreement by(a) the United Kingdom, (b) other members of the European Union and (c) the United States of America. [57881]

  Mr. Meale
  On 26 October we became one of the first developed countries to launch a consultation paper on meeting its Kyoto commitments. The paper lists the steps we have already taken and sets out in detail further options on how the UK could reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases. It demonstrates that the UK is well placed to meet both its legally binding Kyoto target to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 12.5% below 1990 levels by 2008 to 2012 and our domestic aim of a 20% cut in CO2, emissions by 2010. Greenhouse gas emissions are already about 7% below 1990 levels; and, on current policies, would be about 10% below by 2010.
  640
  European Union Member States are required under the Council Decision for a monitoring mechanism of Community C02 and other greenhouse gas emissions to report annually on their emissions. The UK Government monitor these reports closely. This mechanism has now been amended to allow assessment of progress towards meeting Member States' Kyoto targets.

  Through our Washington Embassy and other contacts I receive regular reports of action taken, and proposed, by the US Government to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. A recent US Administration report ("The Kyoto Protocol and the President's Policies to Address Climate Change: Administration Economic Analysis", July 1998) assessing the economic implications of their Kyoto target concluded that there was a strong rationale for action because of the dangers of climate change, and that the costs of doing so were likely to be modest.

  Great Barford Bypass
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to instruct the Highways Agency to appoint consultants in relation to the Great Barford Bypass. [58102]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This scheme is included in our Targeted Programme of Improvements listed in A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England. That means that the scheme will definitely start within the next seven years, subject only to any outstanding statutory procedures. Detailed decisions on the timing of the schemes in the programme will be made shortly.

  In the light of these decisions, the appointment of consultants and design agents will be commissioned to meet the agreed programme.

  Arco Arun
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the circumstances surrounding the sinking of the Arco Arum and subsequent salvage attempts in the Thames off Thurrock. [58077]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I believe my hon. Friend's question relates to the vessel Arco Arun. I understand that this aggregate dredger grounded off Broadness Point at approximately 1450 hours on 13 October. The vessel sustained a split in her hull and subsequently sank, clear of the navigation channel. No other vessels were involved, there were no casualties and, due to the quick response by the Port of London Authority, no damage to the environment. An inquiry by the Marine Accidents Investigation Branch is in progress and the PLA is conducting its own internal investigations. I understand that, following the appointment of salvors by the vessel owners, it became apparent that flooding had spread throughout the vessel and that specialist equipment would be required. The vessel owners have therefore now engaged the services of a company experienced in heavy lift and removal operations and they are currently assessing the situation.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what procedures
  641
  exist for him to monitor housing associations; and if he will arrange for the operations of the Springboard Housing Association to be investigated. [58097]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Housing Corporation has the statutory responsibility for registering, regulating and funding housing associations, now known as Registered Social Landlords.

  Springboard Housing Association is registered with the Housing Corporation. The association, along with all other Registered Social Landlords, is required to meet the Housing Corporation's Performance Standards. Compliance with these standards is reviewed annually. The Corporation investigates where there is evidence of non-compliance and has powers to ensure remedial action by RSLs in cases of serious mismanagement or misconduct.

  I have asked the Housing Corporation to contact the hon. Member direct to answer any specific concerns.

  Millennium Experience (Cable Car)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the role of the cable car link to the Millennium Experience; and how many passengers it is expected to carry. [58018]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Millennium Access transport strategy was developed before the proposed cable car, being promoted by a private company, was a consideration. The New Millennium Experience Company has estimated that 2 per cent. of visitors would use the cable car for part of their journey to the Dome. Should it not proceed there would be sufficient capacity on other modes to carry visitors to the Dome who might otherwise have used the cable car.

  Chideock Bypass
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the COBA study into options for a Chideock Bypass. [58223]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]: No COBA study into options for a Chideock bypass has been carried out. At the 1994 public inquiry into the A35 Chideock/Morcombelake bypass one of the alternatives proposed by objectors was a single carriageway bypass for Chideock alone. The Highways Agency assessed the cost of this scheme as £5.9 million with a COBA net present value of £0.7 million at low traffic growth and £3.7 million at high traffic growth. But this scheme was not considered to represent a viable bypass for the village. An estimate was made by the Highways Agency in 1997 that a single carriageway bypass with climbing lanes for Chideock would cost approximately £12.5 million.

  Teesside Development Corporation
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what happened to the(a) general furniture and (b) boardroom furniture which belonged to Teesside Development Corporation after the demise of the Corporation in April. [58303]
  642
  Mr. Meale
  I understand that the Corporation's furniture was sold as part of a packaged disposal of its office equipment during its final three-month period.

  Leasehold Reform
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 31 March 1998,Official Report, column 493, when he expects that the Green Paper on leasehold reform will be published. [58473]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We hope to issue our consultation paper on leasehold reform shortly.

  Buses (London)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what review is being undertaken by his Department of the performance of bus franchises in London; and if he will make a statement. [58226]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The performance of bus passenger services in London is a matter for London Transport. The Department receives regular reports of the overall performance on the bus network and monitors this against targets set by the Secretary of State.

  I would refer my hon. Friend to the Government's White Paper "A Mayor and Assembly for London" in which we have said that the present arrangements work well but that Transport for London should be free to develop and improve these arrangements working within a statutory framework similar to the present one.

  Private Cars (London)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to announce detailed proposals on the reduction of private car traffic in central London. [58227]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government will be giving the Mayor of London the responsibility and the powers to deal with strategic traffic issues in the capital. The Mayor will produce an integrated transport strategy for London. Boroughs will be required to produce local implementation plans to give effect to this. Meanwhile the Government are promoting initiatives in London to improve public transport and encourage use of modes other than the private car—in line with our White Paper 'A New Deal for Transport'.

  Climate Change Conference
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the aspects of policy covered by the Government's obligation to the Buenos Aires climate change conference to be held in November. [58229]

  Mr. Meacher
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will be making a statement to the Buenos Aires Climate Change Conference (COP4) on Thursday 12 November. He will urge that as much progress as possible is made on outstanding implementation, questions of the Kyoto Protocol at COP4 and agreement on a work plan for early resolution of remaining issues. He will also update the Conference on progress made by
  643
  the United Kingdom Government in meeting its own commitments as set out in the consultation paper 'UK Climate Change Programme', which was issued on 26 October.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the delegation he is sending to the Buenos Aires climate convention to be held in November. [58230]

  Mr. Meacher
  The UK delegation for the Fourth Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change will consist of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, myself and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and a total of 26 officials from the Departments of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Trade and Industry, International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Coaches (London)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the current volume at London coach terminals of passengers in transit to locations outside London. [58673]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Coach services interchange at several locations in London including Victoria Coach Station, Bulleid Way, Heathrow Airport, King's Cross and Russell Square. The Government do not compile information about these services. However, I understand it is estimated that around 3 million passengers departing from Victoria Coach Station each year transfer from other coach services at the Station.

  Airline Subsidies
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what(a) legal and (b) diplomatic steps he is taking to stop European Union countries providing state subsidies to national airlines. [58474]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Application of the rules in the Treaty of Rome which govern state subsidies to national airlines is a matter for the European Commission. The UK Government oppose in principle all such subsidies which distort competition in the European single aviation market, and takes advantage of the limited rights granted to Member States under the Treaty, and of appropriate diplomatic opportunities, to present its views. The Commission now assesses requests for state aid more stringently than it did previously, and, when authorising aid to Alitalia in 1997, stated that it did not expect there to be any further such cases.

  Councillors
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will place in the Library the replies to the letters to local authorities asking them how many of their councillors are(a) men and (b) women; [58362]

  (2) how many councillors for each local authority are (a) men and (b) women; [58363]
  644
  (3) what percentage of all local authority councillors are women; which council has the highest percentage of women councillors; and which has the lowest. [58364]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Research carried out by the publishers of the Municipal Year Book in the summer indicates that approximately 26 per cent. of councillors in the UK are female.

  The replies to the letters to local authorities to which my right hon. Friend refers are not held by this Department. The question of these being placed in the Library is a matter for the Minister for Women and I have asked her to write to my right hon. Friend on this subject.

  Pacific Crane
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions at the time of the accident on Saturday 24 October at Barrow in Furness, involving the British Nuclear Fuels Ltd ship the Pacific Crane, what nuclear waste was carried in the ship; and what was its origin; and if he will make a statement. [58669]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There was no nuclear material on board the Pacific Crane at the time of the incident.

  Leasehold Properties
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of residential property in England, by regions, is owned on a leasehold basis. [58546]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Survey of English Housing for 1996–97 found that 14 per cent. of residential properties in England were owned on a leasehold basis. The regional distribution is shown in the table:

  Government office region

  Freehold accommodation

  Leasehold accommodation

  North East

  87

  13

  North West and Merseyside

  70

  30

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  91

  8

  The North

  80

  19

  East Midlands

  97

  3

  West Midlands

  90

  10

  The Midlands

  93

  7

  Eastern

  93

  7

  London

  71

  29

  South East

  89

  10

  South West

  90

  11

  The South

  86

  15

  England

  86

  14

  Green Ministers
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those ministers who are responsible for greening their departments. [58948]

  Mr. Meacher
  After recent changes in ministerial responsibilities, the following colleagues have been appointed as Green Minister in their Departments, under my continued Chairmanship.
  645

  Department

  Minister

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Jeff Rooker MP

  Chancellor's Departments

  Patricia Hewitt MP

  Culture, Media and Sport

  Tony Banks MP

  Defence

  John Spellar MP

  Education and Employment

  Charles Clarke MP

  Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Glenda Jackson MP

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Derek Fatchett MP

  Health

  Tessa Jowell MP

  Home Office

  Mike O'Brien MP

  International Development

  George Foulkes MP

  Law Officers'

  Ross Cranston MP

  Lord Chancellor's

  Geoff Hoon MP

  Northern Ireland Office

  The Lord Dubs

  Cabinet Office

  Peter Kilfoyle MP

  Scottish Office

  The Lord Sewel CBE

  Social Security

  Angela Eagle MP

  Trade and Industry

  John Battle MP

  Welsh Office

  Jon Owen Jones MP

  African Elephants
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the outcome of the third dialogue meeting between African elephant range states held in Arusha, Tanzania from 28 September to 2 October; and if he will make a statement. [58949]

  Mr. Meacher
  As part of a continuing dialogue, African elephant range states met recently at Arusha to discuss implementation of decisions made at last year's CITES Conference to transfer the elephant populations of Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe to Appendix II of the CITES Convention to enable limited trade in elephant products to resume. The UK and other contributors to the costs of the meeting, the European Commission, the USA and Japan, attended as observers.

  The 1997 Conference decisions set a number of conditions that have to be met before an experimental one off transhipment of ivory from the three proponent states to Japan can go ahead next year. These include the establishment of new pan-African and Asian monitoring systems to assess the level of elephant poaching and illegal trade in ivory. The World Conservation Union (IUCN) and TRAFFIC (the wildlife trade monitoring arm of IUCN and the World Wide Fund for Nature) were charged with developing these systems. Their proposals were presented to the Arusha meeting and endorsed by the range states present.

  While African range states indicated their readiness to help finance the monitoring systems, there will be a need for external funding to get them up and running. Since effective monitoring systems will be vital to informing decision makers on whether the tenth Conference decisions have any adverse effect on levels of poaching and illegal trade, I am today pledging $40,000 of UK support for the new system to monitor illegal trade in ivory. This will enable the system to be set up and provide sufficient resources to fund its first year of operation.

  The tenth Conference decisions also addressed the problem of growing Government stockpiles of ivory derived from management programmes and seizures. Parties agreed that fully audited stocks should be taken out of the system by way of non-commercial disposal. In return donors would provide financial assistance for
  646
  elephant conservation and community development programmes with all monies managed under Conservation Trust Funds. At Arusha, the fourteen African countries that have had their registered government stockpiles audited by TRAFFIC discussed the best way to proceed. They agreed to co-operate in seeking financial assistance for conservation by this means and to route any indications of interest through the CITES Secretariat.

  In keeping with this spirit of co-operation and in the expectation that this will lead to offers from other donors, including conservation organisations, I am today writing to the CITES Secretariat to let them know that the UK is willing to contribute £60,000 to fund conservation work in return for disposal of part of the registered ivory stockpile.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Computer Systems
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to modernise the Department's computer systems; and if he will make a statement. [58761]

  Mr. Timms
  Modernisation of the Welfare State is a priority for the Government and will involve major changes over a period of time to the ways in which welfare services are delivered. A key element of the strategy for the future is to provide the next generation of computer systems required to support improved service delivery to the public, whilst at the same time reducing the scope for error or fraud.

  The ACcess to CORporate Data (ACCORD) procurement project was created to put in place Information System/Information Technology (IS/IT) supply arrangements with the private sector. The procurement, conducted in accordance with Government and EC procurement regulations, set out to establish Private Finance Initiative/Public Private Partnership (PFI/PPP) arrangements with suitable service providers.

  First of all, in order to develop the core systems for the new IS/IT, the Department is announcing today that it intends to establish a close, long-term working relationship with a single preferred Service Provider. The AFFINITY consortium (led by Electronic Data Systems Ltd. with IBM UK Ltd., Cable and Wireless Communications Ltd. and PricewaterhouseCoopers) has been selected for this role and they will start work with the Department immediately to do the preparatory work necessary to design the strategic components of the next generation of IS/IT.

  The Department is also announcing that it has selected three service providers it intends to work with for the provision of a wide range of IS/IT services in the future. As well as the AFFINITY consortium these will be:
  ARCWAY, a consortium led by British Telecommunications plc with Bull Information Systems Ltd. and SEMA Group UK Ltd.; and
  1ACCORD, a consortium led by ICL plc with Anderson Consulting, Experian Ltd., Microsoft Ltd., Rand Information Systems Ltd. and Ferret Information Systems Ltd.

  These selections are essential prerequisites to the detailed negotiations which will allow the commercial arrangements to be finalised with the service providers.
  647
  Following this, as supply needs arise from now and over the next 10 years, contracts for specific IS/IT services will be awarded through these providers.

  We believe this arrangement between public and private provision is an important step towards modernising the Welfare State. In particular the establishing of a strategic relationship and joint working arrangements with the Preferred Service Provider will enable us to harness together the skills from both sectors.

  Pensioner to Working Age Ratio
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to re-examine the pensioner: working age ratio prediction for each five yearly period up to 2040; and if he will make a statement. [58228]

  Mr. Denham
  National population projections are produced by the Government Actuary's Department (GAD). GAD normally carry out projections every two years. The latest, 1996-based, projections were published on 27 November 1997. The next planned set of national population projections will be 1998-based and will be available towards the end of 1999.

  NIRS 2 Computer
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what compensation will be available for people whose benefit payments are delayed as a result of problems with the NIRS 2 computer; [58259]

  (2) how many pensioners (a) have been and (b) are forecast to be affected by the difficulties in introducing the NIRS 2 computer; and in what circumstances pensioners are not receiving their full pensions. [58260]

  (3) what estimates his Department has made of the number of people affected (a) in total and (b) according to benefit claimed as a result of the difficulties with the introduction of the NIRS 2 system; [55850]

  (4) how many new claimants have been awarded full benefit entitlement without establishment of national insurance records as a result of the difficulties with the introduction of the NIRS 2 computer system. [55848]

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many(a) pensioners, (b) widows and (c) widowers are currently in receipt of emergency payments because of the failure of the NIRS 2 computer system; [55854]

  (2) what tests were carried out before the NIRS 2 computer system was implemented. [55855]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 22 October 1998]: I refer the hon. Members to the Written Answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) on 4 November 1998, Official Report, columns 603–06.

  Benefits
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners claimed(a) income support, (b) housing benefit and (c) council tax benefit in
  648
  the latest year for which figures are available (i) in total and (ii) by each region of the United Kingdom. [57899]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is in the table.

  Number of pensioners (in thousands)in receipt of Income Support, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit—May 1997

  Region

  Income Support

  Housing Benefit

  Council Tax Benefit

  North

  107

  131

  176

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  155

  197

  279

  East Midlands

  120

  121

  185

  East Anglia

  56

  73

  104

  London and South East

  471

  519

  697

  South West

  133

  122

  193

  West Midlands

  178

  186

  288

  North West

  233

  220

  344

  Wales

  98

  89

  134

  Scotland

  169

  230

  296

  Great Britain

  1,720

  1,887

  2,696

  Northern Ireland

  75

  50

  n/a

  United Kingdom

  1,795

  1,937

  n/a

  Notes:

  1. Pensioners are defined, for Income Support/Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefit purposes, as single persons aged 60 or over, or couples (married or unmarried) where one or both partners is aged 60 or over.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand, and may not sum due to rounding.

  3. Council Tax Benefit/Housing Benefit data exclude second adult rebate cases.

  4. There is an overlap in the figures, as most people receive both Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  5. Housing Benefit data for Northern Ireland are based on November 1997 data.

  6. Council Tax Benefit does not exist in Northern Ireland.

  Sources

  1. Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, May 1997; 5 per cent. sample.

  2. Housing Benefit Management Information System, annual 1 per cent. sample inquiries for recipients with and without Income Support taken at the end of May 1997.

  3. (Northern Ireland) November 1997 database.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list each change to the eligibility rules for each state benefit since May 1997, indicating for each change the number of people estimated to(a) have lost and (b) been denied benefit as a result, indicating their average financial loss. [56249]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. The following regulations and orders have affected eligibility to benefits since May 1997; effects include both restrictions and extensions to future benefit eligibility.The Social Security (Disability Living Allowance) Amendment Regulations 1997 SI No. 1997/349

  649
  Section 19 of the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997—(The Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997 (Commencement No. 4) Order 1997) SI No. l997/2669(c.l00)
  The Social Security (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 3) Regulations 1997 SI No. 1997/1671
  The Council Tax Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1997 SI No. 1997/1841
  Income-related Benefits (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1997 SI No. 1997/2793
  The Housing Benefit (General) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1997 SI No. 1997/1974
  The Housing Benefit (General) Amendment (No. 3) Regulations 1997 SI No.1997/1975
  The Income-related Benefits and Jobseeker's Allowance (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1997 SI No. 1997/2197
  The Social Fund Maternity and Funeral Expenses (General) Amendment Regulations 1997 SI No. 1997/2538
  The Social Security Amendment (New Deal) Regulations 1997 SI No. 1997/2863
  Social Security Amendment (New Deal) (No. 2) Regulations 1998 SI No. 1998/2117
  Social Security (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1998 SI No. 1998/563
  Social Security Amendment (Lone Parents) Regulations 1998 SI No. 1998/766
  Child Benefit and Social Security (Fixing and Adjustment of Rates) (Amendment) Regulations 1998 SI No. 1998/1581
  The Social Security (Welfare to Work) Regulations 1998 SI No. 1998/2231
  The Social Security (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 3) Regulations 1998 SI No. 1998/1173
  The Social Security Amendment (Capital) Regulations 1998 SI No. 1998/2250
  The Council Tax Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1998 SI No. 1998/911
  The Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1998 SI No. 1998/1732
  The Social Security (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 4) Regulations 1998 SI No. 1998/1174
  The Social Security Amendment (Personal Allowances for Children) Regulations 1998 SI No. 1998/1541

  At the point of change, no one on benefit will lose out as a result of changes to entitlement rules. Further information about the effects of these changes could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases of suicide by men from whom the CSA has sought payments are known to his Department since the agency began operations. [57292]

  Angela Eagle
  The Child Support Agency does not routinely keep records on the circumstances surrounding the death of a non-resident parent. The many factors that can lead a person to consider suicide do not point towards single explanations.

  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the funding of age-related rebates in respect of members of contracted-out money purchase schemes. [58762]
  650
  Mr. Denham
  Employers who operate contracted-out occupational pension schemes provide their employees with a pension to replace the pension they would have got had they remained in the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme (SERPS).

  In contracted-out occupational schemes, both employer and employee pay lower rate National Insurance Contributions in recognition that full SERPS will not be paid. In a Contracted-Out Money Purchase Scheme (COMPS) part of the rebate is deducted from the national insurance contributions due by the employer. The remainder, known as the age-related rebate, is paid by the Contributions Agency to the pension scheme in the tax year following that in which it is due.

  Section 42A of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (PSA) provides the legislative authority for the age related rebate to be paid by the Secretary of State for Social Security to the pension scheme. This section was inserted into the PSA by the Pensions Act 1995. The intention is that these payments should be funded directly from the National Insurance Fund and classed as revenue forgone. However, the necessary provision to facilitate funding in this manner was erroneously omitted from the Pensions Act. So while there is a legislative duty to make the payments, there is no authority to fund them from the National Insurance Fund. As result a number of ultra vires payments have been made from the National Insurance Fund totalling around £490,000 which will have to be refunded from money voted by Parliament.

  An amendment to the PSA to correct this defect will be put before Parliament. This will allow the payments to be funded properly from the National Insurance Fund in accordance with the original intention. Until the provisions are enacted temporary arrangements are necessary to ensure that the payments can continue to be made. Provision will also be made to ensure that the National Insurance Fund reimburses those accounts responsible for funding the payments up to the time when the legislation was brought into force.

  Legislation under s177(1) of the PSA does, by default, allow the payments to be paid from money provided by Parliament. Since Parliament did not envisage using provision in this way the ambits of the DSS Votes do not cover age related rebates. A Supplementary Estimate is therefore needed to extend the ambit of Class XII, Vote 2. A token Supplementary Estimate of £1,000 has been sought on Vote 2 to amend the ambit to enable payments, totalling £82 million, to be made to Contracted-Out Money Purchase Schemes in respect of age related rebates. As the Contributions Agency computer system, NIRS2, does not have the functionality to separate the payments in respect of age related rebates, which are paid in conjunction with personal pensions, Vote 2 will, therefore, also be responsible for paying personal pensions. The National Insurance Fund which does have the legislative power to pay personal pensions will refund Vote 2 for the payments made on its behalf. These arrangements will continue until the defective legislation is corrected. An advance of £77 million has been sought from the Contingencies Fund to finance urgent expenditure. The advance will be repaid from Vote 2 when Parliament has approved the necessary token Supplementary Estimate.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisons (Quantum Project)
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made on the Prison Service Quantum Project. [58941]

  Mr. George Howarth
  On 10 August 1998, the Director General of the Prison Service called a temporary halt to the Quantum Project and set up a thorough review which will take up to six months. In a message to Prison Service staff he said:"It has become apparent that it may not be possible to achieve the original objectives of providing the Service with improved information systems and business processes in a way which safeguards the vital operational capability of the Service".

  These and other concerns will be addressed in the review process, which will reassess the way forward and consider a range of alternative options. The objective is to ensure that the project meets the needs of the Prison Service.

  Police (Objectives)
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what objectives he will be determining for policing for 1999–2000. [58942]

  Mr. Straw
  I will announce my objectives, which identify our Ministerial priorities for policing in 1999–2000, together with supporting Key Performance Indicators, tomorrow, 6 November. I will arrange for copies to be placed in the Library at 10.00 am.

  Asylum Seekers
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are being made to issue monthly statistics of asylum. [58943]

  Mr. Straw
  Until now, the asylum statistics have been available only in the Home Offices' annual Asylum Statistics Bulletin and in a summary form twice a year in the Control of Immigration Statistical Bulletin. These Bulletins contain detailed information on asylum applications, demographic characteristics of asylum seekers, decisions, appeals, detention and removals.

  Selected monthly information has, however, been available only on request from the Home Office Press Office. I am therefore arranging for selected monthly statistics of asylum to be placed on the Home Office Research Development Statistics Website (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/index.htm) on the 25th of each month, or the next working day, and to be also available through the Library and the Home Office Press Office.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the percentages of the total number of asylum seekers who were given(a) refugee status and (b) exceptional leave to remain for each year for which figures are known since 1993; what assessment he has made of the factors underlying changes in those percentages; and if he will make a statement. [57759]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The requested information is given in the table.652

  Cases1 recognised as refugees and granted asylum and thosegranted exceptional leave, excluding dependants2, as a proportion of all decisions—1993–1997 Principal applicants

  percentage

  Year

  Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum

  Granted exceptional leave

  1993

  7

  48

  1994

  4

  17

  1995

  5

  16

  1996

  6

  13

  19973

  11

  9

  1Information is of initial determination decisions excluding the outcome of appeals and other subsequent decisions,

  2 Cases not recognised as refugees but granted exceptional leave

  3 Provisional figures

  The proportion of applicants recognised as refugees and granted asylum shows little variation between 1993 and 1996. The increase to 11 per cent. in 1997 reflects grants to Somali and Federal Republic of Yugoslavia nationals. In the first nine months of 1998, the proportion has increased further to 17 per cent. This is partly due to changes made in 1998 so that deserving cases are recognised earlier in the process. The fall in the numbers of asylum applicants granted exceptional leave after 1993 reflects the introduction in July 1993 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act, in which grants of exceptional leave were limited to cases where there were genuine humanitarian factors.

  The Home Office is continually reassessing the situation in each country in the context of the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its associated 1967 protocol.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many 15 and 16 year old youths were held on remand in adult prisons at the most recent date for which information is available; [58354]

  (2) which adult prisons were used for the remand of 15 and 16 year old youths on (a) 1 May 1997 and (b) the latest date for which such information is available. [58353]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The available information relates to the remand prison population of 15 and 16 year olds on the last day of the month and is given in the table. Young persons held in adult prisons are normally accommodated separately from adults.

  Population of 15 and 16 year olds on remand in adult prisons on 30 April 1997 and 30 September 1998, by establishment

  Establishment

  30 April 1997

  30 September 19981

  Altcourse

  —

  4

  Cardiff

  9

  6

  Doncaster

  46

  27

  Exeter

  3

  2

  Gloucester

  7

  4

  Hull

  10

  7

  Low Newton

  16

  11

  Manchester

  —

  1

  Norwich

  —

  1

  Parc

  —

  1

  Swansea

  5

  3

  Woodhill

  —

  1

  Total

  96

  68

  1Provisional figures

  653
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the timetable of the Youth Justice Board for ending the remand of 15 and 16 year olds to adult prisons. [58355]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government's plans for ensuring that appropriate arrangements are in place for remanded juveniles are being taken forward in the context of the wider programme of work arising from our review of all forms of secure accommodation for young offenders and young people held on remand. Our aim is to implement provisions in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 as soon as possible, and by June 1998 at the latest, to allow the courts to remand directly to local authority secure accommodation 12–14 year olds, 15 and 16 year old girls and, where a place has been identified in advance, vulnerable 15 and 16 year old boys. We will keep under review the existing arrangements for remanding other 15 and 16 year old boys to Prison Service accommodation.

  In the meantime, work is being taken forward, with the Youth Justice Board, to improve the standard of care and quality of regimes for remanded and sentenced juveniles held in Prison Service accommodation to ensure that these are appropriate to the needs of young people. We are also making available funds, which will be administered by the Youth Justice Board, to develop local bail support provision to help ensure that custodial remands are used appropriately for the most serious and persistent cases.

  Police (World Cup)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the total sum received or to be received by police forces in England and Wales from the Football Association to cover the cost of travel, overseas allowances and overtime in connection with the policing of World Cup matches involving the England team; [58489]

  (2) how much in total the Government plan to contribute towards the 24-hour manning of the National Criminal Intelligence Service Football Unit during the World Cup Finals and the costs associated with the provision of football intelligence officers during matches involving the England team. [58490]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Football Association has met the cost of travel, overseas allowances and overtime for officers from England and Wales. Salary costs have been met by the officers' respective forces. The Football Association also contributed to the cost of relevant police equipment.

  The Government agreed to contribute to the costs associated with the 24-hour manning of the National Criminal Intelligence Service during the Finals: and to contribute part of the cost associated with the provision of additional football intelligence officers in France for some England matches. Detailed information about actual costs incurred is operationally sensitive.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the current amount of section 11 funding made available by his Department to the Greater London area; [57909]
  654
  (2) if he will make a statement on his Department's future policy towards section 11 funding for the Greater London area. [57763]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Allocations of Home Office section 11 grant for the 1998–99 financial year to local authorities, grant maintained schools and further education colleges in the Greater London area amount to £34.496 million. Nationally, over 97 per cent. of section 11 grant is currently paid to education projects. It has been decided that, from April 1999, responsibility for such funding should rest with the Department for Education and Employment. A further announcement will be made shortly about the administrative arrangements. The Home Office intends to operate a new grant programme to fund projects in fields other than education. The Department is currently consulting interested parties about the design of this new programme, and a further announcement will be made in due course.

  Immigration
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases were considered for enforcement under immigration legislation for each year for which figures are known since 1993; and how many deportations were made. [57757]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The available information, relating to the numbers of cases for which enforcement action was initiated under sections 3(5), 3(6) or 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971, since 1993; and the number of deportations made, is given in tables 7.2 (Illegal entrants) and 7.4 (Deportation action) of the Home Office Command Paper "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom 1997" (Cm 4033), for years 1993 and 1994, and in tables 5.1 (Total enforcement action), 5.2 (Illegal entrants) and 5.3 (Deportation action) of the Home Office statistical bulletin "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom, First Half 1998", issue 24/98, for years 1995–97. Copies of these publications are available in the Library.

  Channel Islands
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the extent to which European legislation, directives and decisions are enforced upon the Channel Islands and the extent to which the situation has changed since the passing of Protocol 3 to the Treaty of Rome. [57753]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Protocol 3 to the Treaty of Accession sets out the limited extent to which European Union instruments apply to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. The normal practice is for relevant European provisions to be given effect in the Islands through local legislation.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received from the EU Commission relating to the Channel Islands. [57755]

  Mr. George Howarth
  No recent representations have been received from the European Commission relating to the Channel Islands.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for British nationality have been received from St. Helena citizens in each of the past five years; and over the same period how many such applications have been granted. [58007]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The number of grants of British citizenship to British Dependent Territories' citizens from St. Helena is given in the table. The number of such applications received is not available.

  Year of grant

  Number of grants

  1993

  8

  1994

  11

  1995

  11

  1996

  17

  1997

  32

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the procedures surrounding the payment of criminal injuries compensation. [58189]

  Mr. Boateng
  The procedures surrounding the payment of criminal injuries compensation are regularly reviewed within the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA)—the body which administers the tariff-based scheme introduced with effect from 1 April 1996—as part of the normal management process. CICA's objective is to make awards as soon as the extent of injury and any consequential financial loss has been properly established. There are no plans to undertake any special procedural reviews at this time.

  Alcohol Consumption (Public Places)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how local authorities and other agencies could be encouraged, perhaps by changes in the law, to deal more effectively with the problems of street drinking. [58196]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Home Office encourages local authorities to adopt, whenever appropriate, a model byelaw which makes it an offence to consume intoxicating liquor in a designated place after being warned by a constable not to do so. We have also implemented the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997, which enables a constable to confiscate alcohol being drunk or intended to be drunk in public by someone who is under-age.

  The Anti-Social Behaviour Order and other provisions in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 will help with specific local problems. Local authorities and the police, with their partners, can include any such problems in the crime and disorder audit which is required under the Act and then go on to develop appropriate strategies for tackling this as part of their overall crime reduction strategy.

  Police Manpower
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers on the beat there were in(a) May 1997, (b) May 1998 and (c) September 1998. [58251]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information on the deployment of police personnel is collected annually by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. The number of officers on patrol duties in England and Wales is set out in the table:

  Date

  Patrol

  Overall police numbers

  March 1997

  62,172

  127,158

  March 1998

  62,203

  126,856

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Remploy
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what discussions his Department has held with Remploy on its corporate plan; [58419]

  (2) what role there will be for Remploy employees and their representatives in drawing up Remploy's corporate plan; [58420]

  (3) what discussions his Department has held with Remploy on factory closures; [58421]

  (4) what variations to Remploy's targets for 1997–98 have been made for the years (a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000; [58422]

  (5) what is the forecast subsidy to Remploy in (a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02; [58452]

  (6) when he last met the relevant trade unions to discuss the future operations of Remploy. [58453]

  Ms Hodge
  I understand that Remploy management meet with the Remploy Consortium of Unions at the National Joint Consultative Committee regularly to discuss a range of issues. In particular, Remploy delivered a series of presentations/discussions in July this year to managers and local shop stewards about the strategy set out in the latest Corporate Plan. In addition, national trade union officers received a presentation in May, in advance of the publication of the plan. Remploy intend to adopt a similar approach next time round, and employees have been invited to put forward questions on future strategy and on how they could be more closely involved in planning Remploy's future.

  I am expecting Remploy to submit their next Corporate Plan (covering the 3 years 1999–2000 to 2001–02) shortly, for my approval. I will be discussing it with the Remploy Chairman as usual.

  Remploy has agreed a broad strategy with Ministers to improve employer opportunities for disabled people both in factories and through Interwork. As part of their strategy Remploy needs to address overcapacity in their factory network through mergers, changes of trade and factory rationalisation. Details of this strategy have been

  657
  published in Remploy's Corporate Plan for 1998–99 to 2000–01, and in the Remploy booklet "Planning for our Future", issued to Remploy employees. The operational detail involved in implementing this strategy is a matter for the Remploy Board, as it has to be based on commercial decisions which only Remploy can take.

  Remploy's targets for 1999–2000 have not yet been agreed. The following variations were agreed with Remploy for 1998–99 in comparison with 1997–98: average number of disabled people—extra 250; average number of Interworkers—extra 350; progressions—extra 50; operating deficit per disabled worker—decrease of £300 per annum (at cash prices); operating deficit per Interworker—decrease of £100 per annum (at cash prices).

  Remploy is currently developing its plans for 1999–2000 and for future years. The subsidy will be subject to those plans and further negotiations with the Department. My predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth), met the Remploy unions on 2 February 1998. I intend to meet the Remploy unions myself in due course.

  Careers Service
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to require Careers Service contractors to meet an externally verified quality framework if they are to become preferred suppliers under the future contracting arrangements for the Careers Service. [56209]

  Mr. Mudie
  The Careers Service future contracting is being considered. We are currently considering a number of options and I expect to make an announcement on the future contracting arrangements early in the new year.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what arrangements are in place for monitoring progress towards meeting the Government's targets on class sizes. [57510]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 2 November 1998]: In addition to the monitoring information available from the Schools' Census data collected each January, we will also be taking a count of infant pupils and classes in September 1999, September 2000 and September 2001.

  Specialist Disability Services
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many of the million people with disabilities cited in Support for Disabled People who state they wish to work will benefit from the investment in specialist disability services announced in this document. [58133]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]: The Government's recent announcement set out action already taking place and proposed changes to help one million disabled people who are not in work but who want to work. This includes the reform of the All Work Test to focus on capacity as well as incapacity; a single gateway interview to provide advice and support into work; and, looking at ways of helping disabled people stay in work through the New Deal for Disabled People.
  658
  Our investment of an additional £30m in specialist disability services will be of direct help to some 8,500 disabled people who need extra support to get a job. Since some of this money will be used to test new ways of helping disabled people into work, the actual number helped over time will be greater.

  People with a disability or long term illness will also be able to benefit from the New Deal for Disabled People for which £195 million has been set aside for the lifetime of this Parliament. This will pilot a range of initiatives to help disabled people and those with long-term illness into work and training through the Government's Welfare to Work approach.

  National Childcare Strategy
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what estimate his Department has made of the cost to local education authorities of carrying out the audit of supply of, and demand for, childcare required under the National Childcare Strategy; [57698]

  (2) what money has been made available to local education authorities to carry out audits of the supply of, and demand for, childcare, as required under the National Childcare Strategy. [57700]

  Ms Hodge
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to her by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth) on 16 July 1998,Official Report, column 301. I can confirm that £12 million has now been made available to help local partnerships conduct audits and draw up local childcare plans.

  "Partners in Europe"
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) solicited and (b) unsolicited copies of the schools pack "Partners in Europe" were distributed; and how many remain in stock. [58030]

  Mr. Mudie
  The information and resource pack for schools "Partners in Europe" was distributed in January 1998 to all schools in the UK on the following basis: two to each school in England, one to each school in Scotland, two to each school in Wales and two to each school in Northern Ireland. Each country was responsible for its own distribution. Copies were also sent to LEAs in England, Scotland and Wales, Education and Libraries Boards in Northern Ireland and organisations such as the Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and OFSTED. Since the initial distribution, there have been 614 requests in England for additional copies. 432 resource packages are currently in stock, but this figure includes the resource pack that was distributed to youth groups in the UK.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what were the(a) printing, (b) preparation and (c) distribution costs of the schools pack "Partners in Europe". [58029]

  Mr. Mudie
  The costs of producing the 66,000 copies of the schools pack "Partners in Europe" were shared between the four UK education departments and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The costs were as
  659
  follows: (a) printing of specially commissioned booklets and wallets, £129,140; (b) other preparation costs, £66,197, and (c) initial distribution costs, £113,947.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Judiciary (Training)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if the training for the judiciary on the implications of the Human Rights Bill[Lords] will include training relating to (a) equality and (b) disability issues. [57697]

  Mr. Hoon
  Judicial training is the responsibility of the Judicial Studies Board (JSB) which is an advisory non-departmental public body. The Equal Treatment Advisory Committee of the Board considers all aspects of equal treatment training for the judiciary, including training on increasing awareness of the needs of people with disabilities.

  The JSB is currently drawing up the programme of training for full and part-time members of the judiciary in the months prior to implementation of the Human Rights Bill. This will include training on those parts of the European Convention on Human Rights that relate to equality and disability issues.

  Property Repossessions
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the numbers of possession actions(a) commenced and (b) concluded by the making of a possession order for (i) mortgagee actions and (ii) landlord actions in England for the last three years. [57487]

  Mr. Hoon
  The information is as follows:

  1995

  Mortgage possessions

  Landlord possessions

  actions started

  84,170

  104,408

  suspended orders

  44,723

  58,652

  final orders

  30,535

  26,487

  1996

  actions started

  79,791

  111,804

  suspended orders

  43,434

  63,030

  final orders

  27,777

  24,842

  1997

  actions started

  67,073

  130,163

  suspended orders

  34,632

  73,164

  final orders

  22,524

  26,612

  Civil Servants (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) if he will provide a breakdown, in numerical and percentage terms, of the ethnic origin of civil servants in his private office, as at 1 October 1997; [56795]

  (2) if he will provide a breakdown, in numerical and percentage terms, of the ethnic origin of civil servants in his Department, by grade, as at 1 October 1997. [56793]
  660
  Mr. Hoon
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers given him today by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office,Official Report, columns 666–71.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fishing (Controls)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to introduce new controls over landings into the United Kingdom following the publication of consultative proposals issued on 3 March; and if he will make a statement. [58952]

  Mr. Morley
  From 5 January 1999 it will be a condition of UK fishing vessel licences that at least four hours notice must be given of all landings of whitefish and shellfish by vessels of 20m overall length and above. Landings (discharge of catches) must then be completed within four hours unless otherwise authorised. These requirements will not, however, apply where landings are made into designated ports during specified hours provided the master or his representative submits a copy of a completed logsheet prior to the discharge of catch taking place. The designated ports will be those set out in the consultation paper issued last March although for a number of ports the specified hours of landing have been changed in response to representations received. Prior notification is already required for the landing of the main pelagic species and this will continue to operate.

  These arrangements will be kept under review and, if circumstances alter, changes in the arrangements will be considered.

  The new arrangements will be consistent with tougher Community controls on landings currently being finalised and expected to operate from 1 January 1999. These will enable Member States to apply national designated port controls to vessels from other Member States and third countries landing into their territory. A more rigorous control requirement for 4 hours' notice of arrival in port is also expected to apply to vessels landing abroad unless specific designated port arrangements operate.

  The Fisheries Departments will be writing to vessels owners and other interests later this month advising them about the detailed arrangements including those for providing prior notification of landing.

  Fishing (Grant Applications)
  Ms Southworth
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the charges levied by the Sea Fish Industry Authority when processing applications for grant aid. [58951]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government intend when the legislative programme allows, to introduce legislation to provide retrospective statutory authority for technical charges levied by the Sea Fish Industry Authority (SFIA) when processing applications for grant aid under the Fisheries Act 1981. This will regularise the position following advice which has cast doubt on the SFIA's view that their powers to charge contained in the Act covered the technical charges which were levied up until 1995.
  661
  I believe that the charges levied were reasonable ones and that the costs of making repayments would be disproportionate to any benefit such repayment would confer on those to whom it was made. The Ministry does not therefore propose to meet any claims that are brought before the proposed legislation is in place.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he proposes to take to harmonise the current trial procedures of genetically modified crops in the United Kingdom with those carried out in Europe. [56046]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]: Controls over the release and marketing of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are harmonised across the EU by Directive 90/220/EEC. The information requirements to evaluate the safety of GMO releases are set out in this Directive. However, each consent application is reviewed on a case by case basis and trials procedures may vary according to the characteristics of the GMO and the receiving environment.

  Furthermore, no genetically modified plant variety may enter tests and trials for National List purposes unless and until a release consent has been issued under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the regulations made under it. The UK's National List system implements EU Directives 70/457/EEC and 70/458/EEC which harmonises the requirement to establish that varieties are distinct, uniform and stable (DUS) and, for the main agricultural species, that they have a value for cultivation and use (VCU) before being entered on a National List. The National List system has no role in considering the environmental or human safety aspects of genetic modification.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has extend the period of tests required for genetically modified seeds; and if he will make a statement. [56047]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]: I have no plans to extend the period of tests required for National List purposes.

  National List tests and trials are aimed solely at establishing whether candidate varieties are distinct, uniform and stable (DUS) and have value for cultivation and use (VCU) in the UK. The National List system has no role in addressing the environmental or human safety aspects of genetically modification. Genetically modified plant varieties may not enter National List tests and trials unless and until they have the appropriate release consent under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the regulations made under it. For most varieties, National List tests and trials normally last two years, though this period may be extended if necessary to provide the required information to establish DUS and VCU.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to consult the public on the Supply Chain Initiative for Modification in Agricultural Crops code of practice before it is agreed between Government and industry. [57712]
  662
  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]: The Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops (SCIMAC) is an industry grouping, which has drawn up guidelines to promote best practice in the growing of genetically modified crops. The Government have welcomed these guidelines as a complement to the statutory controls, but will not give them endorsement until they are satisfied that the industry has implemented measures to secure compliance. It is for the industry to decide what consultations to carry out, and we have impressed upon them the importance of an open and transparent approach.

  BSE
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of costs incurred to date by Government and other public sector agencies as a result of releasing witnesses for the BSE inquiry. [57084]

  Mr. Rooker
  No such estimate has been made. The Inquiry has taken evidence from some 60 witnesses who are current members of MAFF and its agencies.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the inquiry into BSE is considering the possible role of organophosphates in causing this disease. [57301]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Inquiry are considering all theories put to them including that relating to the possible role of organophosphates.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the current inquiry into BSE to publish its report. [57294]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Inquiry is due to report to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Secretary of State for Health and the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland by 30 June 1999. The Inquiry's report will be published by Government in due course thereafter.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his Department's responsibility for BSE compensation. [57340]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]: Animals suspected of being affected by or exposed to BSE are slaughtered under Section 32 of the Animal Health Act 1981. Under Section 32(3), compensation is payable in respect of the animals slaughtered.

  The compensation payable for animals affected by BSE is the market value up to a ceiling of 100% of the indicative market price. The compensation payable for animals suspected of being affected by BSE, but in which the disease is not subsequently confirmed, is the market value of the animal up to a ceiling of 125% of the indicative market price. The indicative market price for the month of November 1998 is £467.

  Farmers may also be eligible for payments in relation to exposed animals slaughtered under the Selective Cull, and for offspring animals under the Offspring Cull.

  Meat Inspection Charges
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the abattoir industry urging meat inspection charges on a headage only basis. [57727]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department has received a number of representations calling for the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) to calculate its charges for hygiene/welfare inspections on a per head basis. The decision for the MHS to calculate its charges on a per-hour basis was taken after full consultation with industry.

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if working knowledge of the English language is a condition of employment for foreign veterinarians engaged by the Meat Hygiene Service. [57726]

  Mr. Rooker
  Foreign veterinarians engaged by the Meat Hygiene Service are required to have a working knowledge of the English language. The MHS has introduced an assessment, as part of the Official Veterinary Surgeon training course, for non-United Kingdom nationals, to assess their ability to understand and communicate in English.

  Rabies
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the incidence of rabies in each EU and EEA country in each of the last five years. [57453]

  Mr. Rooker
  The incidence of rabies in domestic and wild animals in each EU and EEA Country in each of the last five years was as follows:

  Country

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Austria

  675

  254

  95

  14

  8

  Belgium

  2

  61

  213

  44

  9

  Denmark

  1

  13

  1

  0

  8

  Finland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  France

  261

  99

  240

  17

  2

  Germany

  845

  1,378

  856

  152

  86

  Greece

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Iceland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Ireland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Italy

  82

  36

  11

  0

  0

  Luxembourg

  1

  1

  15

  17

  2

  Netherlands

  10

  1

  34

  5

  13

  Norway

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Portugal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Spain

  45

  3

  46

  41

  45

  Switzerland and Liechtenstein

  175

  225

  23

  6

  51

  Sweden

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  UK

  0

  0

  0

  61

  0

  1 Two of these cases were imported from USA.

  2 One of these cases was a dog imported from Burkina Faso.

  3 One of these cases was a grey fox imported into Netherlands.

  4 Cases in Spanish territory of North Africa.

  5 One of these cases was a dog imported from Morocco.

  6 This was a case of European Bat Lyssavirus 2 in a bat discovered in Newhaven. The bat was believed to have blown across the Channel.

  Source:

  The Rabies Bulletin Europe, compiled and edited by the World Health Organisation (WHO) Collaborating Centre for Rabies Surveillance and Research, Federal Republic of Germany.

  Veterinary Service Charges
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact of additional official veterinary service charges upon the viability of United Kingdom abattoirs. [57723]

  Mr. Rooker
  The impact on GB abattoirs will depend upon the circumstances prevailing at individual premises. These include the current level of veterinary supervision, the size and throughput of the premises, the complexity and standard of hygiene of operations and the type of animal being slaughtered. The MHS will notify plant operators of the intended arrangements and the charging implications for their plant in advance of any changes being made.

  Farm Income (Currency Mechanisms)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in which of his Department's publications the basis and operation of the ecu basket of currencies and national green currencies used for calculating price support for agricultural products is described; and what assessment he has made of the extent to which these mechanisms influence the net farm income available to farmers in the United Kingdom(a) currently and (b) following the introduction of the euro. [57484]

  Mr. Rooker
  The precise basis and operation of the current agrimonetary regime is not outlined in any of my Department's publications.

  The agrimonetary regime has sheltered farm incomes from the full effect of the strong pound by slowing down the rate at which currency strength feeds through to the sterling value of CAP prices and direct payments. UK farm incomes are also benefiting from the current green rate freeze, which has been worth £400m to UK farmers over the last two years.

  The Commission's draft regulations, which are still under discussion, propose a move to daily market rates, but also include measures for 100% EU financed compensation for any cuts in direct payments in 1999. This would cushion the impact of the end of the green rate freeze on UK farm incomes, and has been welcomed by UK farming organisations.

  Beef of the Bone
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is(a) the overall cost to date and (b) the average annual cost per farm of deboning beef products as a result of the ban on sales of beef on the bone. [57503]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 2 November 1998]: Under the Beef Bones Regulations 1997, deboning may take place in the course of a business at any food premises, including farm shops selling meat, before sale to the ultimate consumer. The estimated costs of these controls were set out in the Regulatory Appraisal which

  665
  accompanied the Regulations when they were presented to Parliament. A copy is available in the Library of the House. No costs were included or are available for deboning beef on farms as these, with the exception of farm shops, are not food premises as defined in the Food Safety Act 1990 where beef can be deboned.

  Piglet Mortality
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the number of piglets lost annually to predation, and of the economic loss which this represents. [57924]

  Mr. Rooker
  None. The information necessary to make such estimates is not available centrally.

  Agricultural Prices
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what additional resources will be allocated to assist farming communities with the fall in produce prices. [58190]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government fully appreciate the difficulties currently being faced by all sectors of the farming industry. We are well aware, as a result of discussions with farmers' leaders and visits to rural areas, that many farmers would welcome additional assistance to cope with their current difficulties.

  However, given the tight position on public expenditure we must give very careful consideration before extending any package of assistance to farmers. We are keenly aware of the case being put by the farming unions and other interested organisations, and are now considering the options available to us.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the percentage of the loss to farmers whose cattle are affected by bovine TB which is covered by the Ministry's compensation scheme; and if he will provide a breakdown of his estimate of the total losses incurred. [58075]

  Mr. Rooker
  The National Farmers Union estimates the total cost to farmers of tuberculosis in cattle in Great Britain to average £5,300 per animal slaughtered, including consequential losses, although the cost to individual farm businesses varies widely.

  During 1997 compensation was paid at 75% of market value of cattle slaughtered as TB reactors, subject to a limit (calculated from the average market price for dairy cattle) which averaged £656 across the year. This represents 12% of £5,300. Since 26 August 1998 compensation has been paid equal to the full market value of slaughtered cattle. To the end of October payments made averaged £970, 18% of £5,300.

  Cattle Blood
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the regulations which apply to the transport of blood of cattle over 30 months, following their slaughter. [58246]
  666
  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]: Carriers of waste blood from OTMS animals must register with the Environment Agency or the Scottish Environment Protection Agency under the Controlled Waste (Registration of Carriers and Seizure of Vehicles) Regulations 1991. The only exception relates to the transport of blood from diseased animals, which may be transported by persons who hold an approval or registration under the Animal By-Products Order 1992, and who transport the blood in connection with the activity to which the approval or registration applies. In such cases the Order requires the blood to be collected and transported in suitable containers or vehicles in such a way as to prevent leakage.

  Agricultural Wages Order
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated compliance cost of the most recent agricultural wages order. [58454]

  Mr. Rooker
  Agricultural wages orders are made by the Agricultural Wages Board which is an independent statutory body. The Board's most recent order, the Agricultural Wages Order 1998 (No. 2) came into effect on 1 October 1998. This order introduced a number of changes to bring the terms of the order into line with the provisions of the Working Time Regulations 1998, which also came into effect on 1 October. The most significant changes introduced were the extension of leave entitlements to casual workers who have been employed by the same employer for 13 weeks, and an entitlement to an unpaid 30 minute rest break.

  Information on the compliance costs associated with the implementation of the Working Time Regulations is given in Annexe E to the consultation paper "Measures to Implement Provisions of the EC Directives on the Organisation of Working Time and the Protection of Young People at Work" (URN: 98/645). This was issued by the Department of Trade and Industry in April 1998.

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Servants (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will provide a breakdown, in numerical and percentage terms, of the ethnic origin of civil servants in his Department, by grade, as at 1 October 1997. [56820]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The information for all Government Departments is as follows:

  Information on the ethnic origin of civil servants is collected using a voluntary, confidential questionnaire. The number and percentage of civil servants from ethnic minorities who have submitted a questionnaire, by grade equivalents, for each Department, are set out in the tables. Civil Service employment statistics are centrally collected and updated annually, as at 1 April. Data for 1998 are still being collated, therefore the figures quoted in this answer are as at 1 April 1997.
  667

  Number of ethnic minority staff in post by department and responsibility level at 1 April 19971

  Departments

  SCS

  Grade 6

  Grade 7

  SEO

  HEO

  EO

  AO

  AA

  Total

  Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service

  3—

  3—

  3—

  5—

  6

  5—

  22

  8

  41

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Ministry of 2

  3—

  5—

  13

  9

  25

  43

  136

  147

  380

  Cabinet Office

  3—

  3—

  5—

  3—

  5—

  20

  43

  15

  81

  Charity Commission

  3—

  3—

  5—

  3—

  5—

  15

  31

  21

  71

  Crown Prosecution Service2

  3—

  5—

  15

  100

  14

  86

  139

  75

  430

  Culture, Media and Sport, Department for2

  3—

  3—

  3—

  5—

  3—

  5

  14

  15

  40

  Customs and Excise

  5—

  5—

  9

  13

  113

  426

  506

  247

  1,318

  Defence, Ministry of

  10

  9

  50

  109

  164

  238

  385

  369

  1,334

  Education and Employment, Department for

  3—

  3—

  10

  10

  51

  641

  1,590

  154

  2,456

  Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED)

  3—

  5—

  5—

  3—

  5—

  7

  22

  5—

  52

  Environment, Transport and the Regions, Department of the

  3—

  7

  24

  47

  56

  163

  363

  139

  805

  Health and Safety Commission/Executive2

  3—

  5—

  6

  28

  17

  26

  65

  57

  200

  Export Credits Guarantee Department

  3—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  10

  14

  22

  12

  65

  FCO: Diplomatic Service

  3—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  19

  35

  100

  27

  189

  Friendly Societies, Registry of

  5—

  5—

  3—

  5—

  5—

  5

  13

  8

  32

  Government Actuary

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  5—

  5—

  3—

  5—

  Health, Department of 2

  12

  5—

  30

  66

  5

  124

  289

  6

  530

  HM Prison Service

  14

  42

  8

  8

  38

  119

  646

  220

  1,095

  Home Office

  5—

  5—

  5

  15

  42

  319

  549

  347

  1,280

  Information, Central Office of

  3—

  3—

  3—

  5—

  5

  7

  11

  5—

  26

  Inland Revenue

  5

  10

  30

  39

  180

  561

  1,286

  1,262

  3,373

  International Development, Department for

  5—

  5—

  5—

  3—

  5—

  13

  43

  14

  76

  Intervention Board

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  8

  43

  14

  65

  Land Registry

  5—

  5—

  3—

  8

  8

  56

  210

  106

  391

  Legal Secretariat

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  5—

  3—

  5—

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  3—

  3—

  5—

  5—

  26

  194

  555

  171

  955

  National Investment and Loans Office

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  5—

  5—

  3—

  5

  National Savings, Department for

  3—

  3—

  5—

  3—

  5—

  5—

  17

  8

  31

  National Statistics, Office for

  3—

  3—

  6

  5

  17

  45

  81

  16

  170

  Northern Ireland Office

  3—

  3—

  5—

  3—

  3—

  6

  5—

  11

  21

  Office of Electricity Regulation

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  6

  9

  6

  21

  Office of Fair Trading

  5—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  5—

  14

  27

  15

  58

  Office of Gas Supply

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  6

  5—

  5—

  11

  Office of Passenger Rail Franchising

  3—

  3—

  5—

  3—

  5—

  5—

  6

  3—

  12

  Office of the National Lottery

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  5—

  3—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  Office of the Rail Regulator

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  5—

  5

  5—

  8

  Ordnance Survey

  3—

  3—

  3—

  5—

  5—

  13

  7

  5—

  25

  Privy Council Office

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  5—

  5—

  3—

  5—

  Public Record Office2

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  5

  6

  5—

  20

  Royal Mint

  3—

  3—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  3—

  3—

  5—

  5—

  Scottish Office

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  7

  20

  Other Scottish departments

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  5—

  5—

  5

  13

  Security and Intelligence Services

  3—

  3—

  3—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5

  3—

  13

  Serious Fraud Office

  5—

  3—

  3—

  5—

  5—

  9

  8

  5—

  28

  Social Security, Department of 2

  3—

  20

  5—

  8

  63

  914

  3,216

  1,056

  5,280

  Trade and Industry, Department of 2

  3—

  5—

  19

  42

  96

  187

  405

  205

  960

  Treasury

  5—

  3—

  5

  8

  3—

  12

  56

  18

  100

  Treasury Solicitor

  5—

  5—

  6

  5—

  5—

  12

  21

  5—

  50

  Welsh Office (including OHMCIS)

  3—

  3—

  3—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5

  5—

  13

  Total

  51

  120

  259

  542

  993

  4,381

  10,977

  4,802

  22,148

  Percentage of ethnic minority staff in post by department and responsibility level at 1 April 19971

  Departments

  SCS

  Grade 6

  Grade 7

  SEO

  HEO

  EO

  AO

  AA

  Total

  Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service

  3—

  3—

  3—

  0.9

  2.8

  7.7

  16.7

  32.0

  7.3

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Ministry of

  3—

  1.6

  1.9

  1.5

  2.3

  3.0

  6.9

  9.5

  4.9

  Cabinet Office (including OPS)

  3—

  3—

  0.9

  3—

  1.7

  10.2

  18.6

  12.8

  9.1

  Charity Commission

  3—

  4—

  3.8

  3—

  4.2

  8.8

  24.8

  28.0

  14.0

  Crown Prosecution Service

  3—

  2.0

  3.2

  8.5

  4.2

  7.2

  11.7

  11.2

  8.3

  Culture, Media and Sport, Department for

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3.6

  3—

  6.7

  6.6

  19.7

  6.9

  Customs and Excise

  1.4

  3.7

  2.7

  1.0

  2.5

  6.1

  10.0

  9.7

  6.3

  Defence, Ministry of

  2.8

  1.2

  1.7

  1.8

  1.4

  1.6

  2.0

  3.1

  2.0

  Education and Employment, Department for

  3—

  3—

  1.9

  1.5

  2.7

  8.2

  14.0

  14.7

  10.5

  Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED)

  3—

  2.2

  16.7

  3—

  13.6

  15.6

  40.0

  40.0

  11.4

  Environment, Transport and the Regions, Department of the

  3—

  2.3

  2.8

  5.8

  3.6

  4.4

  10.0

  8.0

  6.2

  Health and Safety Commission/Executive

  3—

  1.7

  1.1

  2.7

  3.9

  6.8

  8.5

  11.5

  5.2

  Export Credits Guarantee Department

  3—

  20.0

  8.5

  6.7

  12.2

  17.3

  35.5

  46.2

  18.5

  FCO: Diplomatic Service

  3—

  1.3

  0.6

  1.3

  2.1

  2.9

  9.4

  15.7

  4.1

  Friendly Societies, Registry of

  16.7

  50.0

  3—

  18.2

  13.3

  23.8

  52.0

  50.0

  30.2

  Government Actuary

  3—

  4—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  100.0

  50.0

  3—

  8.0

  668

  669

  Percentage of ethnic minority staff in post by department and responsibility level at 1 April 19971

  Departments

  SCS

  Grade 6

  Grade 7

  SEO

  HEO

  EO

  AO

  AA

  Total

  Health, Department of

  4.3

  11.1

  5.2

  8.2

  6.4

  17.8

  26.9

  54.5

  15.1

  HM Prison Service

  20.3

  24.3

  1.7

  1.1

  3.6

  3.0

  2.5

  3.9

  2.9

  Home Office

  1.0

  2.2

  1.2

  2.7

  3.0

  9.7

  22.5

  18.8

  12.6

  Information, Central Office of

  3—

  3—

  3—

  2.5

  7.0

  21.9

  22.0

  5.0

  9.0

  Inland Revenue

  2.1

  1.1

  1.4

  1.8

  3.1

  4.5

  6.8

  9.1

  6.0

  International Development, Department for

  3.4

  3.8

  1.7

  3—

  2.8

  7.0

  14.1

  15.2

  9.1

  Intervention Board

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  4.3

  11.7

  19.2

  8.3

  Land Registry

  4.0

  1.5

  3

  2.8

  1.5

  2.5

  6.6

  6.8

  4.9

  Legal Secretariat

  3—

  3—

  3—

  4—

  4—

  3—

  33.3

  3—

  5.6

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  3—

  3—

  2.1

  1.1

  2.7

  9.3

  11.8

  8.3

  9.1

  National Investment and Loans Office

  3—

  4—

  3—

  3—

  4—

  20.0

  33.3

  4—

  17.9

  National Savings, Department for

  3—

  3—

  2.6

  3—

  0.3

  0.7

  0.8

  0.6

  0.7

  National Statistics, Office for

  3—

  3—

  3.8

  3.1

  3.8

  6.4

  7.9

  3.8

  5.7

  Northern Ireland Office

  3—

  3—

  12.5

  3—

  3—

  31.6

  14.3

  34.4

  20.8

  Office of Electricity Regulation

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  15.4

  18.4

  26.1

  10.3

  Office of Fair Trading

  20.0

  3—

  3—

  3—

  2.3

  22.2

  49.1

  57.7

  26.2

  Office of Gas Supply

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  19.4

  20.0

  50.0

  12.1

  Office of Passenger Rail Franchising

  3—

  3—

  3.1

  3—

  16.7

  30.0

  35.3

  3—

  11.3

  Office of the National Lottery

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  100.0

  4—

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  Office of the Rail Regulator

  3—

  3—

  3—

  4—

  3—

  11.1

  17.9

  100.0

  7.5

  Ordnance Survey

  3—

  3—

  3—

  1.5

  1.1

  1.4

  2.7

  4.2

  1.5

  Privy Council Office

  3—

  4—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  10.0

  11.0

  3—

  14.3

  Public Record Office

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  19.2

  35.3

  25.0

  15.0

  Royal Mint

  3—

  3—

  14.3

  6.7

  0.9

  3—

  3—

  3.3

  1.1

  Scottish Office

  0.7

  1.4

  0.3

  0.3

  0.4

  0.1

  0.4

  0.8

  0.4

  Other Scottish departments

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  0.5

  0.5

  0.0

  Security and Intelligence Services

  3—

  3—

  3—

  0.2

  0.4

  0.1

  0.6

  3—

  0.3

  Serious Fraud Office

  14.3

  3—

  3—

  6.3

  17.4

  29.0

  27.6

  33.3

  16.9

  Social Security, Dept of

  3—

  9.3

  0.7

  0.9

  1.8

  4.3

  7.5

  8.3

  6.4

  Trade and Industry, Department of

  3—

  3.1

  2.4

  7.3

  6.6

  11.9

  18.5

  16.9

  11.8

  Treasury

  1.5

  3—

  4.0

  4.8

  4—

  11.9

  25.2

  32.7

  13.4

  Treasury Solicitor

  2.8

  3.4

  11.5

  13.3

  10.7

  21.1

  32.3

  13.6

  15.0

  Welsh Office (including OHMCIS)

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3.7

  0.5

  0.8

  1.2

  0.6

  0.9

  Total

  1.6

  2.9

  1.9

  2.8

  2.6

  4.8

  7.2

  7.6

  5.7

  1 Number of non industrial staff who responded to departmental surveys on ethnic origin

  2 Rounded to nearest 10 to preserve confidentiality

  3 Zero per cent.

  4 No staff reported at this grade

  5 Less than five staff

  Note:

  Departmental totals include a few staff whose grades are not known

  Source:

  Mandate and Departmental Returns

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will provide a breakdown, in numerical and percentage terms, of the ethnic origin of civil servants in his private office, as at 1 October 1997. [56822]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The information for all Government Departments is as follows:

  Information on the ethnic origin of civil servants is collected using a voluntary, confidential questionnaire. The number and percentage of ethnic minority staff in Ministers' private offices are set out in the table. Civil Service employment statistics are collected and updated annually, as at 1 April. Data for 1998 are still being collated, therefore the figures quoted in this answer are as at 1 April 1997.

  To protect the privacy of individual staff, data relating to fewer than five people are not disclosed in Civil Service equal opportunities monitoring.
  670

  Ethnic origin of Private Office staff at 1 April 19971

  Department

  Ethnic minority

  Ethnic minority(%)

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Ministry of

  5

  20

  Cabinet Office

  5

  26.3

  Culture, Media and Sport, Department for

  *

  n/a

  Defence, Ministry of

  *

  n/a

  Education and Employment, Department for

  8

  15.1

  Environment Transport and the Regions, Department of the

  9

  15.8

  FCO

  *

  n/a

  Health, Department of

  *

  n/a

  Home Office

  8

  12.7

  Department for International Development

  *

  n/a

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  *

  n/a

  Northern Ireland Office

  *

  n/a

  Privy Council Office

  0

  0

  Scottish Office

  *

  n/a

  Social Security

  11

  28.2

  Trade and Industry, Department of

  15

  23.4

  Treasury

  *

  n/a

  1Based on headcount of staff who responded to survey on ethnic origin

  * Less than five

  Source:

  Departmental Returns
  671
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will provide a breakdown in numerical and percentage terms, of the ethnic origin, as at 1 October 1997, of civil servants at each grade. [56843]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  Information on the ethnic origin of civil servants is collected using a voluntary, confidential questionnaire. The number and percentage of civil servants from ethnic minorities who have submitted a questionnaire, by grade equivalents, is set out in the table. Civil Service employment statistics are centrally collected and updated annually, as at 1 April. Data for 1998 are still being checked, therefore the figures quoted in this answer are as at 1 April 1997.

  Total ethnic minority staff in post by responsibility level at 1 April 19971

  Responsibility Level

  Ethnic minority staff number

  Ethnic minority staff percentage

  SCS

  51

  1.6

  Grade 6

  120

  2.9

  Grade 7

  259

  1.9

  SEO

  542

  2.8

  HEO

  993

  2.6

  EO

  4,381

  4.8

  AO

  10,977

  7.2

  AA

  4,802

  7.6

  Total

  22,148

  5.7

  1 Non industrial staff who responded to departmental surveys on ethnic origin.

  Source:

  Mandate and Departmental Returns

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will publish the names of those people he has appointed to public bodies since 1 May 1997, indicating the positions to which they have been appointed and whether they receive remuneration. [56821]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The public bodies for which I am responsible, as Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, are: The Civil Service Appeal Board; the Better Regulation Task Force; The Advisory Committee on Advertising and The Advisory Committee for Justice of the Peace in Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside. The following appointments or reappointments have been made since the 1 May 1997:

  The Better Regulation Task Force

  Chairperson

  Christopher Haskins

  Deputy Chairperson

  Teresa Graham

  Members

  Stephen Alambritis

  Sarah Anderson

  Allan Charlesworth

  Hugh Field

  Ram Gidoomal

  Sir Simon Gourlay

  Pamela Meadows

  Robert Purry

  Chai Patel

  672

  Janet Russell

  Peter Salsbury

  Helena Shovelton

  Sue Slipman

  Ed Sweeney

  Civil Service Appeal Board

  Chairperson

  Miss M. P. Downs, OBE

  Deputy Chairperson

  N. F. Ledsome,CB

  Member, Official Side Panel

  M. E. G. Fogden, CB

  E. McGivern, CB

  Ms S. Brown

  S.R. Davie, CB

  T.W. Hall

  R. M. Hastie-Smith, CB

  P. Jefferson-Smith, CB

  N. E. A. Moore

  Miss E. A. Rees

  Member, Trade Union Side Panel

  Ms L. J. Clare

  T. Thompson

  W. J. Edmunds, BEM

  T. R. Graves, MBE

  Ms D. Hall Hall

  A. F. Stem

  The Advisory Committee on Justices of the Peace in Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside

  Members

  R. Matthews, JP

  Mrs. B. G. Jones

  C.J. Starkey

  J. Alexander, JP

  D.Bentham, JP

  Mrs. M. S. Dutton, JP

  Mrs. J. Brittain, JP

  Mrs. B. Kilfoyle, JP

  H. M. Winik, JP

  Mrs. M. A. Bishop, JP

  Mrs. C. Nancollas, JP

  Mrs. J. Hurlston

  Mrs. A. Saltsman, JP

  Mrs. S. Marston, JP

  Mrs. L. Worsley, JP

  Ms A. H. Martin

  W. A. Fletcher, JP

  E. McCulley, JP

  J. G. Poyner, OBE

  Miss E. J. Partington, JP

  Mrs. C. Beesley, JP

  Mrs. M. A. McCaldin, JP

  Mrs. B. Duxbury, JP

  A. J. Sudworth

  E. G. Hubert

  Mrs. C. Grannell, JP

  Mrs. P. M. Snowden, JP

  Reverend G. Rainford

  673

  G. Knowles, JP

  Mrs. M. Fishwick, JP

  M. Flacks, JP

  R. P. Shepherd, JP

  D. R. Jones

  Mrs. D. M. Hilton, JP

  D. Wainwright, JP

  B. T. Spencer

  E.A. Hazeldine

  I. M. Chapman, JP

  Mrs. J. L. Berry, JP

  M. V. Evans

  Mrs. S. E. Mashiane-Talbot, JP

  Mrs. D. E. Morton, JP

  B. Corbin.

  There have been no appointments or re-appointments to the Advisory Committee on Advertising since 1 May 1997. However, Mr. Derek Dear, an existing member of the Committee, was appointed as Chairperson on 4 March 1998 on the retirement of the previous incumbent.

  No members of any Cabinet Office Public Body receive a salary. Members of the Civil Service Appeal Board receive a fee per daily attendance.

  Government Cars
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many Government cars have been (i) stolen, (ii) hijacked and (iii) otherwise illegally lost to immediate use, broken down by(a) ministers' cars and (b) others since 1 May 1997. [57752]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Responsibility for this matter have been delegated under the terms of its Framework Document to the Government Car and Despatch Agency. I have asked its Chief Executive, Mr. Nick Matheson, to write to the right hon. Member.

  Letter from Nick Matheson to Sir Brian Mawhinney, dated November 1998:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, has asked me in my capacity as Chief Executive of the Government Car and Despatch Agency to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the theft, hijacking, or other illegal loss of government cars. This Agency provides cars and drivers to some government departments. It is not responsible for all government cars.
  Of those cars provided by this Agency since 1 May 1997, only one car has been stolen. This was in June 1998 and was a non ministerial car used mainly for driver training purposes. No other cars have been hijacked or suffered any other illegal loss of use.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Autism
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps she is taking to collect information centrally on autistic children in Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement. [57622]
  674
  Mr. McFall
  Information on autistic children in Northern Ireland is not held centrally and we have no plans to collect such information. It is for Health and Social Services boards and Education and Library to determine the needs of children with autism in their respective areas and work to ensure that these needs are met.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps she is taking to issue specific guidance on services for autistic children in Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement. [57621]

  Mr. McFall
  We have no plans to issue guidance specifically related to children with autism at this time. Guidance on services for children with disability, including those with autism, is contained in "The Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 Guidance and Regulations, Volume 5—Children with a Disability" published by HMSO in 1996.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what steps she is taking to ensure that educational authorities in Northern Ireland have sufficient funds to develop new services for autistic children; and if she will make a statement; [57626]

  (2) if she will introduce a charter for persons with autism in line with the charter adopted at the fourth Autism European Congress in May 1992; and if she will make a statement. [57627]

  (3) what steps she is taking to instruct each education authority in Northern Ireland to provide her with information on the provision of special educational facilities for children who suffer from autism or other forms of early childhood psychosis; and if she will make a statement; [57623]

  (4) what steps she is taking to ensure that each child with autism in Northern Ireland receives a relevant educational service; and if she will make a statement. [57624]

  Mr. McFall
  Education and Library Boards are required by legislation and funded by the Department of Education for Northern Ireland to assess and provide for all children in Northern Ireland with special educational needs, including autism. Special educational needs assessments are individual to each child, involving the provision of advice to Boards by a range of professionals, and statements of special educational needs are reviewed annually to ensure that the provision made remains relevant to each child's needs. Boards of Governors of schools also have the statutory duty to use their best endeavours to secure that if any registered pupil has special educational needs, the provision which his learning difficulty calls for is made. Provision is monitored by the Education and Training Inspectorate, who report satisfactory levels of provision and priority for autistic children. Information on provision and facilities for all children with special educational needs is readily available to the Department of Education from the education and Library boards.
  675
  Education and Library Boards in Northern Ireland already provide guidance on request in the range of educational services for children with special educational needs, including autistic spectrum disorder.

  Industrial Site, Downpatrick
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken to market the new industrial site currently under construction on the Belfast Road, Downpatrick, in the(a) United States of America, (b) Canada, (c) Central Europe and (d) the Far East; and what have been the results of the marketing exercise. [57338]

  Mr. Ingram
  The overseas marketing by the Industrial Development Board (IDB) present the business opportunity of Northern Ireland as a whole, to encourage potential Investors to visit. Rarely at this early stage do potential investors seek such details but Overseas Representatives of the IDB do visit sites when they are in Northern Ireland so that they can answer detailed questions. It is generally when potential investors visit Northern Ireland that they are keen to learn details of particular sites. This year there have been two visits to the Belfast Road site in Downpatrick.

HEALTH

  Mental Health Spending
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate total public spending in real terms on mental health over the last 10 years. [57086]

  Mr. Hutton
  Mental health and mental ill health have a very wide impact and it is not possible to estimate total public expenditure.

  Health expenditure taken from the Hospital and Community Health Services Programme Budget (at 1996–97 prices after allowing for Gross Domestic Product inflation) is shown in the following table:

  £ million

  Year

  Total spend on mental illness(inpatient, outpatient, day patient and community mental illness nursing)

  1986–87

  1,866

  1987–88

  2,051

  1988–89

  2,147

  1989–90

  2,179

  1990–91

  2,171

  1991–92

  2,163

  1992–93

  2,493

  1993–94

  2,597

  1994–95

  2,522

  1995–96

  2,589

  1996–97

  2,801

  Note:

  Figures are not comparable throughout the period shown due to a number of factors 1) the changes in the data collection systems 2) revised NHS accounting practices 3) a change in the allocation of general practitioner fundholder expenditure.
  676
  Overall Local Authority Expenditure on mental illness is shown in the table:

  £ million

  Year

  Overall amount (including the Mental Illness Specific Grant (MISG))

  1991–92

  203.11

  1992–93

  242.99

  1993–94

  304.50

  1994–95

  359.59

  1995–96

  418.50

  1996–97

  467.80

  1997–98

  65.59

  (MISG only. Local authority expenditure not available)

  1998–99

  69.42

  (MISG only. Local authority expenditure not available)

  Note:

  The above figures are shown at 1996–97 rates

  Other specific funding since 1996/97 has been the Mental Health Challenge Fund, Emergency Pressures, Mentally Disordered Offenders Strategic Assistance Fund and the National Health Service Partnership Fund. Total expenditure is £64 million.

  Accident and Emergency Units
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital accident and emergency units in(a) the North West of England and (b) England have been (i) closed and (ii) merged since 1 May 1997. [57178]

  Mr. Milburn
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Midwives
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements are made to protect midwives undertaking night calls. [57598]

  Mr. Milburn
  National Health Service employers are legally obliged to provide a safe system of work, a safe working environment, safe premises, adequate training and instructions and information which allows employees to ensure their safety at work. The guidance "Safer working in the Community" launched on the 28 October 1998, contains a great deal of information on how to reduce the risks from violence which community staff, including midwives, may encounter in their work.

  Social Services
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the level of personal social services expenditure for each local authority in England and Wales for(a) 1994–95,(b) 1995–96, (c) 1996–97 and (d) 1997–98; and what is the percentage variation against standard spending assessment in each case. [58092]
  677
  Mr. Hutton
  Details of personal social services expenditure by each local authority in England for 1994/95, 1995/96 and 1996/97 are available in the form of computer tables on the DH World Wide Web pages Internet reference http://www.open.gov.uk/doh/public/pss stat.htm. Actual expenditure figures for 1997/98 are not yet available.

  Copies of four tables which set out for each year by local authority, standing spending assessment, net expenditure and the percentage variation in each case have been placed in the Library. The figures on expenditure in the tables placed in the Library have been adjusted by Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions statisticians to make them comparable with standard spending assessments. This has meant excluding expenditure supported by special and specific grants and making some other technical changes.

  Figures for Wales are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Influenza Vaccines
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been issued through what channels, on the vaccination of pensioners against influenza. [57862]

  Ms Jowell
  Influenza vaccine is recommended for all those in whom the disease is more likely to be a serious illness, so immunisation is recommended for:those with chronic respiratory or heart disease or renal disease, diabetes and those who are immunosuppressed
  those living in long stay residential accommodation
  from this year, all those aged 75 and over.

  The Chief Medical Officer (CMO) and Chief Nursing Officer wrote to doctors and nurses advising them of this extension in policy in a joint letter in August 1998 (Personal Letter/CM098/4 Personal Letter/CNO/98/6) and a Health Services Circular (HSC 1998/140) was sent to health authorities. The Department has issued a poster and updated its two leaflets about influenza: 'What should I do about flu?' and 'Flu vaccination', available from surgeries and health centres. Copies are available in the Library.

  On 19 October, the CMO launched 'Flu Awareness Week' at a press conference organised jointly with AIMS (the Association for Influenza Monitoring and Surveillance).

  Liverpool Blood Transfusion Centre
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for investment in the Liverpool Blood Transfusion Centre; and if he will make a statement. [58074]

  Mr. Hutton
  Professor Alastair Bellingham, transitional director of the Liverpool Blood Transfusion Centre, is preparing a report for the National Blood 678
  Authority. We will consider the recommendations and options for investment when that report is ready.

  Spitting
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the public health risks caused by individuals spitting in public places; [58183]

  (2) if he will introduce measures to eradicate spitting in public places; and if he will make a statement. [58182]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department has no plans to introduce measures to eradicate spitting in public places.

  Whilst spitting is an anti-social and disagreeable habit, it is very unlikely that diseases are spread via this route. Tuberculosis and other respiratory diseases are spread through breathing infected aerosolised droplets in the air, which are produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes. Since tuberculosis and other diseases are unlikely to be spread by spitting, measures aimed at eradicating spitting are unlikely to have any effect on the spread of disease.

  Wheelchair Service
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the terms of reference for the current review of the wheelchair service for indoor and outdoor powered wheelchairs; when the contract for the review project was let; and what the deadline is for receipt of the contractor's report. [57772]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 2 November 1998]: In 1996 the then Government announced additional funding to enable health authorities to introduce the provision of electrically powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs and a voucher scheme for wheelchair users. An evaluation study of the implementation and operation of these initiatives has now begun. The evaluation will critically examine the performance of health authorities and wheelchair service providers in meeting the objectives of the two initiatives; identify the features of successful implementation; and make recommendations on any further action which may be necessary either in relation to the objectives or to improve implementation across the National Health Service.

  The contract for the evaluation study was formally awarded on 29 October 1998. The work is expected to be completed by 31 March 1999.

  Learning Disabilities
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review provision for those with learning disabilities and give guidance to health and social service authorities on best practice. [57747]
  679
  Mr. Hutton
  We already have a substantial programme of work in hand to ensure the continued, appropriate development of health and social services for people with learning disabilities. This includes:follow up to Moving into the Mainstream, the report of a Social Services Inspectorate (SSI) inspection of learning disability services in 1997;
  follow up to Signposts for Success, good practice guidance on meeting the health needs of people with learning disabilities issued by the Department in January 1998;
  a project to improve our understanding of the service models which have developed in recent years and give us a clearer picture of the services available for people with learning disabilities. The first phase involved a review of plans for learning disability hospital closures; the second is looking at the range and balance of health and social care services for people with learning disabilities in 24 local authority areas; and
  an advisory group involving key interests, including people with learning disabilities, has been set up to advise the Department on this programme of work. We will keep the need to issue further guidance under review.

  Unwanted Pregnancies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to reduce the numbers of unwanted pregnancies. [56942]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]: In November 1997, I announced the Government's commitment to reduce the rate of teenage conceptions and invited four individuals to make recommendations for the action which needs to be taken across four areas: sex and relationships education; counselling, advice and contraceptive services; vulnerable and hard to reach groups; and research. Their recommendations were received in the summer in a draft report drawn together by the Health Education Authority.

  On 31 July, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asked the Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) to work with other Departments building on the work undertaken by the Department of Health to develop an integrated strategy to cut rates of teenage parenthood, particularly under-age parenthood, towards the European average and to propose better solutions to combat the risk of social exclusion for vulnerable teenage parents and their children, reporting to Ministers by December. The SEU is consulting widely to develop its recommendations. Copies of the consultation letter have been placed in the Library.

  The Department is also in the process of reviewing existing guidance on the provision of family planning services to all age groups. This updated guidance will be produced early in the New Year and will be aimed at Primary Care Groups as well as health authorities. The Department also continues to fund the Contraceptive Education Service, which provides information for health professionals and the general public.

  NHS Trusts (Damages Awards)
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to mitigate the impact of large awards of damages on the budgets of NHS trusts and health authorities; and if he will make a statement. [57799]
  680
  Mr. Milburn
  On 29 April 1998 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to a number of organisations representing professional, legal, National Health Service and patient interests seeking their views on what can be done to reduce the number of incidents which give rise to claims against NHS trusts and health authorities, how to manage patient expectation and how to improve the handling of claims which do arise. Officials are in the process of studying replies in order to identify suggestions which might be taken forward in the future.

  Juveniles (Secure Accommodation)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer from the former Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), on 11 March 1998,Official Report, column 203, how many places in local authority secure accommodation which were planned for after 1 May 1997 (a) have been provided and (b) were planned for on the latest date for which figures are available. [58414]

  Mr. Hutton
  All six places will be available for use early in 1999. The two projects that are providing these additional places have been in the planning stage since early 1997. The latest published Departmental statistics on children's secure accommodation provides details for year ending 31 March 1997.

  Breastfeeding
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the advantages of breastfeeding for infants; and what steps his Department has taken to encourage women to breastfeed. [57793]

  Ms Jowell
  The Government are fully committed to the promotion of breastfeeding which is universally accepted as the best form of nutrition for infants. The Government's source of independent expert advice on infant feeding is the Panel on Child and Maternal Nutrition, which is a standing committee of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy (COMA). It recommends that babies should be breastfed exclusively for the first 4–6 months of life. In coming to a view and making recommendations, COMA reviews the published information and also seeks advice from experts in the field to ensure that it fully takes into account the latest research.

  The Department offers support for research into breastfeeding through the Quinquennial Surveys of Infant Feeding Practice; the report of the 1995 survey was published last year. A project was commissioned in 1996 which has been ongoing until this year. This is a study on the impact of maternal nutrition (including breastfeeding) on health and development in healthy pre-term infants.

  As part of the Government's research initiative on health inequalities, it has commissioned research, which started on the 1 November, aimed at identifying the barriers to breastfeeding in low income groups. Through the health technology assessment programme, in collaboration with the National Health Service Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, the Department is planning to fund a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to promote the uptake of breastfeeding. It has also funded a review of practices which promote or

  681
  inhibit breastfeeding, and this report will be published soon. Further work is also being carried out, however, as part of the mother and child health programme.

  The Department funds the National Network of Breastfeeding Co-ordinators (NNBC). The NNBC has been established to promote breastfeeding at a local level and to share ideas nationally with a view to increasing both the number of mothers breastfeeding and the length of time they continue to breastfeed.

  Each year the four United Kingdom Health Departments support National Breastfeeding Awareness Week to increase public awareness of the benefits of breastfeeding, which this year took place between 17–23 May. This year, as in other years, the Department funded and provided the publicity materials used during the week. These included posters and postcards aimed at promoting breastfeeding with the slogan "Free fast food for babies".

  The Department also provides financial support to the three main voluntary organisations in this area, the National Childbirth Trust, La Leche League and the Association of Breastfeeding Mothers. Close links are also kept with United Nations Children's Fund Baby Friendly Initiative which includes a Departmental observer sitting on the Steering Committee of the UK Baby Friendly Initiative.

  The "Informed Choice Initiative" produces a series of leaflets (including one on breastfeeding), designed to allow women to make informed choices about their own maternity care.

  Osteoporosis
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what programmes he has promoted to educate men and women aged between 25 and 40 years on the importance of diet in the prevention of osteoporosis. [57794]

  Ms Jowell
  A healthy and balanced diet is important for all age groups to help reduce the risk of a number of illnesses, including osteoporosis. For this reason, we continue to promote healthy eating messages to all age groups and in particular to commission the Health Education Authority to incorporate healthy eating messages in their health education materials. None of these programmes have been specifically aimed at men and women between the ages of 25 and 40 years. However the health advice that promotes the importance of diet in the prevention of osteoporosis is valuable for people of all ages.

  The Osteoporosis Strategy I launched earlier this year highlighted the various factors which play an important role in reducing the risk of osteoporosis. Maintaining a healthy diet with adequate calcium and vitamin D is just one aspect. Also as important is regular exercise, particularly weight bearing exercise, and avoiding smoking and excessive alcohol consumption. Such factors may play a part in the prevention of osteoporosis. Therefore the Osteoporosis Strategy provides valuable advice on lifestyle measures for reducing the risk of osteoporosis which applies to all age groups.

  Work-related Stress
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many local health authorities provide workplace counselling and effective employment assistance programmes to combat work-related stress in the NHS. [57798]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is not collected centrally. As part of the new strategic framework for managing human resources in the National Health Service the NHS Executive has identified the provision of counselling services for all staff as a priority for local action.

  Cancer
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list (1) the success rates for curing the most common form of childhood leukaemia in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) France, (c) Germany, (d) Italy, (e) Sweden, (f) Denmark and (g) the United States of America in the last five years for which figures are available; [58110]

  (2) the success rates for curing lung cancer in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) France, (c) Germany, (d) Italy, (e) Sweden, (f) Denmark and (g) the United States of America in the last five years for which figures are available; [58100]

  (3) the success rates for curing cervical cancer in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) France, (c) Germany, (d) Italy, (e) Sweden, (f) Denmark and (g) the United States in the last five years for which figures are available; [58111]

  (4) the success rates for curing prostate cancer in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) France, (c) Germany,(d) Italy, (e) Sweden, (f) Denmark and (g) the United States of America in the last five years for which figures are available; [58099]

  (5) the success rates for curing colon cancer in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) France, (c) Germany, (d) Italy, (e) Sweden, (f) Denmark and (g) the United States in the last five years for which figures are available; [58101]

  (6) the success rates for curing breast cancer in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) France, (c) Germany, (d) Italy, (e) Sweden, (f) Denmark and (g) the United States of America in the last five years for which figures are available. [58103]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Dennis Skinner, dated 5 November 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent questions on success rates for treating cancer.
  The latest available information on the survival of cancer patients in Europe is given in "Survival of cancer patients in Europe—The EUROCARE Study" (International Agency for Research on Cancer Scientific Publications No. 132); a copy is available in the House of Commons library. Results for the United States are given on pages 188 and 189 of "Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention" (2nd edition)

  683
  edited by D Schottenfeld and JF Fraumeni—copies of these pages are attached and copies will be placed in the House of Commons library.
  Figures are not available on whether or not patients are cured—although when the relative survival curve "flattens off the patients are dying at the same rate as the general population (same age and sex). Also, for most cancers (but not breast cancer or multiple myeloma), five year relative survival rates are often taken to be 'cure' rates.

TREASURY

  Growth Forecasts
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment has been made by his Department of the IMF's recent downgrading of forecasts for growth in the UK economy in comparison with other EU countries. [56874]

  Mr. Byers
  The IMF's latest forecast for growth in the UK in 1999 is broadly in line with the Government's forecast as set out in the Pre Budget Report published on 3 November.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received on forecasts for growth. [56885]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer receives numerous representations on all aspects of UK economic developments, including growth prospects.

  European Central Bank
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the methods the European central bank will employ to achieve price stability in Europe. [56875]

  Ms Hewitt
  The European Central Bank (ECB) made a preliminary announcement on their monetary policy strategy on the 13 October. They set out their definition of price stability as a year-on-year increase in the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices (HICP) of less than 2% and announced that, in order to achieve this, they will give prominence to a broad monetary aggregate target and will also monitor a wide range of economic and financial variables.

  Economic Stability
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to encourage economic stability. [56877]

  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to encourage economic stability. [56873]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  The Pre-Budget Report sets out how the Government are taking action to steer a stable course for lasting prosperity.

  International Financial Institutions
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has put forward for the reorganisation of international financial institutions. [56878]

  Ms Hewitt
  As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer reported to the House earlier this week on 2 November 1998,Official Report, columns 559–63, significant reforms to strengthen the international financial system and improve the effectiveness of the international financial institutions were announced on 30 October by the Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors of the G7 countries. These reforms reflect the shared determination of the G7 countries, under the Presidency of the UK, to put in place new rules and procedures and to modernise the international financial architecture to meet the challenges of the global economy.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss exchange rates. [56880]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Chancellor has regular meetings with the Governor of the Bank of England, where they discuss a wide range of issues.

  PSBR
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has held with Scottish local authorities relating to the Treasury's definition of the public sector borrowing requirement. [56881]

  Mr. Byers
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not held any discussions relating to the definition of the PSBR with Scottish local authorities but he would be interested in receiving their views.

  Government Statistics
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to improve the accuracy of Government statistics. [56882]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government are committed to enhancing the integrity of official statistics. The Green Paper "Statistics: A Matter of Trust" was published in February and set out options to ensure that official statistics are of assured quality and produced and presented in a way which is free from political interference. In the light of the subsequent consultation exercise, the Government's proposals will be set out in a White Paper.

  Global Credit
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Government are taking to prevent a global credit crunch. [56883]

  Ms Hewitt
  G7 Finance Ministers and central bank Governors have emphasised their commitment to create or sustain conditions for strong domestic demand led growth and preserve financial stability in their own economies.

  Pensions Mis-selling
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the measures he has put in place to ensure that people who have been mis-sold private pensions are compensated. [56884]

  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he is taking to ensure that compensation is paid to people who were mis-sold private pensions. [56890]

  Ms Hewitt
  The regulatory system for investment firms was set up under the Financial Services Act (1986), and the regulators have implemented the review of pensions mis-selling under the provisions of the Act.

  The latest evidence is that, in 78 per cent. of priority cases, reviews have been completed.

  Productivity
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about his policy to use the tax system to promote productivity increases in UK firms. [56886]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  With business, we are putting in place a strategy to tackle the long-term economic weakness of a 40 per cent. productivity with our most successful competitors. The Pre-Budget Report sets out what we must do over the coming year to help equip the British economy for the challenges ahead.

  Bank of England
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many meetings he has had with the Governor of the Bank of England so far in the current year. [56887]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Chancellor has had regular meetings with the Governor of the Bank of England throughout the course of this year.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about his policy on the single currency. [56888]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government's policy on UK membership of the single currency was set out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a statement to the House on 27 October 1997,Official Report, columns 583–88.

  The Government believe that, in principle, British membership of a successful single currency could be beneficial to Britain and to Europe. Our national economic interest will be the key factor in deciding whether or not we should join. There is no constitutional bar to UK membership of the single currency.

  The Government have concluded that the UK economy has neither the flexibility nor the convergence with the other European economies to make joining in 1999 in our
  686
  national economic interest. The UK needs a period of stability and settled convergence before we can join. Barring some fundamental and unforeseen change in economic circumstances making a decision to join during this Parliament is not realistic. The job for this Parliament is to prepare in order to create a realistic option of joining early in the next Parliament, if Government, Parliament and the British people agree.

  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on Government plan to inform the public about the single European currency. [56894]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government's communication campaign on the euro is not a general public education campaign but is specifically targeted at ensuring that UK businesses, especially small and medium sized firms, are aware of the implications of the introduction of the single currency from 1 January 1999 and have the information they need to address the issues arising from this.

  Withholding Tax
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy towards the proposed European withholding tax. [56889]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We are in favour of effective international action against tax evasion. Action confined to the Community will be limited in its effectiveness but may be useful as part of a move towards wider action. However, we will not agree to any course of action which would seriously damage the UK and other European financial markets.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the proposed European withholding tax. [56879]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government are taking an active part in discussions on the draft Directive. We have made it clear on a number of occasions that we will not agree to any course of action which would seriously damage the UK and other European financial markets.

  Dividend Income (Pensioners)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress he has made with measures to address the anomaly of low-income pensioners facing taxation of their dividend income. [56891]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 26 October 1998,Official Report, column 37.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will instruct the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee to meet more frequently to determine UK interest rate policy; and if he will make a statement. [56892]
  687
  Ms Hewitt
  The Bank of England Act 1998 states that the Monetary Policy Committee should meet at least once a month. The Act also states that the Governor of the Bank may summon a meeting at any time on giving such notice as in his judgment the circumstances may require.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the factors that underlie the level of interest rates in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Germany. [56896]

  Ms Hewitt
  Interest rates in the UK are set by the Bank of England to deliver the Government's inflation target of 2½ per cent. RPIX inflation. The Bundesbank sets interest rates in Germany in pursuit of price stability.

  Low-income Families
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to assist working families on low incomes. [56893]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  From April, as a result of abolishing the entry fee to National Insurance, all employees will receive a tax cut of more than £1 a week. The Working Families Tax Credit will be introduced guaranteeing a minimum income of at least £190 a week for the working families. This will back-up the national minimum wage which will be introduced in April next year, helping 1.9 million employees.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what forecast he has made for unemployment in 1999. [56895]

  Ms Hewitt
  In line with the convention adopted by previous administrations, the Government do not publish a forecast for unemployment.

  Economic Activity
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next intends to meet the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss levels of economic activity. [56897]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Chancellor has regular meetings with the Governor of the Bank of England where they discuss a wide range of issues.

  Farming (Young People)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people under the age of 25 years have taken up farming as a career in each of the last 10 years; and what estimate he has made of the figure in the current year. [58136]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 4 November 1998]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. David Maclean, dated 5 November 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on young people taking up farming as a career.
  688
  The precise information requested is not available. However, the Labour Force Survey (LFS), which is the ONS's major up to date source of occupational data, can provide estimates of those employed in farming occupations who were not employed in such occupations a year earlier. The attached table shows estimates from the spring LFS back to 1988. The vast majority of those covered are classified as agricultural workers rather than farmers according to the Socio-Economic classification of their stated occupation. These figures may include some full-time students and others not intending taking up farming as a career.
  As with any sample survey LFS estimates are subject to sampling variability. The sampling variability (expressed as the range within which 95% of estimates taken from different samples would be expected to fall) of these estimates is roughly +/-20%.

  People aged 16–24 employed in farming who were not soone year previously, Spring 1997-Spring 1998,not seasonally adjusted, United Kingdom

  Thousand

  Spring 1988

  40

  Spring 1989

  34

  Spring 1990

  32

  Spring 1991

  30

  Spring 1992

  27

  Spring 1993

  28

  Spring 1994

  28

  Spring 1995

  25

  Spring 1996

  23

  Spring 1997

  19

  Spring 1998

  21

  Source:

  ONS, Labour Force Survey

  Labour Statistics (Scotland)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were registered as unemployed in each constituency in Scotland(a) in May 1997 and (b) at the most recent available date. [58341]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Tony Worthington, dated 5 November 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent question on how many people were registered as unemployed in each constituency in Scotland.
  The information you have requested can only be derived from the monthly claimant count of people claiming unemployment-related benefits (i.e. Jobseeker's Allowance or National Insurance credits). Essentially, all people who were claiming these benefits on the count day are counted.
  The number of people claiming unemployment-related benefits in each Parliamentary Constituency in Scotland can be obtained from the Nomis database which is accessible by the House of Commons Library.

  Registered Maternities
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 19 October 1998, Official

  689
  Report, columns 929–30, concerning numbers of registered maternities, if the information can be provided for the most recent single year for which data are available. [58078]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Maternities occurring in 1997 in selected hospitals for selected areas of usual residence of the mother

  Place of mother's residence

  Place of maternity

  St. Albans

  Dacorum

  Watford

  Hertsmere

  Three Rivers

  i) Hemel Hempstead General Hospital

  1,215

  1,512

  13

  12

  48

  ii) St. Albans City Hospital

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  iii) Watford General Hospital

  102

  32

  1,078

  588

  884

  iv) Mount Vernon Hospital

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  v) Barnet General Hospital

  1

  0

  1

  32

  0

  vi) Chase Farm Hospital

  3

  1

  0

  95

  0

  vii) Northwick Park Hospital

  3

  2

  11

  14

  16

  viii) Luton and Dunstable Hospital

  29

  13

  0

  1

  2

  ix) Stoke Mandeville Hospital

  0

  154

  0

  0

  1

  x) Wycombe General Hospital

  0

  1

  0

  0

  3

  xi) Other NHS Hospitals

  234

  21

  14

  299

  45

  xii) RAF Halton Hospital

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  xiii) Other non-NHS hospitals

  4

  4

  0

  20

  6

  xiv) At home

  84

  66

  17

  10

  15

  xv) Elsewhere

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Total

  1,675

  1,807

  1,134

  1,072

  1,021

  High-payment Annuities
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to facilitate high-payment annuities for people of over 75 years of age with low incomes. [58264]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]: I would expect the annuities market to determine what rates of annuity are paid to individuals who buy annuities at a later time of life.

  Mortality Rates
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the probability of(a) a man and (b) a woman who reaches the age of 18 years in 1998 living up to or beyond the age of (i) 60, (ii) 65, (iii) 70, (iv) 75 and (v) 80 years. [57940]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 3 November 1998]: Using the projected future mortality rates underlying the 1996-based population projections for the United Kingdom carried out by the Government Actuary's Department, it is estimated that the probability of someone aged 18 in the United Kingdom living up to or beyond the age of 60, 65, 70,76 and 80 is as follows:

  Probability of someone aged 18 in the UK reaching age

  60

  65

  70

  75

  80

  Male

  917

  875

  806

  703

  556

  Female

  942

  919

  877

  808

  703

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the
  690
  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Kerry Pollard, dated 5 November 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary question on maternities in 1997.
  The information requested is shown in the table below.

  staffing levels of HM Customs and Excise offices along the South Coast. [56867]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The deployment of Customs' anti-smuggling staff around the UK is determined by the assessed risk of smuggling in any one area, and is reviewed regularly. Furthermore, the management by Customs of import and export cargo controls has been the subject of a detailed analysis over the past two years to ensure that efficiency and effectiveness at South Coast ports provides a good service for the users and value for money to the taxpayer. HM Customs and Excise are satisfied that current Customs resourcing levels along the South Coast are sufficient.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what arrangements employers whose PAYE and NIC liabilities are too small to cover the statutory maternity pay and statutory sick pay due to their employees may apply to the Inland Revenue for funding; and if he will set out for each available year since 1990 the number and total, average and median amounts of such funding payments and the numbers of employers and employees in respect of whom such funding arrangements were made. [58139]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Employers whose PAYE and NICs liabilities for a month/quarter are too small to cover the statutory maternity pay and statutory sick pay due to their employees would refer to The Employee's Quick Guide to PAYE and NICs (Card 18). This would instruct them to deduct the amount owed to them from the following month/quarter payment to the Inland Revenue. If this will not be possible they are instructed to write to the Accounts Office with which they deal explaining their calculations and requesting an advance to enable them to make the payment to the employee.
  691
  The numbers and values of such payments made by the Accounts Offices in each of the last 4 years are recorded as:

  Year

  Cumbernauld

  Shipley

  Total

  Amount (£)

  1995

  7,024

  4,336

  11,360

  5,553,414

  1996

  6,968

  4,537

  11,505

  5,728,183

  1997

  7,641

  4,843

  12,484

  6,865,685

  1998

  7,956

  5,231

  13,187

  7,529,098

  It is not possible to break these figures down further to say how many employers or employees were involved or whether the payments were for refunded PAYE, statutory maternity pay or statutory sick pay.

  Disabled Person's Tax Credit
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultation his Department has had with disability groups over the formulation of the disabled person's tax credit. [56943]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Inland Revenue officials have begun a series of informal discussions with representatives of disability groups in addition to their continuing consultations with representatives of employers, who will be responsible for paying the disabled person's tax credit through the wage packet from April 2000.

  Charities Taxation
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact of his announcement of a review of the VAT exemption on the position of those charities appealing to the VAT and Duties Tribunal against the imposition of VAT on welfare services provided by them. [58306]

  Ms Hewitt
  Customs and Excise are asking the VAT and Duties Tribunal temporarily to suspend appeals by charities, while they consult interested parties on the circumstances in which home support services will be exempt from VAT as charity welfare services.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much has been paid in VAT by charities for the provision of home support services in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement; [58307]

  (2) how many charities are currently liable for VAT for the provision of home support services. [58308]

  Ms Hewitt
  There are no specific data on the numbers of charities accounting for VAT on their supplies of home support services, or on the amount of that VAT. In light of a recent Tribunal decision Customs are reviewing their policy on charity welfare services and are consulting interested parties to agree the circumstances in which home support services will be exempt from VAT.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors underlie the delay in publishing the response to the consultation arising from the review of charities taxation; and if he will make a statement. [58194]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) on 26 October 1998,Official Report, column 40.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the Vehicle Excise Duty payable on(a) 40 tonne and (b) 41 tonne heavy goods vehicles from 1 January 1999. [58309]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced that he is reviewing the system for setting Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) rates for lorries to ensure that the environmental damage caused by lorries is reflected in their VED rates. The review is taking into account the wider environmental impacts of lorries, as well as considerations of their physical effects on the road infrastructure. The VED payable from 1 January 1999 for the new vehicles are set out in the table:

  £

  New Vehicles

  VED rates from 1 January 1999 (until the next Budget)

  Rigid 17–18t (2 axles)

  1,320

  Artic 36t (4 axles)

  5,170

  Artic 38t (4 axles)

  Artie 40t (5 axles)

  3,210

  Artie 41t (6 axles)

  1,280

  Artie 44t (5 axles)

  2,280

  New higher rates will be announced in the next Budget, to discourage strongly the use of vehicles with 11½ tonne axle weights, in view of the additional road damage that they cause.

  Golf Clubs
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on VAT treatment of subscriptions for(a) private golf clubs and (b) proprietary clubs. [58252]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Playing subscriptions to non-profit making sports clubs are exempt from VAT. Subscriptions to proprietary clubs are liable to VAT at 17.5 per cent.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effect on revenue as a result of the rejection on 6 May 1998 of an appeal by Keswick Golf Club and others to the VAT and Duties Tribunal relating to the VAT status of green fees at members' clubs in(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000, (c) 2000–01, and (d) 2001–02. [58172]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs estimate that the decision of the VAT and Duties Tribunal saved them from having to repay £30 million of VAT revenue to non-profit making golf clubs. They also estimate that the revenue yield from VAT on green fees charged by non-profit making golf clubs is £10 million a year.

  Taxation (Car Users)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the level of tax on car users. [57470]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Chancellor has received a number of representations about the excise duty on hydrocarbon oil and the impact on car users. All of the representations will be carefully considered in the run up to the next Budget.
  693
  Ms. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will calculate the total income received by Her Majesty's Government from all forms of car tax, vehicle excise duty, VAT on car sales, and hydro-carbon taxes in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99 to date. [57471]

  Ms Hewitt
  Car tax was abolished with effect from 12 November 1992.

  £ million

  1997–98

  1998–99(to September1998)

  Vehicle excise duty

  4,487

  2,353

  Hydro-carbon taxes for road fuels

  19,245

  10,277

  It is not possible to estimate the Government's income from VAT on car sales except at disproportionate cost.

  Impoverished Countries (Debt)
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the figures calculated by the Jubilee 2000 Coalition in its report "In Our Own Backyard", concerning the cost of cancellation of debts owed to Britain by the most impoverished countries.[58076]

  Ms Hewitt
  Many of the figures in tables "In Our Own Backyard" have been taken from answers to parliamentary questions and/or from ECGD and DFID. Officials have not checked all the individual numbers produced by Jubilee 2000; nor is it possible, at this stage, to estimate reliably the final cost of debt relief to the Exchequer. The tables do not set out the extent to which the UK government support poor countries through their aid programme. The UK gives significantly more money in aid to the world's poorest countries than it receives in debt repayments. In 1997–98, for example, DFID's bilateral aid programme to the 40 countries identified under the HIPC initiative was just under £200 million while in the same period the UK received only £31 million in debt repayments from these countries.

  Anti-avoidance Rule
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the annual cost of the Inland Revenue providing pre-transaction clearances following the introduction of a general anti-avoidance rule on the basis of(a) a 30 day turn-round time and (b) a 60 day turn-round time, ensuring no charges are made to the taxpayer. [58021]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No such estimate has been made. Consultation on a possible General Anti-avoidance Rule (GAAR) is still in progress, and is addressing the general principles of a GAAR.

  VAT (Sport)
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many times, and on what occasions, HM Customs and Excise has consulted(a) the European Commission and (b) the Association of Golf Course Owners since the withdrawal of the VAT (Sport, Sports Competitions and Physical Education) Order 1998 with regard to its redrafting. [58177]
  694
  Dawn Primarolo
  Although there have been no consultations, Customs have periodic discussions with the Association of Golf Course Owners.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amendment of the recent European Court of Justice ruling against the Kingdom of Spain (Case C-124/96, Judgment of the Court, Sixth Chamber, of 7 May 1998) has been made by HM Customs and Excise for the redrafting of the VAT (Sport, Sports Competitions and Physical Education) Order 1998; and if he will make a statement on the implications of that ruling for the redrafting. [58174]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs do not expect the ruling to have any implications for a replacement Order.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the HM Customs and Excise Press Release 06/98 regarding the VAT (Sport, Sports Competitions and Physical Education, Order 1998, how the Government defines 'genuine' non-profit making clubs. [58164]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Non-profit making clubs will be defined in any replacement for the VAT (Sports, Sports Competitions and Physical Education) Order 1998.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effect on revenue as a result of the recent European Court of Justice ruling against the Kingdom of Spain (Case C-124/96, Judgment of the Court, Sixth Chamber, of 7 May 1998). [58175]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs do not expect the ruling to have any current effect on revenue.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the value of the costs that the Government were ordered to pay by the European Court of Justice (Case C-124/96, Judgment of the Court, Sixth Chamber, of 7 May 1998) as a result of HM Treasury's support of the Kingdom of Spain; and if he will list those costs. [58173]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government were not ordered to pay any costs.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those organisations with which HM Customs and Excise have liaised during their discussions with interested parties with regard to the redrafting of the VAT (Sport, Sports Competitions and Physical Education) Order 1998. [58176]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs have had discussions with the Central Council of Physical Recreation, the English Golf Union, the National Golf Clubs' Advisory Association, the Sports and Recreational Trusts Association and the Association of Golf Course Owners.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the names of those people he has appointed to public bodies since 1 May 1997, indicating the positions to which they have been appointed, and whether they receive remuneration. [56757]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him by the then Economic Secretary on 17 December 1997,Official Report, columns 189–90. Since then, the following additional appointments have been made.

  695

  Public body

  Names

  Position

  Whether remunerated

  Policyholder's Protection Board

  John Robins

  Chairman

  Remunerated

  Peter Foster

  Member

  Susan Ward

  Member

  Frances Harrison

  Member

  Board of Banking Supervision

  Gottfried Bruder

  Independent members

  Remunerated

  Sir Brain Pearce

  Financial Services Authority

  Mr. P.A. Thorpe

  Directors

  Remunerated

  Mr.R.H.Farrant

  Mr.M.D.Foot

  VAT and Duties Tribunal

  Mrs. Mary Christine Ainsworth

  Part-time lay members

  All unremunerated (but fee-paid per sitting)

  Mrs. Heather Cornwell-Kelly

  Mrs. Marilyn Crompton

  Kumar Sunil Das

  Mrs. Carol Jean Debell

  Mrs. Claire Elizabeth Howell

  Mrs. Penny Jonas

  Mrs. Carole A. Roberts

  John Gerald Robinson

  Mark Sischy (Scotland)

  The Hon. Mrs. Angela Widdows

  ONS Statistics Advisory Committee

  Dr. Diane Coyle

  Members

  Unremunerated

  Robert Chote

  Royal Mint Advisory Committee on the Design of Coins, Medals, Seals and Decorations

  Ms K. Eustace

  Members

  Unremunerated

  Mr. S. Devlin

  In addition, there were a number of re-appointments to the VAT and Duties Tribunals, which I shall write to my hon. Friend about separately.

  Act of Union (Bicentenary Coin)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government will commission a special coin from the Royal Mint to celebrate the bicentenary of the Act of Union between Ireland and Great Britain. [58072]

  Ms Hewitt
  No decisions have yet been made about which, if any, events will be commemorated in this way in 2001.

  VAT (Alcoholic Drinks)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when ministers last met representatives of the brewing and distilling companies to discuss the current and future levels of taxation levelled on alcoholic drinks. [58193]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I last met the Trade Associations representing the brewing and distilling industries just before the last Budget in order to discuss their Budget Representations. The exact dates are as follows: Wine and Spirits Association—8 February 1998; Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association—23 February 1998; Scotch Whisky Association and Gin and Vodka Association—24 February 1998.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before business begins, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to make an official visit to the Crown and county courts in Bristol tomorrow, Friday 6th November. I shall also be attending the opening of the new Public Record Office Data Archive at the University of London with Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal on Monday 9th November when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

European Union: Prevention of Fraud
3.7 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke Lord Willoughby de Broke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that the European Union's satellite aid programmes are subject to sufficient financial control to prevent fraud.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Government are very concerned at recent allegations of fraud within the Commission, notably in the EC Humanitarian Office (ECHO). We are strongly in favour of fighting fraud inside Community institutions by the most effective machinery that can be devised. The Commission's anti-fraud unit takes the lead in fraud investigations. The Government strongly support measures to improve the effectiveness of the anti-fraud unit.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for her reply. However, is the noble Baroness aware that, first, UCLAF—I believe that it is the unit to which she referred; namely, the anti-fraud unit—is itself the subject of a deeply critical report by the European Court of Auditors which was published in July of this year? First, I do not believe that the Government can rely on UCLAF to safeguard funds distributed through ECHO, which has been shown to be deeply flawed. Secondly, is the Minister aware that the British taxpayer in 1997 contributed £46 million to the ECHO pot? Does the Minister agree that that money might be better spent and more wisely accounted for if it were distributed unilaterally rather than through the highly dubious channel of ECHO, or any other European agency?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, we take a very serious view of the matter. Indeed, we have always been in the vanguard of member
366
states who are working to ensure financial propriety. In fact, the Government have consistently supported measures to improve financial management within the EC. In particular, we supported the measures to strengthen the role of the European Court of Auditors which were agreed at Amsterdam last year. We are in fact committed to our aid being channelled through a number of sources. We work in partnership—it is one of the factors most strongly outlined in last year's White Paper—with a number of institutions.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I welcome the statement by the Minister that the Government are determined to tackle financial irregularity in the European Union. However, can my noble friend tell us whether the Government believe that ECHO is making a positive contribution to international humanitarian work?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her question. As I said, the Government are keen for fraud to be dealt with both promptly and effectively. But, yes, ECHO is a major provider of humanitarian assistance and has made an effective contribution to humanitarian programmes in many parts of the world. We believe that considerable progress has been made in the past year to ensure that ECHO's assistance is provided in a well-targeted and principled manner. We shall continue to support and encourage that process.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether immunity from prosecution will be lifted from Commission employees who may be implicated in either irregularities or fraud, so that they can be prosecuted in one of the EC countries?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, a criminal investigation into the missing ecus is being separately undertaken by the Public Prosecutor's Office in Luxembourg. There has also been a call for the establishment of an anti-fraud office which is independent of the Commission. We await the outcome of both processes with interest.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister take into account not only the recent reports which point to a considerable amount of fraud and irregularity within the Commission's structure itself, but also the necessity for an immediate overhaul of the financial regulations by virtue of which an endeavour is made at Commission level to control such matters? Will my noble friend emphasise to the Government the necessity for an urgent examination—and I mean "urgent"—of the financial regulations, which are at present in a form which facilitates fraud rather than preventing it?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as I said earlier, the Government have consistently supported measures to improve financial management within the EC. This was one of the areas in which we took a lead during our presidency of the European Union.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that much of the fraud in the use of European money occurs, sadly, in national administrations, unfortunately particularly in the farming sector, but that in those cases the requirement for unanimous voting in the Council of Ministers has often blocked serious anti-fraud measures? It is therefore inconsistent for those who want to tackle fraud in the use of European Union money to resist the use of majority voting to get anti-fraud measures accepted.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness has widened the Question considerably. I am unable to address the specific area of farming that she mentioned. We are not aware of fraud in any other European development programmes other than the ones that I have already mentioned. If I can assist the noble Baroness further I shall write to her.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on the first occasion she has answered Questions at the Dispatch Box. With regard to the question about humanitarian aid asked by the noble Baroness on the Benches opposite, is the Minister aware that at present NGOs which are applying to the European Commission for funding for humanitarian aid are not receiving a reply either in the affirmative or the negative? There is something wrong; the whole system seems to be rather bogged down. Is the Minister aware of that problem, and if she is able to do so will she try to obtain responses with regard to this badly needed humanitarian aid?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her kind words of welcome. I am not aware of NGOs experiencing particular problems in the area that she identified. However, I shall investigate the matter and write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I add my congratulations to my noble friend on her elevation to answering Questions in this House. I am particularly pleased to hear that the Government wish to strengthen the hand of the Court of Auditors. Is the Minister aware that Mr. Bernhard Friedmann, the President of the Court of Auditors, has recently criticised M. Santer and the Commission for delaying for four years information which would have enabled the Court of Auditors to examine this fraud in the ECHO system? Do the Government have any plans to make representation to the Commission to be more open and more honest in its dealings in the future?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as far as I am aware the Commission agreed to release the documents relating to this matter for European parliamentary scrutiny. We have supported the measures to increase transparency. However, it is important to recognise that nothing can be done at this stage which would prejudice the early completion of the present investigations.

Medical Treatment: Right of Refusal
3.16 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the position of adults or parents of children who refuse treatment for themselves or their children recommended by their general medical practitioner or consultant when there is no imminent risk to life.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, it is a general principle of law and medical practice that any adult person with the mental capacity to make a valid decision has the right to choose whether or not to accept medical treatment. A child of any age with the mental capacity to consent to medical treatment is entitled to do so without parental involvement. Where a child has refused medical treatment either the parent or the court may override the refusal where treatment would be in the child's best interests. When there is a dispute between a child and parent a reference should be made to the court. Where the child does not have the capacity to make the decision, the person with parental responsibility may do so on the child's behalf. If parental refusal was not considered to be in the child's best interest, the medical practitioner would need to refer the matter to the court if he or she considered the medical treatment to be necessary.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that full Answer. Is she aware that there is a growing list of children diagnosed as suffering from ME who are being placed by social services on the at risk register? Is she aware of the enormous trauma this causes in families, which is not good for children suffering from ME, and the fact that some of the children are being forced into psychiatric hospitals for treatment which many practitioners agree is not the right treatment for ME?
In the light of the decision by the High Court Queen's Bench Division on 15th October 1998 that referrals by community physicians to social services are illegal; that the use of Section 47 of the Children Act in these cases is also unlawful; and that parents should have the right to choose treatment for their children, will the Minister now instruct social services and all those physicians dealing with these children in the current state of the law and enable parents once more to exercise their right to consent? Will she also consider whether it is appropriate to lift the restrictions imposed by the court on the Olie family?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as regards the final point, the House will understand if I do not comment on a particular case, especially where the child in question is a ward of court. It would not be appropriate so to do.
The noble Countess referred to a number of cases. I am aware that there has been controversy around the treatment of certain children and young adults suffering from ME/chronic fatigue syndrome. This is an area where treatment is a matter of controversy. The working

369
group announced by the Chief Medical Officer, the membership of which was made public yesterday and which has a specific sub-group on the treatment of children, will, it is to be hoped, help to provide some clarity in this area.
Regarding the High Court judgment, to which the noble Countess referred, it would be for colleagues at the department which has responsibility in these areas to examine the judgment carefully to see whether it is appropriate to offer advice to social services departments.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's reply to the Question. Clearly, the issue of consent gives rise to a number of difficulties in many cases. Will the Minister comment on whether she believes that the balance of law was correct in the case of the St. George's Healthcare Trust involving a caesarean section where a mother was entitled to refuse a caesarean even at risk to the life of her unborn child? Will she say whether or not, in the light of that case, the Department of Health plans to amend its guidance on consent?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I shall avoid giving my views on the correctness of the judgment. In the past there has been controversy over compulsory caesarean treatment. Courts have recently clarified the position in a number of cases. It has been made absolutely clear that mentally competent women in labour have the same right in common law to give or refuse consent to treatment as any other patient. In such cases the court does not have jurisdiction to declare medical intervention lawful and the question of best interest does not arise. In such cases, if a woman refuses consent to a caesarean section, a declaration of the High Court is required to decide whether or not it is lawful to carry out such treatment. The department issued guidance summarising court rulings in these areas and the principles were expanded earlier this year. We shall be conveying those expanded principles to the NHS.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that ME/chronic fatigue syndrome is not a psychiatric condition as such but is more usually multi-factorial, and that psychiatric symptoms can have physical causes just as physical symptoms can have psychiatric causes?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, just as I do not pretend to be a lawyer, nor shall I pretend to be a doctor. Certainly, the issues referred to by the noble Earl are of deep concern to patients and to carers of those suffering very distressing conditions. It is important that their views are well understood. That is why, in the membership of the working groups on ME in both adults and children, we have taken great care to reflect a broad range of professional and patient opinion.

Chile: Relations
3.24 p.m.
Lord Moynihan Lord Moynihan asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their current assessment of relations between the United Kingdom and Chile.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, before my noble friend replies to the noble Lord's Question, perhaps I may remind your Lordships that the House in its judicial capacity is hearing an appeal in the matter of the requested extradition of Senator Pinochet. The matter is therefore sub judice and under the rules of the House no reference should be made to the case.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I refer noble Lords to the Answer that I gave to the House on 28th October. We are continuing to work hard to make sure that the detention of Senator Pinochet does not affect our healthy relationship. We have long, historical ties and a strong trade and investment relationship with Chile. UK exports to Chile reached a record high of £210 million in 1997. The Chilean Foreign Minister, Señor Insulza, visited London in October 1997. My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, then Trade Minister, and my honourable friend Tony Lloyd, the Minister of State, have both recently made successful visits to Chile. Our relations with Chile are cordial. They are based on dialogue and co-operation on a wide range of political, economic and other issues of mutual interest.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, adhering strictly to a "nil by mouth" policy on matters that are sub judice, will the Minister tell the House in what way the comments of the Minister of State for Trade and Industry, Peter Mandelson, during the BBC "Breakfast with Frost" programme on 18th October represent government policy? Furthermore, what is the Minister's reaction to the criticism by the Chilean Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister that the Government's updated advice on travel to Chile is not the best way to avoid a political escalation of the situation and that it paves the way for the interpretation that the advice further damages Anglo-Chilean relations?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my right honourable friend Mr. Mandelson expressed a personal opinion, as I understand have many Members of the Opposition. I recall that in this House last week the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford reminded us of some of the difficulties in regard to what has happened in Chile in the past. That must not be confused with the important point that this process is in the hands of the judicial authorities, and has been from the start. The issue is one that will be dealt with by the legal process, not political processes.
The noble Lord asked specifically about travel advice regarding Chile. It is the FCO's duty to advise British citizens travelling abroad as to their safety. Our advice

371
in relation to Chile was reviewed on 2nd November in the light of the situation prevailing in Santiago and elsewhere in Chile. We must alert British nationals to the difficulties that they may experience when they travel abroad. We hope, of course, to be able to review the travel advice again soon to reflect the easy and untroubled travel that most Britons normally experience when visiting Chile.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that Chile has made a remarkable transition to democracy, a transition in which that country has consistently upheld the rule of law within the country, and that it has brought about a remarkable diminution in levels of poverty? Does Chile not deserve our applause for that remarkable achievement over the past few years?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, yes. I can agree wholeheartedly with the noble Baroness's remarks. The United Kingdom and Chile see eye to eye on many issues, including those around social justice and the free market. Chile is a valued partner on the world stage. I believe that those sentiments have been reflected in the discussions held recently by my honourable friend Mr. Lloyd with Señor Fernandez. Indeed, the discussions that my noble friend Lord Williams had with a number of Chilean senators only last week were of a constructive and helpful nature. I believe that during those discussions United Kingdom Ministers were able to explain to Chilean counterparts the position regarding the legal process in this country, and that has been fully understood.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that during the visit that I made to Chile to which she referred a number of Ministers in the Chilean Government expressed their great appreciation of the help and sustenance that were offered to refugees and people in exile during the dark days in Chile by the Labour Party? They felt that that was a great help in enhancing what has been a very good trading relationship between our two countries since the Labour Government took office.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that the warm approach which is fundamental to the way in which Her Majesty's Government and Chile normally carry on their relations is a characteristic that will inform our general relationship.
On the issue of commercial relationships, our position in regard to Chile is strong. Our exports last year were at a record high. Chile is the UK's third largest market in South America, after Brazil and Argentina. We hope that that trading position will continue to improve.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, is the Minister aware that most people in this country cannot understand how the President was invited to this country, given VIP treatment by the Foreign Office and
372
subsequently arrested? Would it not have been better for the Foreign Office to have advised the President not to come to this country?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, perhaps I may put this matter straight. The President was not invited to this country. He came on a private visit. That position was also the case under the previous administration.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene at this point. Noble Lords should take note of the warning given by the Leader of the House. The matter is being considered at this very moment within this building. Without being critical of many of the questions put, I suspect that some have touched upon what could be considered matters of influence, in particular as I understand that the noble and learned Lords of the Appellate Committee are themselves taking evidence in this case. I strongly advise the House to leave the matter to another day. We can return to it once the Law Lords have reached their decision.

Dyslexia among Prisoners
3.30 p.m.
Lord Addington Lord Addington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to recognise dyslexia among the adult prison population.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, we were much too prompt in stopping the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, from intervening. I am sorry that we did so. I understand that he simply wished to congratulate my noble friend. We were in the wrong—on that occasion.
I had the opportunity of speaking to the Dyspel conference on Tuesday. Dyspel was set up to explore and address the relationship between dyslexia and offending, and I am pleased to support the essential work that it is undertaking.
The Prison Service is taking a number of steps to recognise dyslexia among the adult population in terms of research, development and current and future practice. It will be issuing advice by the end of this year on screening prisoners for dyslexia.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Does he agree that, if we are to deal with the problem within the prison population, of which it is thought that up to 50 per cent. may be suffering from dyslexia, help must be given in a way that is suitable to adults who are in prison? Giving help which is based on school assessment and teaching may merely accentuate any feelings of isolation or resentment towards the system.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an extremely important point. The guidance on screening will be in place for those in the dispersal

373
prison regime by 1st January 1999. One needs to remember, however, that there are many juveniles in custody who also have problems. That is a significant matter which we must address with great care.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that many dyslexic school children do not receive enough help and remedial teaching and therefore drop out of school and turn to crime through frustration and boredom? The level of those who have dropped out in young offenders' institutions is very high. Could the Department of Education and the Home Office work together in looking at the problem?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we believe that that is central. We cannot fragment the Prison Service from the Probation Service and the rest of the criminal justice system and from mainstream education. There has unfortunately been a misapprehension in the past that dyslexic children are dull or stupid, and that has caused them to lose heart. They are not dull or stupid; they have special needs which must be attended to.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that the connection between the frustration of intelligent people in school at their failure to progress has been established as a link with offending, that the link between that and dyslexia is obvious and that the progress of the programme which he proposes is therefore urgent? Can he tell us whether resources will he available to guarantee sufficient out-of-cell time to make it effective?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I agree with the proposition made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. The STOP research project, which was run by Shropshire Probation Service, discovered that, of a large number of those who had learning difficulties, including dyslexia, in one study 90 per cent. had truanted from school at some time, 64 per cent. habitually. I stress the importance that we attach to this matter. The screening guidance in the dispersal regime will be available to governors not later than 1st January next year.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as one of those classed as hopeless by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, perhaps I may put a question to the noble Lord. Does he agree that funding is of crucial importance in terms of tackling dyslexia in prisons? Does he, therefore, also agree that it was unfortunate that last year the Prisons Minister announced a cut in funding from some £1,774 million to some £1,733 million? I accept that since then the noble Lord has announced an increase in funding of some £200 million. Is that an increase on the previous figure or on the higher figure, or is it an increase on the figure that we would have announced had we remained in office, which would have been a figure larger than that announced by the Government?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not know what figure the noble Lord would have announced had he still been in government. On past form—if I may use that phrase in this context—it would probably have been a
374
reduction. As has already been announced, we are providing an increase of £226 million for prison regimes and, in particular, proper directorates of regimes which will deliver focused, useful benefit to those in prison. It is undoubted, as I think all your Lordships will agree, that there is a distinct connection between poor levels of literacy and numeracy, and therefore poor performance in the job market, and the prospect of re-offending.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's reply. Does he agree with Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons that rarely have adequate needs analyses been undertaken of prison education? Would he consider it appropriate to set up monitoring machinery at every prison reception so that dyslexia is identified at an early stage? The sooner it is identified, the sooner it can be dealt with.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is quite right. The reference I made to instructions being given to governors in the dispersal estate by 1st January 1999 dealt with precisely this point. Dyslexia needs to be identified at the induction stage, which is when the screening is intended to occur. I am glad to say that, not for the first time, we are both in complete agreement.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I must declare an interest as the father of a dyslexic and therefore, genetically, in part to blame. Is the Minister aware that, while dyslexia affects between 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. of children, it affects 52 per cent. of prisoners? Does that discrepancy suggest that the Dyspel report is correct in saying that dyslexia is a factor in offending behaviour in a significant proportion of offenders?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am glad to hear from the noble Earl that he recognises that the hereditary principle is not immaculate. There are different views about the proportions. Dyspel has one view; other research has another, which we need to evaluate. However, there is no doubt in the mind of anyone who has studied these matters that there is a connection between failure educationally, for whatever cause, and the drift into crime and re-offending.
Lord Addington: My Lords, as the figure for re-offending once people have got into the prison system is much lower for those who are in work than for those who are without work, is there not a strong case for pump-priming this project to ensure that more dyslexics can gain literacy and therefore become employable, thus ultimately not only cutting crime rates but also saving the Treasury considerable sums of money?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there is no doubt about the link between lack of employment on release from prison and re-offending and re-conviction rates. We are pump-priming very significantly. The figure of £226 million is a vast improvement on anything that could formerly have been contemplated. Some of that money will go to improved educational regimes and targets.

Utting Report: Response
3.38 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health. The Statement is as follows:
"In November last year the Government published the Utting Report which reviewed the safeguards for children in care. In my Statement to the House I made clear that the report painted a woeful picture of failure. Many children who had been 'taken into care' to protect and help them had received neither protection nor help. Instead they had been abused and molested. Many more had been let down, never given the attention they needed, shifted from place to place, school to school, and often simply turned out to fend for themselves when they turned 16.
"This was not just a failure by the care staff directly concerned. It was a failure by social services managers, councils, councillors, the police, the criminal justice system, schools, voluntary organisations, neighbours, the news media, the Government's social services inspectorate, government departments, Ministers and Parliament. Some people from all these institutions and in all these categories had worked hard to do a good job for these children. But too many had not. The whole system had failed.
"Last November I reported to the House that the Prime Minister had asked me to lead a ministerial task force to draw up the Government's response to the children's safeguards review. The task force involved Ministers from 10 government departments together with outside representatives from social services, education, the police and the voluntary sector. It also included a young woman who had recently been through the care system. She made some most valuable contributions to our deliberations and provided salutary reminders of the real world in which some children are being expected to grow up. I am grateful to her and all the other members of the task force for their positive contributions to the work of developing a comprehensive and practical set of measures.
"In July this year the Health Select Committee strongly endorsed the need for action. Its report covered some aspects not the subject of the Utting Report. The Government will be making a full response to the Select Committee after the publication of our White Paper on social services.
"Today I am publishing the report of the task force. It sets out the practical measures it has proposed and which the Government have accepted. We want to make sure that in future children in care are looked after properly and get a decent start in life. We started from a recognition that if the whole system had failed these children, then the whole system had to be put right. Tinkering with a few aspects was not enough.
376
"Throughout our deliberations I asked everyone involved to look at things from the point of view of the children and to ask, 'Would this have been good enough for me when I was a child?' or 'Would this be good enough for my own children?' And that is what the task force has tried to do. As a result, our proposals are intended to ensure that those responsible, at any level, for children in care behave towards them as any good parent tries to behave towards their own children.
"With this in mind, the Government are implementing the recommendations of the task force. We have already launched a three-year programme called Quality Protects. Its job is to transform the care system for children by setting clear objectives and targets, putting action plans in place and measuring whether those targets have been met. It also provides new guidance to strengthen the hand of conscientious elected local councillors. That will call for joined-up government—all government departments, local authorities, the criminal justice system, schools, the police and voluntary organisations working together towards a common goal with clear targets and a demanding timetable. There can be no more excuses. All this cannot be done for nothing. So today I can announce that we are establishing a new children's services grant which will provide an extra £375 million over the next three years to help fund the improvements which are necessary.
"To stop potential child abusers from working with children we are establishing a new criminal records agency to improve and widen access to police checks on people wishing to work with children. This is a first step towards a 'one stop shop' which will be able to give employers access to police records and the separate lists kept by the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health. The present system is a confusing mess which denies an elementary protection for the children concerned.
"The present law provides that councils have a duty to children while they are in care up to the age of 16 and a discretionary power to help them up to the age of 18 when they leave care. As a result, some unfortunate children are turned out at the age of 16, with little or no help after that. That cannot be right.
"So that the task force could consider the question of when young children should leave care, and how they should be helped to do it when they do. I insisted that my officials produce a paper which spelled out what parents usually provide for members of an ordinary family between the ages of 16 and 18 or 21. Can I ask Members of the House to think for a minute about when they were between 16 and 21? Or what we did or are doing for our own children in that age group? And now can we think about having to do any of that? No home to live in or return to. No shoulder to cry on. No encouragement to do our work at school or college. No morale boosting chat before an interview nor anyone to console us if it went badly. No one to give us a lift, or to make us a meal. Nowhere to get our washing done for nothing. No

377
mother or father to touch us for a tenner when we are skint. The list is endless. And it is a disgrace. It is just wrong. And this Government are going to change it.
"We will change the law to extend the duty of care for these young people from 16 up to the age of 18 and ensure that councils' responsibilities up to 18 and beyond correspond more closely with those accepted by any good parent. And that includes trying to keep in touch with children after they have left home.
"We are taking steps to ensure better school attendance by children in care and setting targets so that they achieve more at school than they do at present. We are taking steps and setting targets to reduce the number of children exposed to a succession of placements every year and to make sure that those placements are more suitable. We are taking action to increase the number of foster parents through new recruitment campaigns. We will also increase the skills of foster parents by providing new funds for training and by establishing a code of practice and national standards for foster care.
"We propose to bring all children's homes, whatever their size, and residential schools and independent fostering agencies within a new and more effective regulatory system, with simpler and faster action against schools and children's homes with unacceptable standards.
"We are taking steps to monitor and safeguard better the welfare of children in hospitals, nursing homes and hospices and improve the health of children in care, including their mental health. We are changing local government law and practice to bring about across-the-board improvements in services for children in care or with special needs. In future the whole local authority will have to accept its responsibilities for supporting them.
"The voice of the children involved has been ignored for too long. We will improve the arrangements for whistleblowing and fund a new group to provide a national voice for children in care and those formerly in care.
"We are taking steps to ensure that children in court as witnesses get better protection and children who are detained are kept separate from adults.
"These are just some of the major measures which the Government are starting to put in place. Many others are set out in the report. It will take time to thrash out the details of some; others will depend upon the availability of parliamentary time. But action is already under way.
"The task force report covers England and Wales and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales shares my commitment to its implementation. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is today publishing a separate response to the Kent Report which covered the same issues in Scotland.
"Finally, I should like to make clear that many dedicated people are doing a good job looking after vulnerable children living away from home. It is never an easy task and we owe them our thanks. But
378
that is not all we owe them. We owe it to them and to all the children in care to root out and punish the wrongdoers and to put in place a system which really cares for children in care. Vulnerable children are the responsibility of us all. In the past the whole system failed. We intend to make sure that in future the whole system delivers".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.47 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, from these Benches I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. The issues addressed by Sir William Utting in his report are of the most serious and disturbing kind. We welcome the importance that the Government have attached to considering Sir William's recommendations, both in depth and inter-departmentally. The previous government commissioned the report in June 1996 in the face of widespread reports of abused children in care. When it was published almost a year ago, I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, that the Opposition would support any fair and workable proposals which Ministers chose to bring forward to address the fundamental shortcomings in the care system which the report exposed. I repeat that assurance today.
I welcome in particular the establishment of a new criminal records agency as a precursor to setting up a one stop shop for employers wishing to verify the backgrounds of those who apply to work with children. Can the Minister tell us what is the timetable for setting up that one stop shop? It is widely felt that there should be a single, readily accessible database—a single blacklist, if I can put it that way—to prevent the sadly all too common phenomenon of unsuitable individuals, sometimes people with criminal convictions, moving from one institution and being employed by another.
I have one or two further questions to put to the Minister. The Statement announces additional funding in the form of a special grant for children's services of £375 million over three years. Can the Minister say whether this is new money, or is it funded by a reduction in the social services SSA in the revenue support grant settlement? If it is not the latter, is it simply an allocation of money already announced within the totals of the comprehensive spending review?
My second question relates to local autonomy. We entirely accept the need for the setting of national standards to ensure the safety of children living away from home, but we also believe that local authorities should retain the autonomy to develop service provision to meet local needs. The risk of centralising any function is overprescriptiveness. It is right and proper that local councillors should be held responsible for the quality of the service they oversee. But alongside that, and within a framework of national safety standards, they must also be able to exercise discretion in implementing the delivery of a locally appropriate service. In other words, local authorities should not become merely an agent of the Secretary of State in the delivery of children's services to meet the targets which he will be setting.
The Statement makes no mention of Sir William Utting's recommendation that the rights and responsibilities of parents should be defined in primary

379
legislation. My understanding is that the Home Secretary is reviewing that issue, but the recent Green Paper on the family made no mention of it. Can the Minister say whether this recommendation has been rejected by the Government?
Finally, can the Minister confirm that the announcement of a new and more effective regulatory system will include an inspectorate that is dedicated to children's services, or is it intended that there should be a broader, all-encompassing inspectorate with a wider remit? Can she say also whether the inspectorate, if it is to be set up, will be a nationally based system?
I recognise, as the Statement does, that the measures the Government have announced, which we broadly support, are aimed at a very small number of individuals—rotten apples in the system—and that the vast majority of those who work with children in care homes, boarding schools and other environments away from home are skilled, dedicated and of unquestionable integrity. The task now is to ensure that a robust system is set up which identifies the rotten apples at the earliest possible moment. From these Benches, we will follow the new initiatives in a constructive spirit. We wish them well.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating this important Statement which introduces the Government's response to the Utting Report. Both the report a year ago and the Government's response today are substantial documents which undoubtedly provide blueprints for the future to reduce the mess to which the Statement refers.
Earlier this week we were being asked to consider more abstract questions of supporting family life. The problems being addressed today are the all too real problems of the state's response when family life breaks down or really does not exist at all and local authorities have to step in to take over parental responsibility. I welcome the suggested response of asking in almost every situation whether this would be good enough for our own children. Children who go into care following abuse of whatever type are particularly vulnerable. They must be protected from further abuse if damaged children are not to become damaged adults creating problems, generation after generation.
I welcome the safeguards proposed in the recruitment of those who work with children and the elementary precautions which must be taken to ensure that those who are manifestly unsuitable go nowhere near children's homes or foster care situations. In that context, it is noticeable that the Statement does not mention training, particularly the training of those who work in children's homes or residential care situations. That clearly needs investment in staff and in training.
I welcome the attention paid to 16 to 21 year-olds. We all know that family life does not dissolve when children leave home, or leave school at 16, or when they become legally adult. I welcome the extension of the statutory duty for children under the Children Act to the
380
age of 18, although I cannot help wondering what in practice the reality will be in the absence of proper resources.
At the beginning of the care process, since the Children Act the courts have played their part in ensuring that care proceedings are dealt with quickly, a responsibility which both the courts and family lawyers take seriously. The difficulty is that once the court makes the order the court has no further function or responsibility. The court makes an order on the basis of a local authority care plan which it has to accept. It has no ability to review cases when care plans are not put into operation. I suggest that there is now a need for serious consideration to be given to giving the courts some ability to review care plans after a year if they have not been put into operation.
There is a recognition that all too often lack of resources means that children are exposed to a series of short-term placements. One of the most depressing features of dealing with child care cases is that, even by the time the case comes to court, a child may have been in two, three, four or even more placements before a decision is made. Even then, more placements are likely before a final placement for that child is found. That places an enormous burden on foster carers and defers and hampers what the Statement refers to as a decent start in life. Can the Minister say whether attention will be paid to the recruitment and retention of foster parents, who must be amazingly demoralised if they see that all the hard work they put in comes to nothing if a final placement cannot be found?
We hear about children's homes when things go wrong and we must await the North Wales inquiry with some foreboding. But, as the Minister said, a great deal goes right. However, putting children into homes must be a last resort. It is disappointing that the Statement is silent on the question of adoption services. It is disappointing that the Government have left the adoption Bill on the shelf where it was placed by the previous government. The most precious untapped resources for children in care are those who are willing and able to adopt children. I hope that the Government will heed the initiatives of the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering.
3.59 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome of both noble Lords for the broad principles set out in the Statement. I shall certainly try to reply to the issues they raised.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised the issue of national standards as against local autonomy. A balance has to be struck. In the past, too many services provided locally for children have not been adequate and have fallen below minimum standard. Too many children have suffered as a result. We therefore believe that we need a tightly monitored system in which there is central support and direction and funding. But there must also be a balance with regard to local decision making so that local authorities can decide on the changes appropriate in their areas and can listen locally to the voice of children in their areas. That is an important theme running through the response.

381
The noble Earl referred to the £375 million. This is new money which is ring-fenced grant in terms of the children's grant and is part of the total announced in the comprehensive spending review, as in the case of many other aspects. That money is for the children's plans and part of the Quality Protects programme, but all the other financial repercussions have been funded as part of the comprehensive spending review. Referring to the inspectorate, I must ask the noble Earl to be patient until the social services White Paper is published. That document will provide the details as to that. In addition, a circular will be published quite soon on the targeting of the special grant.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, raised a number of issues. He referred to the training and vetting of staff who work in children's homes. This is an enormously important area which must be tackled at both national and local level. This is an area to which we shall be devoting resources and attention as part of the implementation. The noble Lord also highlighted the importance of foster parents. We shall be initiating a campaign to recruit more foster parents and to give them more support and better training. We must recognise that sometimes we ask people to do very difficult jobs in these areas. It is hoped that both initiatives will help to reduce the number of placements to which children are subjected.
I deal next with the establishment of a criminal records agency. We are anxious to get on with that as soon as possible in order to improve and widen access to checks. The whole issue of the categories of people beyond those with criminal records that we do not wish to work with children is an extremely difficult one. This matter is being considered at the moment by an inter-departmental group. It is also looking at the question of abuse of trust. We hope that that will report by the end of the year so that we can see how to make progress.
It is also important that we make progress on the so far somewhat patchy implementation of the recommendations on recruitment and selection made in Choosing with Care. As soon as parliamentary time is available we want to put the consultancy index that lists social services personnel—rather than Department of Health or DfEE personnel—who are unsuitable to work with children on a statutory basis to make sure that it is an effective bar to employment and to put in place an appeals mechanism.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will not under-estimate the welcome that awaits the determination in this field. The report of Sir William Utting and the Government's policy—if they can bring it off—will be a landmark in the history of childcare. I hope that she will also not under-estimate the difficulty of what is being undertaken, particularly in the area of what is popularly known as joined-up government, which used to be called partnership. I cannot help recalling with a poignant pang the death of Maria Colwell about 20 years ago which was attributed to a failure in joined-up government or, as it was then called, communication between the voluntary and
382
statutory sectors. It is a nettle that people have been trying to grasp ever since. If the Government are successful their achievement will be hugely welcomed.
The difficulty arises in part from the different languages that practitioners in various fields speak and the differing objectives set by their governing bodies. An important element is the training of all practitioners in a common language. That best starts as the Government's approach has started, from the position of the child so that everyone speaks from the same standpoint.
The subject of the child brings one to the essential element which government cannot introduce: compassion. A government can provide incentives, resources and administration. But what is essential to the growth of a healthy and (be it added) non-criminal child is love. Therefore, one must attract into the system not people who are looking for jobs but people with a vocation. That must be remembered in the recruitment programme.
With regard to selection, I should like to ask one question of the noble Baroness that is of particular interest to me and the DIVERT Trust which I chair. She said that there would be access to information about the criminal records and perhaps other characteristics of employees who might work with children. Can she now give an assurance—if not, can she strive to ensure that such an assurance is given—that that information will also be available to voluntary bodies who appoint volunteers they train but whom they do not pay or employ to take on equally responsible work?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, in his last point the noble Lord raises an important area. We must carefully work out the methods of implementation and the implications particularly for the voluntary sector which, as he points out, is extremely important. That is one of the issues now being considered by the inter-departmental working group, led by the Home Office, on preventing unsuitable people from working with children. We will need to consider that matter when the group reports. But I am aware of the wider concerns than simply those relating to people in paid employment. We are all aware of cases where abuse has taken place in settings other than paid employment.
The noble Lord rightly points out that the messages about joined-up government, inter-agency working, partnership—whatever it is called—have emerged from every one of the tragic inquiry reports. We do not under-estimate the difficulties arising from a whole range of specific policies and duties, for example, ensuring that a local authority looks at its total responsibility for the child, not simply the social services department. The joint planning guidance given to the National Health Service and to local authorities in which children are a priority is an example of trying to turn that into a reality. As to child protection, we shall be issuing further guidance next spring in relation to inter-agency and inter-departmental working. Therefore, the noble Lord is right to say that it is not something that is simple to put right. We must put in place the structures to facilitate it rather than stand in its way.

383
The noble Lord rightly said that the Government could take certain steps but could not ensure that there was compassion or love. However, the framework that my right honourable friend has set for the work of the inter-ministerial group in terms of looking at how any of us would feel as parents and trying to replicate, however inadequately, in a statutory and non-parental framework those kinds of values is the best way of beginning to ensure that non-family-based services have some of the qualities that we hope the family-based care of children also provides.
Lord Laming: My Lords, despite being one of the most junior Members of your Lordships' House, I hope that I, too, may welcome the Minister's Statement. It is a powerful and heart-warming Statement. I do not recall key Ministers from all the departments with responsibility for this matter, several of which are represented here today, coming together to produce an action plan committing them to take such detailed action.
Does the Minister agree that the responsibility given to local authorities to care for children, many of whom have been damaged in early life and who have had a poor start, is one of the most serious placed upon them? Does she further agree that the report outlines a great deal of detail which local authorities should be addressing without waiting for legislation? There are many recommendations in the report which local authorities can immediately put into practice.
If children cannot be helped entirely to overcome some of their experiences during the first years of life, at least they can be safeguarded from further abuse or exploitation. Will the Minister give an assurance that steps will be taken forthwith to ensure that all local authorities, not only the best, operate to the standards set out in this very heart-warming document?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord may be a junior Member of this House, but he is not junior in terms of his contributions in this particular area where his knowledge and achievements are well known. He makes a very important point. Although there are elements in respect of which we need to take legislative action, there are elements where we need to refine the fine detail as regards the key requirement of asking local authorities to set out Quality Protects action plans and implement them over the next three years. There are things that can be done and must be done immediately and the financing will be available. We are making very clear the criteria against which we shall judge those plans. As the noble Lord said, we must look not only to those who are leaders in good practice in this area, but ensure that we raise the standard of those local authorities which do not have a good record. There is no reason whatever for any delay.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps the Minister remembers answering a Question of mine on 21st October about the provision of refuges for under-16 runaways under Section 51 of the Children Act. She then said that
384
the matter might be better addressed in the Government's response to the Utting Report. Perhaps I may ask the proverbial question: has she anything to add to that reply?
In reply to the Front Benchers, the Minister referred to the inadequacy of many services provided locally. Will she consider the possibility that in some cases the adequacy of those services may have been proportional to the adequacy of the standard spending assessment? Does she agree that in the concern for the funding of education, which I share, there is a risk that social services might become the poor relation and that that risk needs watching?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I do not believe that any Minister ever forgets an occasion when the noble Earl asks him or her a Question. I do indeed recall his Question on children's refuges. The report refers to the importance of refuges and of national government working with local government and the voluntary sector to strengthen its role and financial basis. I do not recall my exact words, but the spirit in which I answered was that the response to the Utting Report was important in terms of improving the standards of care in order to prevent the need for refuges in the first place. I hope that we have a comprehensive plan which will enable us to provide a system from which fewer children feel the need to run away and therefore need the breakdown service which a refuge provides.
As regards the inadequacy of some local services, I hear what the noble Earl says about the resource background of some of the areas which have failed. However, it is not a simple equation between the amount of money that is allocated and spent and the quality of the available services. It is also a matter of commitment and the rigorous monitoring of the quality of the services. There is also a special responsibility on local authority members which the Quality Protects initiative is keen to foster and improve.
Baroness David: My Lords, I, too, give a warm welcome to the Statement to which we have been looking forward for some time. I welcome in particular what is said about 16 year-olds and over who may be thrown out of local authority care with no support. That does not always happen, but it can happen and we try to do something about it. Indeed, Lady Faithfull was keen to do something about it when the Children Act was being debated in 1989. We really wanted to do something about 16 year-olds but it was not possible. Therefore, I particularly welcome that recommendation.
Perhaps I may make one other point about training. Workers in local authority homes are often ill trained or may have no training. Can we have a reassurance that there will be proper training and that properly qualified people will work in children's homes? Can we be assured that training will be given not only before they enter the homes, but that there will be ongoing training and retraining as time goes by?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I recognise the point made by my noble friend. It is important that we resource improvements in post-qualifying training, in the take-up of vocational training and in management

385
development so that across all areas we are improving the quality, the training and the resources available to the staff in post.
I am grateful for my noble friend's welcome of the improved services for over 16 year-olds. Although in terms of legislation that may take time, we have made it clear that in the Quality Protects initiative local authorities must take action now to improve the services which they offer to care leaders, in particular in relation to young children who are thrown out into the world and, if I say, often "fail to thrive", it would be an understatement.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I wish to follow on the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Elton and the Minister's remarks about love and compassion. Does not that lie at the heart of good childcare? One can have all the action plans, targets and so forth, but if in the end there is not at least one person on this earth who is totally committed to the well-being of the child the service can never approach what has been widely welcomed—care comparable to that of our own children.
Furthermore, does the Minister accept that there is bound to be a "tug" between the desire to protect the child in a climate of child protection, with all the formality required to support it, and the circumstances in which positive childcare can flourish? Is the Minister aware that in my former constituency there is a splendid children's home in which the professional involved was involved in the Kincora study in Northern Ireland and reached the conclusion that the whole climate of fear in the childcare system, bolstered by regulations, legislation and departmental procedures, made positive, creative childcare almost impossible?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I listened with great care to what the noble Lord said. I certainly share his aspiration for the quality of service he was describing. I should not wish there to be anything in place which detracted from that creativity and the affection and concern he described which accompanies that.
We do not start from a position where even fundamental protection has been given to many of those children. Unfortunately, it is not a matter of increasing the level of compassion for some children who have been through the care system. Rather, it is taking fundamental steps to stop the dreadful abuse to which they have been subjected. I am afraid that that is why there is emphasis on areas of regulation which are absolutely inevitable, given the history of what has gone on before in this field.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, as someone who had the somewhat frustrating experience of introducing a debate in your Lordships' House some seven or eight years ago on childcare, may I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness and the Government on the Statement and all the intentions which lie behind it. However, if we look at the soil in which the roots of our social work system feeds, we come, do we not, to the training of social workers? In this respect, the Government are to be particularly congratulated on their decision to phase out or abolish
386
CCETSW—the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work. Will the noble Baroness tell the House what progress the Government are making to replace CCETSW with a system of validation of social work courses which produces more practical social workers with a genuine respect for human nature and less respect for outdated notions of social engineering? She will find that this is not just a question of money. It is a question of the content of the courses which the Government have agreed is pretty dreadful.
In this respect, the Minster indicated that the Government also agree that too many children may be taken into care. The Orkneys syndrome comes to mind. And so I hope the Government will stand up to the ideology which is being produced in large part by these courses and encourage more placements of children with suitable families rather than having them taken into care, whatever the colour of the family or the colour of the child concerned.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the Government have announced that they are to establish a general social care council to regulate the social care workforce for the first time and to register staff. Department of Health Ministers have said that they propose that childcare staff will be among the early registrants. That is one of the organisations which should become a driving force to increase the level of training and qualifications across the social care sector. We have several initiatives under way in that sphere, including the development of a new post-qualifying award for professional social workers. The first candidates will begin training in January 2000. We are setting aside funds for training for other childcare staff to national vocational level three, which will start this year and continue for a further two years.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I have been sickened by the events that took place in those homes. I feel that we all bear a responsibility for what happened. We should never forget that those children had already undergone a traumatic event in their lives, otherwise they would not have been in care. My concern today is the discretional care for those aged between 16 and 18. We should think very carefully before we support any lowering of the age of consent. If a homosexual relationship was established between a member of staff and someone in that discretionary care area he was looking after, would he fall outside the proposed legislation?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we recognise the concerns that have been raised as regards the potential for the abuse of trust if consensual sexual relations occur between a person in a position of trust and a young person aged 16 or 17 in his care or under his supervision. That is an area which the inter-departmental working group on preventing unsuitable people working with children, to which I referred earlier, is considering. The Government will need to decide whether new legislation is needed in that specific area in the light of the proposals from that group.

Registration of Political Parties Bill
4.26 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Serota) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The register]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 10, at end insert—
("(3) The Secretary of State may by order transfer the functions of the registrar under this Act to such body established by statute or the holder of such office so established as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.").
The noble Lord said: Clause 1 of the Bill requires the register of political parties to be maintained by the registrar of companies. The registrar of companies is not in fact a particularly appropriate person to handle the responsibility of maintaining the register under this Bill. The existing duties of the registrar are largely administrative and record-keeping and the registrar has no functions comparable with those to be exercised by him under this Bill.
Control over the names of companies is the responsibility not of the registrar but of the Secretary of State under Chapter II of the Companies Act 1985. It is not obvious that any other existing office holder would be more appropriate for the maintenance of the register of political parties. The use of the registrar for the purposes of the Bill may therefore be acceptable in the short-term but not acceptable in the long term. Therefore, sooner or later, a new office or body will need to be created for that purpose.
Since Second Reading, the report of the Neill Committee on standards in public life on the funding of political parties has been published. Of course, I am a member of that committee. The committee recommended the setting up of an election commission for various purposes, including the monitoring of donations to political parties and spending limits. The Jenkins Commission has also recommended that certain functions should be exercised by an election commission.
The election commission seems to be the obviously appropriate body to carry out the functions of the registration of parties. This amendment has been included in order to raise for discussion the question of the transfer of the registrar's functions in due course to the election commission.
I recognise that the appropriate course for doing so is not by way of this amendment but to transfer that jurisdiction by an amendment to Clause 1 which establishes the election commission. I should make it clear that for that reason, I do not intend to press the amendment. However, I seek an assurance from the
388
Government that they will give favourable consideration to the transfer of those functions from the inappropriate hands of the registrar of companies to the appropriate hands of the election commission or a similar body which may be set up—and I trust will be set up—to carry out the functions proposed in the Neill Committee's report.
Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 are purely consequential but Amendment No. 43, which is also grouped with Amendment No. 1, is a variation on the theme of the election commission. The returning officer is clearly the right person to take the initial decision on whether a description selected by a candidate is one which is likely to cause confusion with a registered political party. At present, under this Bill, that decision would be subject to judicial review. But judicial review inevitably involves some delay and certainly involves considerable expense. It would be better to provide, as a first step, a right of appeal to an independent body which can hear the appeal quickly and informally and will impose rules consistently throughout the country. Here again the election commission is the appropriate body for that purpose. It can, for example, have members standing by during the nomination period to hear appeals arising from the decision of returning officers more or less instantly.
Here again, I recognise that the proper procedure will be to include such a right of appeal in a Bill establishing an election commission, but Amendment No. 43, like Amendment No. 1, is put down as a marker and in order to seek the Government's reaction.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: I rise very briefly to say to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that I have considerable sympathy with Amendment No. 1 and its consequential amendments. I should like to comment on Amendment No. 43; in fact I might even have put my name to that amendment, but it seems that my Liberal Democrat colleagues were not at all keen on dirtying their hands by allowing me to be associated with their amendments. Indeed, all their subsequent amendments were put down in blocks of four names to prevent my attaching my name to them, as I did to a later amendment, Amendment No. 21. However, I do say to the noble Lord that if he wants my support I am always prepared to offer it on certain occasions.
I have only one point that I want to make in relation to this amendment to Clause 1 of the Bill. Clause 1(2) suggests that,
"The register shall he maintained by the registrar or other officer who performs the duty of registration of companies in England and Wales under the Companies Act 1985".
It seems somewhat odd to me, in these days of devolution, that we should be using an officer who registers companies in England and Wales, when we are registering parties throughout the United Kingdom. Although I imagine this will not affect parties which are based in or have their headquarters in London, parties such as the SNP might have considerable misgivings about having to register with a body which operates principally in England and Wales. The same might be

389
true, for example, of federal parties and the Liberal Democrat Party, as with separate organisations in different parts of the United Kingdom.
I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that it would be more appropriate that some other body should be given the task of establishing the register and that the body which registers companies in England and Wales is not necessarily the appropriate body to do this.
Lord Borrie: We discussed this to some extent at Second Reading, but of course we did not then have the benefit of the Neill Report. Now we do have that benefit, it is natural that one should think of an electoral commission, which may well be set up to deal with the funding of political parties and other matters, as being suitable for this purpose. In so far as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, wants to put a provision in the Bill making that a possibility it seems to me to make quite a lot of sense.
I have, from the beginning, been somewhat concerned that it may not be suitable to appoint the Registrar of Companies to deal with what over the years to come may well be a very major job. It seems as though the Government, quite properly, were casting around for some appropriate existing body rather than setting up a new one. That is quite understandable, but if in due course, when they have considered the Neill Report and find they have to set up a new body—the electoral commission would seem to be suitable—this amendment would make it possible for the Government to do that.
When I looked at the Neill Report—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will not mind my saying this although he was a member of the committee—there seemed to me to be a lot of loose ends left in relation to its appointment. I feel some uncertainty as to whether it is appropriate that all members of the electoral commission will be part time and so forth. However, leaving that aside, in my view there is quite a lot in what the noble Lord has said.
In relation to Amendment No. 43, I believe that there are quite different considerations and concerns that any sort of appeal from the returning officer during the very brief period of an election may not be suitable. In so far as I am speaking favourably of the main amendment, Amendment No. 1, that does not mean that I am very keen, and it is slightly odd that Amendment No. 43 should be linked with it.
Lord Goodhart: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, would accept that at present the decision of the returning officer can be subject to judicial review. Indeed, there have been a number of cases. What is proposed here is actually a quicker procedure than would be involved in a judicial review.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I shall speak very briefly, and as one who is far from being an enthusiast for the Bill and therefore for the appointment of a registrar. My other reluctance is to confer upon Secretaries of State—any of them—powers which they do not presently need. I see little point in establishing, as this Bill does, a registrar and then tipping him upside down and
390
emptying out all his functions. I think it would be much better to wait until it is clear what the Government want to do. I am very much in favour of rejecting the amendment, as I hope the noble Lord, the Minister, will.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am very grateful for the contributions of Members of the Committee. It is a fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, indicated, that following our earlier discussions the Neill Committee reported. It is useful to bear its view in mind. It set out the question of registration being handled by Companies House in paragraph 11.25. In next paragraph 11.26, it said:
"This is clearly a pragmatic interim measure, but we believe that registration should be brought together with other aspects of regulation under the aegis of the Election Commission."
Since this is a regime which is to be valid across the whole of the United Kingdom we thought it was sensible to have the registrar dealing with it on a UK-wide basis. It is true, of course, that recommendation 82 of the Neill Report was that the election commission should assume the role of registrar of political parties. We are giving careful consideration, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, to all the recommendations of the Neill Committee. If an election commission or a similar body is established, it may well make sense for it to take over the role of registrar.
At the moment, as your Lordships know, we need registration urgently for the elections to be held next year. They will be in May for the Scottish parliament and the Welsh national assembly and in June for the European Parliament, so time is quite tight.
To repeat what the Neill Committee said, this Bill takes a pragmatic approach and places the task on the registrar. I say again that we may well want to change this in the future. Your Lordships may think that the appropriate vehicle for such a step is not this Bill—and here I respectfully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil,—but a Bill dealing with party funding. We have already committed ourselves to that, and I repeat that we are committed to publishing in draft form the Bill on party funding before next year's summer Recess.
I do not deal with the consequential matters, which, as the noble Lord said, are matters of detail. Similarly, as regards Amendment No. 43, at the moment the returning officers make a decision and there is no appeal against that decision, in the sense that an appeal is normally understood. There are only 11 working days between the last day for delivery of nomination papers and polling day. I do not dismiss the observations made by the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Borrie, about appeals. We will look very carefully at what the Neill Committee has had to say. I hope that the indications I have given, although not promises or commitments, give a pretty clear indication of what we have in mind and that they will satisfy the noble Lords who raised these questions.
Lord Goodhart: I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply. I accept that what he has said is not a commitment in any formal sense, but it is an answer that

391
I find of considerable assistance. For that reason, as well as for the one I gave earlier, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Applications for registration]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) Where the constitution of a party establishes a devolved or federal structure, the party may apply for several entries in the register to reflect these arrangements.
( ) Any such entry may specify a different name for each branch of the organisation.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 2 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 8 in my name and Amendment No. 3 in the names of the Liberal Democrat Peers. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will not be surprised to hear me say that I am fundamentally opposed and suspicious of a proposition for the state to register political parties. It suggests that the state may not register those political parties it does not like. As I have said before, if I were setting up as a dictator in the United Kingdom, one of the first steps I should take would be to register political parties.
I understand that we need some measure like the Bill to deal with the various forms of proportional representation foisted upon us by the Government. But the reason I tabled these amendments goes back to a report in the Independent on Sunday of 27th September which said that the Government were bringing forward, under a later part of Clause 3 of the Bill, an order whereby certain words would be banned. Among those words to be banned is, for example, the word "independent". In the words of the report the Government believe that it gives the impression of "partisan politicians". I am not sure what that means.
Under the regulations, which will not apply to existing names, titles such as the Scottish National Party, the National Front and the British National Party would be illegal. The report lists some of the words that would be banned—Ireland, Irish, Northern Ireland, Northern Irish, Scotland, Scottish and, nearer to home for the noble Lord, Lord Williams, Wales and the Welsh. The Scottish press are slow to pick up on these matters but by 11th October Joanne Robertson in the Scottish edition of the Sunday Times was writing an article headed,
"Only one party can call itself Scottish at polls".
To explain my amendment it is worth reading out what she had to say:
"Only one party in Scotland will be allowed to call itself Scottish for the Holyrood elections next May—the Scottish National party. A new law going through the House of Lords will force all parties to register only one name and logo throughout Britain. This means Labour, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats will be barred from using 'Scottish' … north of the border".
The same article could have been written for Wales. She went on to say,
"The SNP was delighted last night. Mike Russell, the party's chief executive, said: 'Next May the truth about the British parties will be revealed for all to see on the ballot paper"'.
There is perhaps on this occasion a community of interest between the Liberal Democrats and myself and, indeed, between us and the Labour Party. The last thing we wish in Scotland or Wales is to see the national parties in both those countries being able to take unto themselves and themselves alone the words "Scottish" and "Welsh".
Therefore I tabled these amendments. Amendment No. 8 was a clumsy and early version. Amendment No. 2 is a better way of dealing with it. My noble friend Lord Henley has just handed me a draft statutory instrument which is the one spoken about by Rachel Sylvester. It has taken since 27th September until now to appear. She obviously had a quick insight into it. When I asked the Library on 13th October, it could not find it but perhaps I have not been keeping my eye on this ball because there have been other balls in place.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: To be helpful, I was going to say later in my remarks that I was arranging to have a copy placed in the Library tomorrow. In fact, in order to assist my colleagues on the other side, I asked for it to be brought here this afternoon and as soon as I received it I handed it to the noble Lords, Lord Henley and Lord Goodhart, so that people who wanted to read it this afternoon did not have to linger in London until tomorrow. It was purely an act of Scottish philanthropy.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Lord for showing any act of philanthropy towards me. I hope I said in my remarks that the document was handed to my noble friend and I am grateful for that.
As always, the document is in good, solid, "legalese". If I read it aright, it will mean that the parties in Scotland and Wales will be able to call themselves the Scottish Labour Party, the Scottish Liberal Democrat Party and the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party; and in Wales the same will happen with the Welsh parties. But will those parties have to register separately or will the registration of the Labour party nationally encompass the Scottish and Welsh variations? My amendment was to enable the Labour Party, when it registered, to be able to say that in Scotland it is called the Scottish Labour Party and in Wales the Welsh Labour Party.
But I go one step further. Parties in Scotland and Wales may have different emblems to the party in the UK—that is certainly true of the Conservative Party. It would help if the noble Lord, Lord Williams, could indicate whether the Bill covers emblems as well.
I note that the Irish problem—if I can call it that—is not mentioned in the draft statutory instrument; Ireland, Irish, Northern Ireland and Northern Irish are not mentioned. So if politics in Ireland were to move in a different direction, political parties on the mainland could fight in Northern Ireland with the prefix "Northern Irish" or "Ulster". In fact, the Conservative Party has fought in Northern Ireland as the Conservative Party, but if that were to happen in the future, would those names be allowed? I can understand that they are not in the list because it is not strictly relevant. There is an

393
Ulster Democrat Party; and I believe that the word "Ulster" comes into the title of some Northern Ireland parties although I have not had an opportunity to check.
I should be grateful if, now or later, the Minister could indicate why none of the Northern Irish names has been included in the draft when Scotland, Wales and the United Kingdom appear to have been properly included. I hope the noble Lord can confirm that I read the draft instrument aright and that in relation to Scotland and Wales there is no problem. However, perhaps he can answer my point in regard to the logo and Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: This is an important group of amendments. My party tabled Amendments Nos. 3 and 10 to which I shall speak. I shall speak also to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.
My party is known as the Liberal Democrats. It is a federal party—a federation of three separate entities whose official titles are the Scottish Liberal Democrats, the Welsh Liberal Democrats (also known as Democratiaid Rhyddfrydol Cymru, if that is the correct pronunciation and no doubt the noble Lord will correct me if it is not) and the Liberal Democrats in England. Each of those entities, in legal terms, is a separate unincorporated association. The federal party will register as the Liberal Democrats and it is likely that the Liberal Democrats in England will simply use the same title. But the Scottish and Welsh Liberal Democrats will almost certainly wish to register under those names and perhaps to use an emblem not identical to that of the federal party.
The question is: can the Scottish and Welsh Liberal Democrats do that? In the debate in Standing Committee A, in the other place on 18th June, the Minister, Mr. Howarth, said,
"The Bill will allow parties to use a description that denotes a constituent part of the United Kingdom—for example, Scottish Conservative or Welsh Liberal Democrat—but requires the emblem to he the same throughout the country".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee A, 18/6/98; col. 42.]
I have found considerable difficulty in extracting that particular conclusion from the terms of the Bill. It seems clear that the Scottish Liberal Democrats and the Welsh Liberal Democrats are separate organisations, as is the federal party, and each of them is, therefore, a party as defined in Clause 22. If so, each party can register its name under Clause 2, and, if it wishes to do so, can register a separate emblem under Clause 5. The Scottish and Welsh parties do not use separate emblems at present but they might wish to do so in the future.
Can the Minister clarify the position? In particular, can the Welsh and Scottish Liberal Democrats register as separate parties and register separate emblems? Our amendments are, to a large extent, the same as those of the Conservatives, and to that extent we support them. The practical difference is, as I see it, that our amendments allow registration of distinct emblems as well as distinct names.
As with names, an emblem is likely to be a variant on the principal emblem rather than a completely different one. There seems no reason why variations of
394
an emblem should not be allowed. The Scottish Labour Party may wish to have an emblem which is a hybrid of the rose and the thistle to demonstrate how prickly they are likely to be.
I have just seen the draft order. I find it a little difficult to follow. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten me. Article 2(1) says:
"Subject to paragraph (2), the registered name of a party shall not include any word or expression which is listed in any Part of the Schedule to this Order".
Paragraph (2) of that article says:
"Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a word or expression listed in Part II of the Schedule where it is qualified by another word or expression other than the registered name of a registered party".
Part II of the schedule includes the words "Scotland", "Scots" and "Scottish". My reading of that, which may be incorrect, is that the use of the words "Scotland", "Scots" and "Scottish" is legitimate only when used with a name which is not a registered name of a registered party. Therefore, for the Conservative Party, which has a registered name also, to register as the "Scottish Conservative Party" would be specifically forbidden. I may be wrong. I have not had time to examine the document in detail but it concerns me. Perhaps the Minister can explain what is intended.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I do not want to delay your Lordships for any length of time. First, on the amendment proposed by my noble friend, is there anything in the Bill at the moment which stops a political party doing what the amendment proposes that it should be able to do?
My second point is an old-fashioned prejudice but I favour the idea of legislation being kept as short and as simple as possible. I have noted, with increasing anxiety and discontent, that a Bill being launched is rather like a ship putting to sea. With the help of noble Lords of all parties, it gathers to itself any number of unwanted barnacles in its progress. For those reasons, I hope that noble Lords will reject both the amendments.
I have come to regard political parties with restricted enthusiasm. I know of nobody who behaves better, or more intelligently, or who does wiser things when they are wearing a party hat than when they are not. For that simple reason, I regret any measure of this kind which gives political parties more power or any sort of privileged position, and I greatly abhor any notion of having party lists. That is a most offensive idea and I hope that your Lordships will not hear too much about it in the future. I realise that is probably the height of optimism.
Finally, perhaps I may advise the Minister that I greatly admire his skills, so much so that when he speaks it seems to be almost impossible to believe that he could be wrong. However, there are times when my mind drifts towards suspecting that that could be possible. Although I congratulate the Government on the skill they have shown in selecting him as their pilot, I look with some suspicion upon the way in which he uses his talents.
Viscount Bledisloe: I seek some enlightenment from the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. On the

395
Welsh and Scottish Bills he made the point, with great clarity and enthusiasm, and indeed frequency, that there was scope in those Bills for diddling the system. A candidate could stand under one name at stage 1 and under another name at stage 2, and thereby a party would have more candidates than it should. He gave the example that a Conservative could call himself a "Conservative" and then call himself a "Unionist" and do a lot better. It was suggested to him that the right way of dealing with that was in the course of this Bill. So perhaps I may ask him two questions.
First, has be abandoned any hope of achieving that result? Secondly, if he has, do not these amendments, and in particular the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, make that even more likely, because a candidate could stand at stage 1 as a Conservative and at stage 2 as a Welsh Conservative and so benefit from the trick which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, so lucidly explained? However, he then assured us that nobody in his party would ever dream of doing that. I would like some enlightenment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As this is the Committee stage, I think I can answer immediately. If the noble Lord looks at Amendments Nos. 7 and 15 he will find that I am tackling that problem by the use of those amendments. The amendments try to clarify the position I explained about the use of the word "Scottish". I believe that Amendments Nos. 7 and 15 will deal with the other problem.
Viscount Bledisloe: The noble Lord's amendment allows—if it did not, the speech that he made would be impractical—a party to have the name "Conservative Party" and to have the name "Welsh Conservative Party". Would his amendment prevent a candidate switching the labels and thereby achieving the trick he was talking about?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may come back again on that point. Depending on what the Minister says, of course, if the position came about that a candidate for the Conservative Party tried to stand in the first ballot for the "Conservative Party" and in the second ballot for the "Scottish Conservative Party", under my Amendments Nos. 7 and 15 the registrar would probably rightly refuse to register him and the returning officer would probably refuse to accept that he should stand.
5 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, for being such a lodestar to me. I do not propose to accept those amendments, so I am following his advice. He spoke of subtlety of language being irresistible. Between 1992 and 1997 I had the great pleasure of sitting where he is now and watching a master of subtlety of language demolish his own Government Front Bench. So I think I have learned whatever modest skill I have from the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil.
396
I handed over the draft order as soon as it was in my hand. I believe that it should allay a number of the concerns that have been raised.
This group contains Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 8, 10 and 28. If it is convenient to the Committee, I shall deal with them together. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 would allow individual branches or component parts of a registered political party to have separate register entries. This would, in effect, allow a party to have a number of register entries; the Bill at present allows each party only one name and register entry.
I understand the desire that one might wish to continue to prefix the name of a party with words such as "Scottish" or "Welsh" in a description on the ballot paper. However, I can reassure the Committee that that is possible without the amendments, as I think is explained by the draft order.
There is no requirement that candidates of a political party must use that party's name in exactly the form in which it is registered as their description on the ballot paper; for example, if a candidate of the Liberal Democrat Party, assuming the party registers under that name—a fair assumption—wishes to describe himself as a "Scottish Liberal Democrat" on the ballot paper, that party's nominating officer would probably give his consent. If, however, the candidate was not a member of that party, no such consent would be forthcoming and the returning officer would be able to reject the description as it would be likely to lead voters to associate the candidate with a registered party, the Liberal Democrat Party. That is the effect of paragraph 2 of Schedule 2.
Amendment No. 8 would mean that the registrar could not refuse to grant an application to register a party name on the grounds that to do so would be likely to result in that party being confused by voters with a party which is already registered solely because both names included the same word from the list in the amendment. Hence, for example, if the "National Youth Party" were already registered, the registrar could not on this basis refuse to register the "National Middle-Aged Party" solely because "National" has been used.
The amendment is unnecessary. It implies that once a party has used a particular word in its name, the registrar might decide not to register another party simply because its name includes the same word. That is not the case. That is why we have given the registrar the power to decide whether the use of that word is likely to confuse the two parties in the minds of voters.
The words listed in the amendment are words which a number of parties are likely to use in their names. It is intended that this will be dealt with by the order to be made under Clause 3(1)(f). Perhaps I may give an example. We intend to use the order—I am sorry that not all noble Lords have been able to see a copy—to forbid, for instance, a false implication of a connection with the Royal Family.
The order will not allow a party to register a name which is the same as the name of a registered party, qualified by a word such as "Scottish" or "Welsh". Therefore, a party's nominating officer could authorise

397
a candidate to put the word "Scottish" or "Welsh" before the party's name in his description on his nomination paper.
We also intend to ensure that certain generic words or phrases—I gave the Committee examples earlier—such as "residents association" are not registered by a single party to prevent their being used widely by individual candidates. We also intend in the order to provide that the word "independent" may not be registered on its own as, for instance, in the "Independent Party".
I accept that this issue is complicated and that it is not fair to expect everyone to have understood the drafting of the order. I was simply seeking to be as helpful as possible because, the drafting was not completed until today. Therefore, perhaps I may repeat that a copy of the current draft will be placed in the Library tomorrow morning.
Amendment No. 10 would allow the branches or component parts of a registered party to register their own emblems if different from the overall party emblem. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, raised this point and I sympathise with it. However, we must bear in mind the fact that the space for the emblem or logo will be only two centimetres square. There will be difficulties if, for instance, more than one Scottish party wishes to use the thistle as its national emblem. It would be extremely confusing to try to get a variant of a thistle emblem into a tiny box only two centimetres square. This is, therefore, an answer of practicality rather than of principle.
Amendment No. 28 would allow parties to register as many names as they choose, thus preventing other parties from using those descriptions. I have already explained that, if a candidate's description is likely to lead voters to associate the candidate with a registered party, the nominating officer of that party must certify that the candidate is entitled to use that description. If, however, no such authorisation is forthcoming, the returning officer will be able to reject the description as it would be likely to lead voters to associate the candidate with a registered party. Under the present scheme, the registrar will have to make a similar judgment under the provisions of Clauses 3(1)(a) and 18(1)(a). We consider that those provisions are sufficiently robust, particularly bearing in mind that experience in the Welsh, Scottish and European elections will indicate whether or not our scheme is workable.
Specific questions have been asked about devolved parties. They can register separately, but they will not be able to register by adding "Scottish" to the registered name of the main party.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, asked about the particular circumstances of the different Liberal Democrat parties. The provisions of Article 2(2)(b) and Part 2 of the schedule prevent registration of the "Scottish Liberal Democrats"—I stress the words "prevent registration"—but do not prevent the Liberal Democrat Party in Scotland or the Conservative Party in Scotland from putting the word "Scottish" on the ballot
398
paper. Those questions relate to practice which should be allowed, subject to the discretion of the relevant officer.
I hope that those explanations are helpful. I recognise that the draft order is simply that and that it is not generally available, but I hope that I have been able to reassure the Committee.
Lord Goodhart: I think that I now understand the position and the effect of the order. However, I do not find it altogether satisfactory. The Scottish and Welsh Liberal Democrat parties regard themselves as independent parties as well as being component parts of the Liberal Democrat Party in Great Britain as a whole. They will not find this position satisfactory, so we may have to return to it at a later date.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I was slightly relieved that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who I understand is an eminent QC, said that he was having trouble understanding the order. That gives me every possible excuse because, as I have told noble Lords before, I am the only Mackay of the threesome who is not a lawyer.
Perhaps the Minister can help me with one or two points. I listened to what he said about a candidate in Scotland of, say, the Liberal Democrat Party being able to put "Scottish Liberal Democrat" on the ballot paper because he would have cover from the official body of the Liberal Democrat Party. I presume that that applies also to the party in Scotland with regard to the list. A party will have to put itself on the list as, I imagine, the "Scottish Liberal Democrat Party", or the "Scottish Labour Party", or the "Scottish Conservative Party".
I did not quite follow the Minister on his point about logos. However, in so far as I did follow him, I understand that a party will not be able to have a separate logo in Scotland and in Wales from its national logo. I am not sure about the position of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, but such a provision would certainly affect the Scottish Conservative Party. By some amazing sleight of hand, which I have never been quite able to understand, the Labour Party in Scotland has managed to get away with incorporating an English rose into Scotland as the emblem of the Scottish Labour Party. I do not think that the Conservatives would ever have got away with that! I am not sure where the Liberal Democrats stand in relation to emblems and whether they have a different Scottish emblem. The indications are that they do not, but the Conservatives do. Perhaps I may return to this point in correspondence with the Minister.
The Minister did not answer my points about the words "Northern Ireland", "Irish", or "Ulster". This is a draft order, so perhaps the draft will have to be revisited. However, it seems a little odd to leave out that part of the kingdom as parties may want to describe themselves using such a label in that part of the kingdom. If the noble Lord wants to reply on that point, I shall be delighted to give way—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I thank the noble Lord for his customary courtesy. We want a practical system

399
that will work and avoid confusion. It seems to me that the words "Scottish Conservative Party" are perfectly plain and indicate to the voter just what he or she is voting for. As regards the list, the noble Lord is quite right to say that reference to the Scottish Labour Party or the Scottish Conservative Party will be allowed. However, I should point out to the noble Lord that there is in fact a Northern Irish Labour Party and a Communist Party of Ireland, which is separate from the Communist Party of Great Britain. We need to frame the order so that such parties can register. I am happy to give the noble Lord that confirmation.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thank the Minister for that very clear response. Indeed, I am grateful to him for clearing up the matter. Perhaps we might even reach the columns of the Scottish edition of the Sunday Times to show that it is not only members the Scottish National Party who will be able to call themselves Scottish. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 4.
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—

NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION, AND OBJECTIONS
(" . The Secretary of State shall by regulations—

(a) provide for notice to be given to all registered parties of any application under section 2; and

(b) authorise a party which is already registered to make objections to an application under section 2 on the ground that the name or emblem proposed in that application would be likely to result in the party making the application being confused by voters with the party objecting to the application.").

The noble Lord said: This is one of a number of amendments tabled by these Benches which reflect the widespread concern about the transparency of the registration process. Indeed, there are further subsequent amendments regarding appeal which reflect that concern. I was most interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, had to say. As a renegade company lawyer, although I have admiration for provisions of the Companies Act, I certainly do not believe that we should be slavishly following them in this registration process, although it is convenient to use the Registrar of Companies for this purpose.
Under the Bill as drafted there is no provision for advertisement of the application for registration and there is no provision for representations or objections to be made. That may be perfectly acceptable in terms of registering a company's name, but I would suggest that the consequences of a political party failing to register a particular name are much more far-reaching than those applying to a company, which is perfectly able to change its name to something similar. Indeed, that is not ultimately damaging if the company is unable to get the precise form of words that it wants, but that may well be the case in terms of a political party in the political market-place.
Therefore, as I said, we do not need slavishly to follow the provisions of the Companies Act; indeed, we can use a different model if we wish to do so. I have in mind, for example, legislation on trade marks. I notice that the amendment drafted by the Opposition follows that perhaps rather more closely. Provision is certainly made in trade marks law for advertisement and for objections to be given. After all, if it is good enough for the trade marks law, why is it not good enough for our law on the registration of political parties?
I am sure that Members of the Committee will agree that, in the early years of the exercise of the powers of the registrar under the Bill, it is particularly important that there should be the ability to make representations so that argument before the registrar can take place before those precedents are set in concrete. At present, there is neither the right of representation nor of appeal. That gives the registrar enormous discretion.
Finally, I turn now to the amendment tabled by the Opposition. Clearly the sentiment is the same, or very similar; and, of course, we would agree with such sentiments. However, Members of the Committee will see that the actual drafting of our amendment is designed to create rather more flexibility so that the actual mechanics of giving notice can be decided by regulation. It would allow rather more mature consideration to be given to the exact way in which that would operate. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I believe that we are now dealing with an important group of amendments, although our amendment attacks the problems from a slightly different angle from that put forward by the Liberal Democrat Party. As I understand it, Amendment No. 4 would only allow a right of objection to those parties which are already registered and the latter could only object on certain particular grounds. It seemed to us that it would be better if the right of objection was widened considerably. That is why we have tabled Amendment No. 6 and why it is worded in the way set out on the Marshalled List. Under this amendment any party would be able to object to a registration, whether or not it is registered. That would mean that a party which had not yet registered would have a right to object to a registration if it thought that that registration might affect its future registration.
Similarly, a party which was already registered would have a right of objection. The amendment would also allow a right of objection to other people where, for one reason or another, they considered that they had some interest in objecting. We have also drafted our amendment in such a manner that it would be possible to object on any grounds that may be thought appropriate, rather than being limited as suggested by Amendment No. 4.
There is a possibility that the Minister will tell us that it will be possible for parties, whether registered or not, to make objections as they wish. In that case, we shall obviously not take these amendments any further. However, I am sure that the Minister will agree that it

401
is only right for parties to have some channel through which they can make their views known. I should be most grateful for an assurance from the noble Lord to that effect.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I believe I am getting into deeper and deeper waters here because every time an amendment has been debated today I have felt obliged—although I think that I must somehow be wrong—to oppose it and support the Government. In his wisdom, to which I have already paid tribute, I hope the noble Lord will see fit to reject both amendments, even though one of them, sadly, comes from my noble friend who sits on the Front Bench in front of me.
I have three points to make. First, I do not like giving the Secretary of State power to make regulations. I have great reservations as to the wisdom of Secretaries of State wherever they come from, however old they may be and whatever their sex. I just doubt the wisdom of Secretaries of State and I do not wish to lavish further powers upon them. Secondly, it seems to me that both amendments seek to protect the members of the club; in other words, to give them every opportunity to keep intruders out. As I have already said, I am not so much in favour of established political parties that I want to see this kind of thing done.
Thirdly, presumably the registrar will have his wits about him and will be someone with reasonable competence, not an idiot. Indeed, he has powers and duties under Clause 3 under which he is obliged to refuse registration if it,
"would be likely to result in the party's being confused by voters with a party which is already registered".
What more protection could an established party want? It makes me very suspicious and upset if people want further to extend the Bill—in other words, to swell it out with words—when nothing will be achieved by it; or, alternatively, when something rather sinister will be achieved. I know not which is true.
Lord Borrie: Before my noble friend the Minister responds, perhaps I may pursue a disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. In particular, I believe that the amendment from the Opposition is intended, among other things, to enable parties which are neither established nor registered to have some say in whether a name should be registered.
I draw attention to the point made on Second Reading by a number of speakers; namely, there is the first stage application for registration and there is the second stage. There is what might be called the first mover advantage. That is, if a party is entitled to register at the first stage—this applies only to parties which have at least one Member of Parliament—it gets in at the first stage and it obtains a certain advantage. If, however, a party does not have a single Member of Parliament, it has to wait a certain period. When someone wants to be registered as a party under the first stage—this applies only to a limited number of existing parties—that application should be notified to, and objected to, by others, for example, others who have an intention of registering under the second stage and who may have a similar name. That would give the proposition of the
402
Opposition Front Bench some merit. If I may be so bold as to arbitrate between the two Front Benches. I prefer the Conservative proposal to that of the Liberal Democrats.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am sorry if anything I said was responsible for stirring the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, to get to his feet. However, my grief and sadness at not being able to agree with my own Front Bench is much more severe than that caused by my inability to agree with him.
Viscount Bledisloe: I suggest that if there is to be a right of objection it cannot be reserved only to registered parties. What about someone who is trying in some way to pretend to be independent and who sought to register the Cross-Bench party? Surely those who are Cross-Benchers must be entitled to object even though they are not a party and therefore obviously would not be registered. There must be a right for the public to object if there is to be a right to object at all.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: I welcome the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, because on Second Reading I said that we had to be particularly careful in considering a Bill which may on the face of it appear to be "carving things up" between the major parties. That remark was not received in the Chamber with universal approbation. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is the first person I have heard make the same point. I believe we need to be careful with this matter. What concerns me with regard to Amendment No. 6 of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is mention of,
"such national newspapers as appear to him"—
that is, the registrar—
"to be appropriate".
I have in this Chamber previously drawn attention to the way in which the "chattering classes" have thrashed through their constitutional change programme. The national newspapers they have used have been restricted to the Guardian, the Independent, the Telegraph, and one insertion in a tabloid newspaper—Today. However, nothing else has been used. A phrase such as the one I have mentioned is far too sloppy. If the registrar is to be given some kind of control over which national newspapers may be used to advertise in, the provision must be much more specific to ensure that it is not simply a case of special pleading appealing to a particular audience.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As is so often the case, the propositions put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, seem to me unarguable. In other words, one could not sensibly dispute them. Had I been irresolute, he would have stiffened my resolve. He said—I think this is the heart of the matter—that if one is to appoint a person to do this work, one will assume that he or she will have his or her wits about him. That is precisely the case. I shall develop that theme in a limited way.
Amendment No. 4 limits the right of objection—I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Henley—to registered parties. That is a point of concern to both the

403
noble Lords, Lord Peyton and Lord Cocks. Amendment No. 6 puts that in a wider context. Clause 3(1)(a) already requires the registrar, when considering applications, to take account of whether the proposed name is,
"likely to result in the party's being confused by voters with a party which is already registered".
During the transitional stages, Clause 18(1)(b) provides an additional test of considering the historic use of a name when deciding whether an application for registration should be granted. If one wants the belt, the braces and the corset, Clause 10 gives the registrar the opportunity to take advice from the Speaker's committee. It is difficult to understand why anything further should sensibly be wanted bearing in mind that we need a scheme to be operative by May of next year, which is not far away. We do not want significant delays. The scheme gives the registrar the authority and the discretion to come to sensible judgments which are not difficult for a person charged with those responsibilities.
Lord Henley: I take it therefore that there is no objection—the noble Lord did not touch on this—to individuals, whether they be Cross-Benchers or parties, making objections to the registrar. The registrar would obviously take note of those objections if they were made.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I think the registrar would be derelict if he did not take them into account.
Lord Clement-Jones: I think the Minister will forgive me for saying that we on these Benches are rather disappointed with his response. He displays an ultimate faith in the registrar who will have a difficult job to discharge in a political minefield, especially if he is not to have the benefit of hearing people argue their case. There is the issue of political parties being given notice of the applications for registration. There is also the important issue of their being able to argue their case before the registrar.
I accept to some degree the criticisms that have been made about the Liberal Democrat amendment. Clearly I do not wish to create a closed shop—albeit I am a lawyer—which prevents representations being made by those other than existing registered political parties. The system should be more open than that. However, we defend the making of regulations to allow more considered regulations to be made rather than bringing forward a scheme involving a 28-day notice period. As I said, we are disappointed at the Minister's response to the sentiments behind this amendment. We shall withdraw it at this stage and reconsider it for Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Grant of applications]:
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 9, leave out from ("script") to end of line 11.
The noble Lord said: The Minister will undoubtedly have heard the old adage that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Bearing in mind how helpful I have been
404
to the Government with regard to the previous amendments I believe the moment has come for a tiny pay-off. I would find that gratifying although there is a great limit to my ambitions in that context.
I know it is original to consider the Bill, but I invite the Committee to have a brief look at Clause 3. Clause 3(1) states,
"The registrar shall grant an application by a party under section 2 unless in his opinion it proposes a registered name which—

(a) would be likely to result in the party's being confused …

(b) comprises more than six words

(c) is obscene or offensive

(d) includes words the publication of which would be likely to amount to the commission of an offence".

I know that there is little limit to the noble Lord's intellectual powers. He can perhaps help me on this matter. I have omitted the provision about the application needing to be written in Roman script. There follows a kind of "sweep-up" provision:
"(f) includes any word or expression prohibited by order made by the Secretary of State".
By including that kind of verbiage in the Bill, do the Government have anything in mind? Or are they merely having a general sweep-up? Did they say, "We are getting awfully tired of this exercise. Let's include a general, safety-net clause that will catch everything that the Secretary of State finds in the least distasteful"?
In relation to the previous amendment, which he sensibly rejected, the noble Lord said that a "belt and braces" provision was unnecessary. Clause 3(1)(f) is a further example of belt and braces and the Government saying, "In case we have left anything out, let us include some words that will cover more or less whatever we do."
I hope that the noble Lord will give serious thought to this matter and give me a tiny pay-back, which I believe I have fully earned for my very helpful conduct so far.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: I do not know whether my noble friend wants support from this Bench, or whether he thinks it might upset the "pay-back" to which he believes he is entitled, the "free lunch" to which he referred earlier. However, I can offer him some slight support for his amendment. It may be useful if I refer the Committee to the 29th Report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, which made only one recommendation in regard to this Bill; namely, it invited the House to consider the degree of parliamentary control that should be provided for the power being granted to the Secretary of State by Clause 3(1)(f).
A better way of dealing with the matter, as my noble friend proposes in his amendment, may be to remove the power from the Secretary of State absolutely. That seems to be what my noble friend generally likes to do, operating on the basis that powers should be taken away from Secretaries of State rather than granted to them. But if we are not to remove that power, it is right that the Committee should consider exactly what control we should have over this particular clause. I understand that at present it is subject to the negative resolution procedure. I should be grateful for confirmation from the noble Lord that that is correct and that it appears in the Bill.

405
At this stage I simply give notice that we shall probably wish to return to this matter at a later stage so that the House can give proper consideration to whether the provision should be under the negative or affirmative resolution procedure.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am sure that there is no such thing as a free lunch. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, say that he had been co-operative. There was then a considered pause before he introduced those two words which sent a shiver down my back—"so far".
The noble Lord asked for examples. It is not a matter of over-nannying. We have in mind names containing a word such as "royal". That would be inappropriate and ought to be forbidden. Words in the same context are "duke", "duchess", "Her Majesty", "His Majesty", "king", "prince", "princess", "queen" and "royalty". Those are the kinds of expression that we should wish not to see used. I mentioned other examples earlier. We do not want people to be able to register and simply use the word "independent" in order to prevent anyone else using a similar word. But questions relating to the Royal Family ought to be subject to the prohibition that is anticipated.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, is right. Clause 3(1)(f) is subject to the negative resolution procedure by virtue of Clause 20(2). I hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, with my persuasive explanation.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am sorry to say that the noble Lord has done nothing of the kind. I am deeply disappointed. On the other hand I am grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench. I recognise that on this occasion I have done nothing to deserve his support, and I am therefore the more grateful for his gallantry in giving it. He has a generous spirit, as we all know and I wish to acknowledge that.
The Minister's reply is disappointing. If particular words must be avoided, the statute should say so. Why on earth should we endow the Secretary of State with these extra powers? I find this sort of thing vaguely inconvenient. It is distasteful to me; I do not like it. I do not care to give Secretaries of State that kind of power. I should have said as much with the same firmness had the provision related to a Secretary of State in the previous administration.
However, in view of the noble Lord's remarks I shall withdraw the amendment at this stage. I have tabled other amendments which I contemplate not moving for the present. I shall leave them until a later stage so that I can examine the Minister's remarks in the Official Report to see whether there is any chance of a little "give". So far, the noble Lord has taken everything that I have offered and given me nothing in return. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) The registrar shall refuse an application by a party under section 2 if he believes, irrespective of the party's proposed registered name, that the party is substantially the same as a registered party, having regard to the applicant party's objectives, membership, officers or geographical base.").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 15. Perhaps I may say to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, that this amendment addresses a problem that I have raised in relation to both the Welsh and Scottish Bills. Although I detect a few Members of the Committee present today who have not been present for the Welsh and Scottish legislation, I know that the Minister has been present, and for his sake if not my own. I shall truncate the problem and come to the solution.
The problem relates to a suggestion made by a lecturer from Aberdeen University, taken up by a Labour MP in the city of Glasgow. I shall give the example that was provided, so I am not picking on the governing party. It is this. In Glasgow the Labour Party, at least to date, has dominated the first-past-the-post elections. When it comes to the top-up seats in the Scottish parliament—this discussion could also relate to most of the Welsh seats—the Labour Party will not gain many because of its dominant share of first-past-the-post seats. The idea was advanced that instead of the Labour Party standing in the second ballot, it would allow the Co-operative Party to stand in Scotland, and, I suspect, in Wales. The public are well aware that the words "Labour" and "Co-operative" go together rather like "gin and tonic" or whatever else your Lordships may care to think about; therefore it would not be difficult for the public to understand what the Labour Party was up to. If that were to happen, and Labour voters were to vote Co-operative in the second ballot and the Labour Party did not stand at all, then, because the Co-operative Party would have no seats on first-past-the-post, it would gain a generous harvest of top-up seats. Therefore, when members of the party appeared at Holyrood or in Cardiff following the election, their numbers would be much higher than if the Co-operative Party had not stood in the second ballot but the Labour Party had. That is essentially the problem.
I have not made this up from my own fevered imagination, as is sometimes said of one or two amendments I propose. The problem was put forward seriously and was discussed in another place. The Glasgow Labour MP made no pretence that it was not an idea he thought well worth considering. In fairness it has to be said that in this House—I am not sure about the other place—the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and myself gave assurances that we would never play a game like that. However, I pointed out to the Labour Benches that that did not bind the Scottish National Party were it ever to be in a position where it might be a good trick or wheeze for it to play. I believe that this is potentially a way in which parties could abuse the electoral system. I came forward with a number of suggestions on both the Government of Wales Bill and the Scotland Bill, none of which met

407
with the Government's approval. Indeed, I do not believe that they met with the approval of the Liberal Democrat Party. However, it was indicated to me—certainly from the Liberal Democrat Benches—that this was the correct Bill on which to seek a way to deal with the problem, and Amendments Nos. 7 and 15 attempt to do that.
Amendment No. 7 provides that, if the registrar of political parties has grounds to believe that a party which applies for registration is to all intents and purposes the same party as one already on the register and is clearly registering in order to take advantage of the top-up system in the way I have outlined, he would be able to refuse registration.
Amendment No. 15 provides that, if the registrar had granted an application for registration to a party which it transpired was to all intents and purposes the same party as one standing in first-past-the-post, he would be able to withdraw the registration.
I believe that the amendments are reasonably well drafted. I did not draft them myself; that was done by someone who knows about these things. I believe that they tackle the problem. I know from our discussions on the Government of Wales Bill that the Minister does not think that the problem is likely to occur. However, it has been discussed. I gather from the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, who shared the workplace of Aberdeen University with the gentleman who raised the matter that he is reputable. His suggestion was given fairly wide coverage in Scotland, as was the backing it received from the Labour MP. It is not a totally ridiculous position to theorise over. It could happen and certainly would bring considerable rewards in some circumstances. Although the Labour Party has clearly said—and I believe it—that it would not do so, the attraction of stopping the Scottish nationalists obtaining a lot of top-up seats and creating difficulty for the Scottish parliament will certainly exist for the Labour Party. Indeed those of us who do not want to see the Scottish Nationalist Party obtain enough seats in the Scottish parliament to upset the Union might be tempted to think that it was a good wheeze. However, I do not think it is a good wheeze; it would be wrong and an abuse of the system.
I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically at these two amendments, which seek to deal with the problem. When the matter was raised on the Government of Wales Bill and the Scotland Bill, it was accepted that it could be a problem although the Minister did not think that it would arise. However, noble Lords indicated that this was the Bill in which the matter should be dealt with. I therefore propose these amendments to deal with what I fear could, one day in the future, be a serious abuse of the two-vote top-up system to be used in Scotland and Wales. I beg to move.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: Having listened to the noble Lord who moved the amendment, I am coming more and more to the conclusion that the Bill is an absolute mess. When giving examples of words which would not be used, my noble friend on the Front Bench produced a string of words about the Monarchy. That is
408
not what I would have thought of. I would have thought of a group of people filled with malice, deliberately setting out to mess up the system. Even earlier my noble friend said that there were several important groups of elections coming up and we could therefore see how the system works. What a basis on which to go forward!
I believe that the amendment indicates further problems ahead. When discussing the Bill we have assumed that people will be filled with good will. When those who are filled with malice, who do not like this country, its open system and democratic traditions, get to work, I believe that the Bill could become a vehicle by which they could do serious damage to the way we proceed.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I have a good deal of sympathy for the view of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. It seems to me that, at least in theory, there is a problem, and it is not difficult to see what that problem is. I have some concern about the drafting of the amendments. I do not believe that they block all the ways in which the problem could arise. For instance, looking back at the history of my own party, it would have been possible for the SDP and the Liberal Party to have one party fighting all the first-past-the-post seats and another putting up all the candidates for the list. I am sure that we would not have done that, but it would have been a possibility. It would not have been met by this amendment because the two parties had different memberships, different offices and not wholly identical objectives. That is not the only example where that kind of problem could have arisen. It could also have arisen 50 or 60 years ago with the Conservative Party and the National Liberal Party, which were, at least for a period, separate parties.
The problem arises only in connection with AMS elections, but it nevertheless needs to be considered. While I cannot support the amendments, for the reasons I have given, I wonder whether the Minister would be prepared to give the matter further consideration and see whether some alternative can be devised.
Viscount Bledisloe: Whenever the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has explained this problem, he has convinced me that it is a real problem and not merely theoretical. It is unacceptable to wave it away on the basis that the parties have said that they will not behave in that way. First, that has only been said by the three principal parties represented in this House. Secondly, undertakings of that kind tend to be forgotten over the years, especially when the prize to be gained is substantial. Thirdly, it is surely fundamentally unacceptable to enact legislation on the basis that it contains a defect but that we can trust people not to cheat. That is not what legislation is for.
On the other hand, in the case of the other Bills I considered the solutions propounded by the noble Lord to be worse than the ills he was seeking to cure. I believe that the amendments he is now proposing, in particular Amendment No. 15, are very apt to cure the ill he is worried about and will have no side effects. It may be that the drafting is not perfect, but I hope that the

409
Minister will accept the principle behind the amendments and that he will discuss the matter with noble Lords on the other Front Benches and agree, by the next stage of the Bill, an amendment to achieve this end.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I believe that the problem is largely theoretical. To take the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, the Bill is not intended to prevent two distinct parties with similar aims and objectives from registering. If two distinct registered parties with similar aims wish to enter into an electoral pact to try to maximise their support, as they may well do, we think they should be entitled to do so.
It is the abusive manipulation of the additional member system which has troubled Members of the Committee. One must remember that to obtain such an unfair advantage a party must first win a significant number of constituency seats within a region and its alter ego party must receive a significant proportion of the regional vote for the additional member seats. I reaffirmed the undertaking given by the Labour Party. The Liberal Democrats, the Conservative Party and Plaid Cymru gave the same undertaking, and it is my understanding that the Scottish Nationalist Party has said that it will not seek to deceive the voters in this way.
Voters are not simple-minded. They are perfectly able to know when deceit is being practised on them. In the elections we are speaking of, the media would be alert to any mendacity or deception. I believe that the Bill and the powers given to the registrar are sufficient. One could not obtain an unfair advantage by manipulation outside the context of those parties which have already promised never to do that.
There are difficulties with the amendments in any event. It is difficult to understand how a registrar will have access to the objectives, membership, officers and geographical bases before he comes to his conclusion. It would be a very difficult duty for the registrar to discharge. But that is not my fundamental objection. My objection is, to use the words of the noble Viscount, that this is a theoretical mischief, which is not a real one.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, for their support. While I accept that it is theoretical, as I explained it was being seriously discussed inside some parts of the Labour Party in Scotland. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has said, it would be very beneficial in those parts of the country where a political party gained all the first-past-the-post seats in a region and yet did not gain well over 50 per cent. of the vote. Even if they did gain over 50 per cent., it would still be beneficial. Regrettably, there are many regions in Scotland where the Labour Party did win all the first-past-the-post seats, and the same is true in Wales. The noble Lord heard me give examples of how it could be done in Wales.
I accept that, apart from the discussions I mentioned earlier, nobody has suggested that they would do it. The political parties have said that they would not do it. But, just to raise the concerns of the Liberal Democrat Party,
410
there would be a temptation above all temptations for it to do it in the Highland region. It received a lot of the first-past-the-post seats in the Highland region on a minority of the vote. On the basis of the last election results, it would have no chance of getting any of the top-up seats in the Scottish parliament. It is very decent of the Liberal Democrat Party to assure us that it would never be tempted into this.
Clearly, I am not making any progress with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. The assurances I have received are certainly welcome but, as these are not matters which would be resolved in a court, I do not believe that the usual Government or other party assurances would be a protection against a party in the future using this method of abusing the additional member system. I will read the objections which have been made to the drafting and see if we can improve it. I will come back at the next stage and perhaps at that time I shall persuade the noble Lord, Lord Williams, with a tightly drafted amendment that meets with no objection, that it would be worth putting a few more words into this Bill. That would ensure for all time in the future that the additional member system is made foolproof against any political party deciding to abuse it by the type of operation that I have described. For the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Entries in the register]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 15, leave out ("home").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 9 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 13, 30, 32 and 36. This is a very simple probing amendment which can be dealt with very quickly in the form of a question. As the noble Lord has seen, we seek to remove the word "home" from "home addresses". We appreciate that the Bill has been drafted in such a manner so that people's personal security can be protected. Their home addresses are not made public and they are not put at risk, should there be a risk. We welcome that.
But there might be cases—and I am thinking particularly of Northern Ireland—where the party headquarters might be seen to be a target of terrorists. It might be that on some occasions a party will have a legitimate desire to keep its headquarters' address secret—odd though that might sound for a party engaged in the business of trying to attract publicity and support. Can the noble Lord assure us that, where there were legitimate concerns of that sort, it would be possible to have such details left off the public register? I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: This is a legitimate concern. I am happy to reaffirm that the privacy of the leader, the nominating officer and the families is preserved by Clause 4. Clause 4 prohibits the inclusion of home addresses on the register, which will be a document in the public domain. It is a perfectly legitimate concern to have raised.

411
There is nothing sinister about this. We simply need home addresses, for instance, if there is a circumstance where a party splits or divides. Then it may be necessary for the registrar to be able to contact a person at his or her home address to make sure of the true factual position. Clause 4 gives the protection which may be needed in the circumstances referred to by the noble Lord.
Lord Henley: I obviously did not make my question clear. There might be occasions where the party might want to keep its address out of the public domain. Obviously, once it is in the register it would be in the public domain. Would the address of the party have to be part of the register and therefore in the public domain?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I cannot think of any circumstances in which a party could possibly stand for election without having its address known. One has the usual details to be included on election material, for example, which is disseminated. I cannot think of any party that could possibly exist without its registered office being known. In Northern Ireland—which, after all, in some ways is a limited community in terms of the electorate—everybody knows where Sinn Fein's office is. I know perfectly well where the SDLP office is. Even the Flat Earth Society has an office. One has to be sensible. One has to have proper protection of privacy. That is why we have put it in Clause 4. Other than that, I think the noble Lord's concerns are overdone.
Lord Henley: I accept that it would be fairly difficult to imagine circumstances where a party did wish to keep such matters confidential. All I sought was an assurance that such matters could be kept secret should it be necessary. Obviously the noble Lord thinks that that is not the case. I will ponder over his words very carefully and for the moment withdraw my amendments. I suspect I shall not come back to them. I shall give the noble Lord that assurance at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Emblems]:
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Henley: My noble friend and I gave notice that we would oppose the Question that Clause 5 stand part of the Bill. Grouped with the debate on Clause 5 stand part are Amendments Nos. 11, 12, 24, 34 and 42. My noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil is no longer in his place but I know that he likes brevity in a Bill. Should I press these amendments, and should they be agreed to, it would mean the deletion of some 46 lines in total from the Bill, which would reduce it by at least one page. I suspect that that would have some support from my noble friend.
412
I brought forward these amendments only because there were one or two concerns about the use of logos and a regret that they should be used on ballot papers. I am thinking particularly of the speech made by my noble friend Lord Freeman at Second Reading. As we all know, it is only relatively recently in electoral terms that we even included the names of political parties on ballot papers. Before that, one of the duties of those canvassing was to make sure that people would recognise the name of their party candidate. Changes were then made and the names of parties were included. That is one of the points which the Bill addresses. I rather regret that we have to extend this to include logos on the ballot paper and therefore have to have some system of registering logos.
We heard in response to Amendment No. 10 that it will not be possible to register separate logos for different parts of the same party. I am thinking of the separate logos that the Scottish Liberal Democrats and their English counterpart might have. Similarly, as I understand it, it will not be possible for my colleagues in Scotland to register their distinctive logo—my noble friend Lord Mackay assures me that they have a distinctive logo—rather than the logo of the English party. It seems to me that if we are to have the registration of logos, it would be preferable for them to be registered in separate manners, as was suggested originally in Amendment No. 10.
Those are the only points I want to make on the Question whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Peyton would or would not have supported a move to remove 46 lines from the Bill. However, I live in hope that on some later occasion he might come back and offer support.
6 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My reaction is: why not have logos? I do not know whether the Conservatives are perhaps upset by the rather smoky looking torch that appears in the appendix to the Bill, but there are plainly two advantages to logos. The first is that they reinforce the protection for party names given by the Bill by making it doubly obvious which party people are voting for. The second advantage relates to the fact that not everyone is capable of reading English. In countries such as India, where there are large numbers of illiterate people, the existence of a logo is essential to voters. In this country those who are functionally illiterate may be dissuaded from voting because they might find considerable difficulty identifying on a written ballot paper the candidate they wished to support. There are also people who are literate but not literate in the English language. They may be literate in one of the Indian scripts but not in an English script. In that case, once again, the existence of a logo would very much help them to vote. While we have had a good deal of sympathy for the other amendments put forward by the Conservative Party, we have to take an entirely different line on this occasion.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The important point to bear in mind is that Clause 5 is purely permissive. I take

413
up the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, to the draft counterfoil on page 10 of the Bill. One sees there that of the six candidates five have logos and Catherine Angelina Smith, Independent, has none. One needs to bear in mind that the clause is purely permissive. It states:
"A party's application under section 2 may include a request for the registration of an emblem".
We want to encourage people to participate in the electoral process. That is good in a healthy democracy. If people who are unfamiliar with the English language, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, indicated—there are also those who are partially sighted, those who have reading difficulties and those who have difficulty in distinguishing names—can be encouraged to come forward, then so much the better.
The logo also deals with the difficulty where a candidate assumes the same name as another candidate. The logo is a means of differentiation. Quite often—this is certainly the case in Wales—there might be five legitimate candidates who all have the same name—possibly a common one like Williams. The emblem is simply a device, no more—it is not obligatory—to make the electoral process easier, simpler and more attractive. That should be an advantage not a disadvantage.
As the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said, there was a time when party names were not included and the "Where will it all end?" and "The end of civilisation as we know it" arguments were put forward. But I know of no one who is seriously interested in electoral matters who does not think that that was a positive advance.
Lord Henley: Can the noble Lord deal with the point I made about Scotland? Can he confirm that it will not be possible for different constituent parts of the same party to register different emblems?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I thought I had given that answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, when I referred to the two square centimetres.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Changes to the register]:
{Amendments Nos. 11 to 13 not moved.}
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Removal of entries from the register]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 3, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) The registrar may remove a party's entry from the register if any of the party's registered officers have been convicted of an offence under section 19(1) in connection with the party's registration or continued registration.").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment which is self-explanatory in its wording. As the noble Lord will see, it seeks to give the registrar a power to remove an entry from the register if any of the party's registered officers have been convicted of an offence under Clause 19, which, the Committee will remember, deals with false statements. It seems fairly obvious to us
414
that there should be such a power. I should be grateful for a response from the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: On these Benches we believe that this is a somewhat draconian power for the registrar to have. I have been a party officer for some years now. If we had someone in my party who was convicted in such circumstances, we should certainly make sure that his feet did not touch the ground and that he did not darken the doors of our party headquarters after that. For the registrar to have a power to disqualify the party as a whole from registering because of the misdemeanours of one officer is extraordinarily draconian. What the amendment seems to imply is that parties themselves have connived at the misdemeanour of the party officer who has been convicted and, therefore, that the party should pay the penalty. I recognise that the amendment says "may" and not "shall". Nevertheless, having something on the statute book of this strength seems to us to be extremely dangerous, and we cannot support it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I sympathise with the intention behind the amendment but I do not think it is necessary. If false information were provided of such seriousness as to merit prosecution, the party probably would not have provided the information required to enable registration, so the entry would be void. In any event, looking at the practicalities, if a party were removed, it could immediately apply for registration under another name or simply wait three months and register under the same name. I do not think there is any practical utility here, although I repeat that I sympathise with the intention of the amendment.
Lord Henley: I accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, implied, that the Liberal Democrat Party is as pure as the driven snow and I am sure that the same applies to my party and all other parties. However, it is possible—I think we should remember the words of the noble Lord, Lord Cocks—that not all parties in the future will behave in such a manner. It is possible that some may not have the same devotion to democracy and openness as others. It may be right to consider the inclusion of a power of this kind. I shall read very carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said and possibly return to the matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 38, leave out ("three") and insert ("six").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 17 is purely a probing amendment related to the transitional period. One asks why it should be three months as opposed to any other period. I suggested six months almost as a result of drawing a number out of a hat. The amendment is tabled purely to ask the Government why they

415
consider three months an appropriate period for the transitional stage, and whether they considered other periods and, if so, why.
Lord Clement-Jones: I cannot see the purpose of the amendment. In the end there is still a six-month transitional period. The provision specifies a transitional period of three months plus a further three months, which accords with reality, rather than a block of six months after which one falls off the edge of a cliff, so to speak. We do not support the amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The short answer is that the Government thought three months a practical length of time and quite long enough to establish a proper distance. In seeking to achieve a workable electoral system we saw no compelling reason to provide a longer period.
Lord Henley: I am most grateful for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
Clause 9 [Applications under section 6 or 8]:
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Brightman: I raise one small point on Clause 9. My query is whether the clause requires further scrutiny. The declared intention of the Bill in both its Short Title and Long Title is to make provision for the registration of political parties. However, it seems clear that the Bill applies also to a person who desires to stand as an independent candidate and has no organisation or party of any description behind him. That is clear beyond peradventure by virtue of Clause 22 (the interpretation clause) in which "party" includes "any person".
If one reads Clause 9 as applying not only to a party but to a person, the wording appears a little odd:
"Subject to subsection (3), an application by a person under section 6 or 8 must be signed by his or her responsible officers.
(2) For the purposes of this section 'the responsible officers' are—

(a) The registered leader;

(b) the registered nominating officer;

(c) where the leader and the nominating officer are the same person, the other registered officer.

(3) If any responsible officer is unable to sign an application—
(a) the holder of some other office in the party"—
I cannot insert "person" there—
"may sign in his place, and
(b) the application must include",
etcetera, etcetera.
Without some change that wording does not appear to me entirely happy and consistent with the inclusion of an independent person with no party or organisation behind him. Reading, as I have, Clause 9 substituting
416
"person" for "party", I find myself in a bit of a muddle. Can the Minister, having confirmed that the Bill is intended to apply to an independent candidate with no party or organisation behind him, inform the Committee whether he is satisfied with the present wording or whether it should be referred back to parliamentary counsel for reconsideration?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, for his courtesy in giving me notice that he would raise this matter. I have therefore been able to take advice upon it. I confirm that someone with no party organisation can register as the leader and nominating officer of a party. Having done that he needs to name another person—only one—as holding a specific office. That is to be found in paragraph 6 of Schedule 1:
"If one person is named in an application both as leader and as nominating officer, the application must also give the name and home address of the holder of some other specified office in the party".
That does not prevent anyone from standing as an independent provided he can get one other person to act as his supporter. We do not believe that that is unduly onerous. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for raising the matter. My advice is that, having listened to his question and his understanding of Clause 9 as read with the other clause he identified, it is properly drafted and does not place any undue difficulty in the path of anyone who wants to stand as an independent.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Speaker's committee]:
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 4, line 12, at end insert—
("(2) A party whose application under section 3, 5, 6 or 18 is refused may appeal to the committee against the decision of the registrar.
(3) A registered party may appeal to the committee against a decision of the registrar under section 3, 5 or 6 in respect of another party.").
The noble Lord said: I return to the question of the transparency of the process involved in registration and appeal against it. Many of the same principles debated earlier apply here since we have doubts about the width of the discretion that is available to the registrar. Given that currently there is discretion purely in the hands of the registrar as to whether to refer a particular matter to the Speaker's committee, in those circumstances only judicial review is available to an aggrieved would-be registrant. One is aware that judicial review may involve some extremely eminent lawyers but it is a very blunt instrument particularly in cases such as this where effectively political judgments need to be made. Obviously, it will not be the full appeal process on the merits of a particular case.
It is important to have an appeal that is presided over by people with some political understanding of the process. For that reason we believe that the choice of the Speaker's committee is appropriate. Obviously, it is left to the Speaker's discretion as to who should be appointed to that task. But we believe that that body would be appropriate to carry out the task. For that

417
reason we prefer the choice of the Speaker's committee pure and simple rather than the registration appeals committee referred to in the Conservative Party's amendment which specifically provides that a majority shall not be members of any political party.
This may well be a political process and perhaps fine political judgments will have to be made by the Speaker's committee. We believe that an appeal process is necessary. It would be a quick and effective process, the right people would be involved, and there would be the minimum of legal argument. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: Our amendment is grouped with this amendment and it attacks the problem from a slightly different angle. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, does not like our amendment. I believe that it is somewhat superior, but then, "I would, wouldn't I?". Furthermore, I suspect that my noble friend Lord Peyton would not welcome our amendment in that it seems to offer yet greater powers to the Secretary of State to establish a committee. My noble friend is not keen on offering any further powers to the Secretary of State. So be it; I shall have to live without his support.
If Members of the Committee cast their mind back to Second Reading they will remember that almost every speaker commented on the desirability of having some kind of appeals process built into the Bill. From that point of view, I am at one with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. It may be that we shall have to return to the matter at a later stage. Perhaps on that occasion the Liberal Democrats will allow me to add my name to their amendment. I appreciate that on most occasions they want to exclude me; indeed, it was only by quick footwork that I was able to attach my name to one of their amendments today. However, I live in hope that occasionally we might work together. I believe that on Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, spoke of the desirability of an appeals process. We might come together and table an all-party amendment which the Minister will have to address with even greater weight than is required for an amendment tabled by myself and my noble friend Lord Mackay.
Our amendment empowers the Secretary of State to set up a committee which, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, made clear, will not be dominated by party political people. This is one of those occasions when I suspect that it would be better to keep party politics out of the process. I understood the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in favour of involving politicians, but we can discuss that further at a later stage. For the moment, I would welcome the Minister's view and I shall listen carefully to what he has to say. I give an assurance that I and others will wish to return to the matter at a later stage.
Lord Borrie: Without wishing to prolong the matter, and before hearing what must be an important and interesting statement by the Minister, I wish to explain that the reason why on Second Reading a number of us felt that some kind of appeal process was necessary was because, among other things, the registrar, without any initial experience and appointed by the Department of
418
Trade and Industry rather than by the Home Office, and with experience of a world which is different from that of political parties, was being given enormous power, the results of which would last for a considerable period of time. To a large degree, it would be a one-off series of decisions by the registrar taken during a fairly short period. It would be unsatisfactory if those decisions were unappealable.
Earlier today, I said that I preferred the Conservative rather than the Liberal Democrat amendment. On this occasion, I dislike less the Conservative amendment. I do not believe that either is satisfactory. The Liberal Democrat amendment is not satisfactory because it gives a tremendous degree of power to an appeal committee which, unless Mr. Martin Bell is a member, will comprise only party politicians, all of whom, in different ways, will have an interest in the application for the registration of political parties.
There is somewhat more appeal—I did not mean to make a pun—in the Conservative amendment. However, if the appointment is by the Speaker and no guidance is given, it will presumably be made up at least in part of party politicians who are Members of the House of Commons. Who the other members will be is unstated. I believe that further thought should be given to the matter. I do not wish to support either amendment at this stage, but I, too, will be fascinated to hear the Minister's response on the principle of an appeal.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I understand the basis behind the arguments put forward by your Lordships. I believe that the framework we have set out in the Bill provides sufficient safeguards. I suggest that it is important to bear in mind that Clause 10 specifically provides that before the registrar decides any question arising under Sections 3, 5, 6 or 18—they are the relevant sections spoken to in the amendments—he may seek advice from a committee of Members of the House of Commons appointed by the Speaker for the purpose.
Amendment No. 18 provides for a right of appeal to the Speaker's committee. But we are getting rather circuitous because, bearing in mind Clause 12, in any difficult or contentious case the registrar is likely to refer the application for advice to the Speaker's committee. One would expect in those circumstances that the registrar would act on the advice. Therefore, there would be no point in having an appeal to the Speaker's Committee because it would be reviewing its own decisions.
Amendment No. 19 offers an alternative appeal mechanism to the registration appeals committee. The new clause is a shade short on detail. It makes no provision for parliamentary control. We were looking for a framework which would be fair, straightforward and simple to operate. There is the remedy of judicial review. If the registrar misapplies the law, misdirects himself or herself, or acts unreasonably, the remedy already exists; namely, judicial review. We believe that we have got the balance about right and I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Henley: The noble Lord is saying that the only remedy shall be judicial review. He will accept that

419
judicial review would be both expensive and time consuming. There will be occasions when, whatever appeal is made, it must be dealt with speedily. Will he not reconsider the whole matter and at least agree to discussions about whether it might be possible to include some formal appeals procedure by whatever means so that such matters can be dealt with without the expense of going to the courts and without the time consuming nature of doing so?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: That is what we have provided. We have provided an informal mechanism, to use the noble Lord's phrase, because it specifically allows that the registrar may take advice by virtue of Clause 10. We have struck exactly the balance of efficiency, speed, lack of expense and informality. It is said that the courts are very slow but, without commenting on the merits of the issue, the Lord Chief Justice heard Senator Pinochet's original application very quickly and the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House is hearing it at the moment. One could not be quicker than that. The informality and advice is well provided for in Clause 10.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Lord, Lord Henley, asked for informal talks? Would that not be a good idea? The Minister did not respond to the request. I believe that the measure is largely agreed and that it would be sensible if the Minister were able to agree to such discussions.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I may have misunderstood what the noble Lord was saying because I took his reference to "informal advice" to be in relation to the provision in Clause 10.
I am always willing to listen but I am sure that noble Lords will bear in mind the timetable of this Bill and the very tight schedule to which we are working bearing in mind that the first elections are as early as May of next year. I cannot say more than that I shall listen. I should not like to give a hint that we shall change our minds. However, as always, I shall listen to anything which noble Lords wish to say.
Lord Henley: I am extremely grateful for the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. It may be useful for members of my party and members of the noble Lord's party to have some informal discussions. From the Minister's answers, I suspect that he is not prepared to move on this matter. It is an issue on which virtually every noble Lord expressed concerns at Second Reading. That includes noble Lords sitting behind the Minister as well as those sitting opposite. It was thought that there should be an appeals procedure.
The noble Lord referred to Clause 10 and said that the registrar may seek advice on any question arising under Clauses 3, 5, 6 or 18 from the commission appointed by the Speaker of another place. That really does not go far enough. That is merely offering advice to the registrar. It does not provide an appeals process,
420
whether informal or otherwise, to other people who may be affected. It simply offers the provision of advice to the registrar.
I do not know what line the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, wants to take about his amendment but it is certainly a matter to which I shall wish to return at a later stage.
Lord Clement-Jones: Certainly we feel strongly about this principle. We are not wedded to the precise form of words of the amendment. I was going to say that there was no chink of daylight shown by the Minister but there may have been a smidgen of a hint in terms of being prepared at least to listen, if not to agree.
I can give some encouragement to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and tell him that this is a matter about which we feel extremely strongly. We may be able to bring forward a cross-party amendment on Report which may attract the support of some Labour Back-Benchers. The matter has been understood but not enough sympathy has been shown to the principle. At the end of the day, we believe that problems may arise unless there is a proper appeals mechanism. We shall withdraw the amendment at this stage but reserve our right to return to the matter on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 not moved.]
Clauses 11 to 13 agreed to.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 21:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—

NOMINATION PAPERS: GUIDANCE FOR RETURNING OFFICERS
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State shall, from time to time, issue guidance to returning officers on the exercise of their powers under rule 6A (nomination papers: name of registered political party) of Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 ("the 1983 Act"), as inserted by paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to this Act.
(2) Before issuing any guidance under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall take into account information, which he shall cause to be collected from time to time for the purposes of this subsection, about the extent to which returning officers are applying their discretion under rule 6A of Schedule 1 to the 1983 Act in a manner which is consistent both over time and between different areas of the United Kingdom.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is very similar to one tabled by the Conservative Party in Committee in another place. I hope that Members of the Committee on the Conservative Benches may support this amendment.
It seems to us—and certainly it is the view taken by electoral officers who will be responsible for running the elections—that guidance is needed from the Home Office for returning officers in those circumstances. Considerable discretion is being exercised by them and we cannot see why there should not be specific provision for such guidelines to be provided to them. In many respects, this will be new territory for them. The electoral officers association pointed out a number of flaws in the rules. Without wishing to become involved in the minutiae of the detail, it is clear that there will be interpretation issues which returning officers will wish to test.
It seems to me that many problems would be obviated for the future if the Home Office produced suitable guidelines for those returning officers. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I offer my support for this amendment. This is the only occasion on which the Liberal Democrats have allowed me to join with them in adding my name to an amendment. It may be that because my name has been misspelt, it has slipped under their guard. It may be that they mistook me for my late father, a Liberal of some standing. I do not know. The simple fact is that they have allowed me in, and I am very grateful for that.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: We believe that Amendment No. 21 is unnecessary. The Secretary of State is able to issue guidance without any need for statutory authority. The new clause is a shade confused but that is perhaps not the heart of what I can say, which may be of benefit.
I can tell the noble Lord that we have been discussing with representatives of returning officers what information it would be appropriate to make available to assist returning officers to make their decisions under new rule 6A; how to collate the information; how to promulgate it; and when and how often to do so. Therefore, we have been having those discussions. I hope that that is genuinely helpful to the Committee. Copies of any guidance which my right honourable friend issues to returning officers on this matter will be placed in the Library. Therefore, I hope that I have met the purpose which the noble Lord's amendment sought to achieve.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that reply. On the basis that he is saying that guidelines will be issued, I shall withdraw the amendment. That is what I understood him to be saying and if that is so, I shall withdraw the amendment and look forward to seeing those guidelines.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [First transitional stage]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 5, line 17, leave out from ("least") to ("at") in line 18 and insert ("two Members of the House of Commons who have taken their seats in that House belong").
The noble Lord said: Again, this is a probing amendment but I may wish to take the matter further depending on the response that I receive from the Minister.
At present, as I understand it, only parties with at least one Member of the House of Commons will be eligible to register during the transitional period. First, that excludes parties which are not there—and I shall deal with them on Amendment No. 23. However, as regards Amendment No. 22, I seek only to pose two questions.
First, does it mean that Mr. Martin Bell, an independent Member, could register himself as a party, should he have the one other friend that he needs, as I understand it from an earlier response? Secondly, what is the position of Members of the House of Commons
422
who have not taken their seats? I refer to Sinn Fein which has two elected Members of the Westminster Parliament but because they do not recognise its authority, they have never taken their seats. Will it be possible for them to register in the earlier phase or do they have to be Members of the House of Commons who have taken their seats in that House as our amendment sets out? I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: On Amendment No. 22, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, seems to be following the opposite course from that which he proposes in Amendment No. 23. The effect of Amendment No. 22 would be to exclude members of Sinn Fein on the grounds that they have not taken their seats and to exclude—I think it is called—the United Kingdom Unionist Party and Mr. Robert McCartney who is undoubtedly the representative of a party but is its only representative in another place.
On the other hand, Amendment No. 23 would let in everybody including, as I understand it, the Monster Raving Loony Party, who has at least one elected representative on one council somewhere. Indeed, it would let in people on parish councils for the first stage registration process. It seems to me that in saying you have to have one MP to qualify for the first stage registration process the Government have got it about right.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: There are three individual Members without a major party label who would be excluded from registration: Martin Bell, the Independent Member for Tatton; Tommy Graham, the Member for West Renfrewshire, who has been expelled from the parliamentary Labour Party; and Robert McCartney, the United Kingdom Unionist, who is the Member in the other place for North Down. Martin Bell can register at the moment, and if he wishes to stand again for another Parliament—as he said he did not—then he ought to be able to register, or so it seems to us.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, is quite right, because his amendment would not only extend the number from one to two or more Members but it also includes the words:
"who have taken their seats …".
That would mean that Sinn Fein would not be able to register if this amendment were accepted; nor would Robert McCartney. Whether or not one agrees with Robert McCartney in all his views, it seems to me that it would be unjust to exclude him by increasing the number from one to two. We see no virtue in excluding those two parties from the first stage. In fact Robert McCartney, if I may speak personally, makes an interesting and individualistic contribution to the affairs not only of Northern Ireland but of Westminster generally.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Henley: I am very grateful for that explanation from the noble Lord. Perhaps I might explain to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that there a number of occasions when one puts down contradictory

423
amendments. There is nothing odd about that. One is simply probing, and it is a useful device to seek from the Government the appropriate responses. I quite accept that Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 attack the issue from rather different points of view. However, in a moment I shall be withdrawing Amendment No. 22 and moving on to Amendment No. 23, and I hope to explain to the Committee the ideas that lie behind that amendment. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 22.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 5, line 18, at end insert (", or
(ii) represented by a Member of Parliament, an elected member of a local authority, an elected Member of the European Parliament, or an elected member of the Northern Ireland Assembly.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 23, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, kindly pointed out, is slightly contradictory of Amendment No. 22. I rather regret the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, because by means of this amendment I want to take your Lordships back to the Maastricht Treaty of some years ago. I note the look of enthusiasm on the face of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn!
I should like to refer him to Article 138A of the Maastricht Treaty, with which I imagine the noble Lord will be most familiar. It reads as follows:
"Political parties at European level are important as a factor for integration within the Union. They contribute to forming a European awareness and to expressing the political will of the citizens of the Union."
I think it is important that this Bill contributes towards that process to which we signed up in the Maastricht Treaty. The purpose of my amendment, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, explained, it would also allow people such as the Monster Raving Loony Party to register in the first stage, was to bring in such bodies as the Greens or, for that matter, European parties represented in the European Parliament but not in our own Parliament. I appreciate that obviously they can register at the second stage. However, it seems to me that when we have signed up to the Maastricht Treaty, whatever the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and others might think of the process, this Bill ought to go along with the spirit of that treaty. To exclude the Greens, a party represented in the German Government, seems to me somewhat odd at this stage. I wonder, therefore, whether the noble Lord would be able to give us some assurance of his willingness to accept some changes on these lines to allow us to comply with the Maastricht Treaty and the obligations we signed up to there. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I think we are compliant with our treaty obligations, not least with Article 138A. I take it this is simply a probing amendment, as the earlier contradictory amendment was.
The first transitional phase for registration applies to parties represented in the House of Commons and we think that is reasonable, but to extend it to include the
424
Northern Ireland Assembly, and in particular local authorities, would greatly increase the number of parties to be registered in the first transitional phase, which is only a six week period, and would put intolerable pressure on the registrar at that time. After all, a party which registers at the second stage, if it uses a name by which it has become known, is likely to be able to register that name and continue to use it, even if it is similar to a name used by a party represented in the House of Commons. On an earlier occasion I gave the illustration that people will be able to distinguish as voters between the Labour Party and Mr. Scargill's Socialist Labour Party.
We think we have got this about right. To extend it as widely as the noble Lord's amendment suggests would place an intolerable burden on the registrar for a fairly short period of time for these first elections, which are due in May of next year.
Lord Henley: I accept the arguments which have been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. My knowledge and understanding of the Maastricht Treaty is not as great as some people's, but it may be that I should ask the Minister's noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington to have a further look at that treaty between now and the next stage to see whether it is a matter to which we could return.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I beseech the noble Lord not to do that!
Lord Henley: I just offer it as a suggestion in the interests of your Lordships, and I have noted the noble Lord's reaction. I have my copy of the Maastricht Treaty here and I will study it a little further myself, and possibly seek a little advice from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Transitional ground for refusal to register]:
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Orders and regulations]:
[Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 not moved.]
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clauses 21 to 26 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Applications for Registration]:
[Amendments Nos. 27 to 37 not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Amendments of the Parliamentary Elections Rules]:
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 9, line 17, at end insert—
("(1A) A nomination paper may not refer to a candidate by a name which has been adopted by that candidate in substitution for a name previously used by him and which is likely to lead voters to confuse the candidate with a candidate representing a registered political party.").
The noble Lord said: This provision seeks to amend the election rules to ensure that the mischief that we have seen on a number of occasions is firmly put to rights. It is not perhaps on the scale of Calais, but on Liberal Democrat hearts is firmly engraved the experience that we had—as we heard on Second Reading from both myself and my noble friend Lord Goodhart—at the Hillhead by-election when Roy Harold Jenkins stood against the former leader of my party in this House, Roy Harris Jenkins. That caused enormous problems, but because it was a by-election we were able to throw our full weight behind the noble Lord—now my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead—and get across the message to the electorate in all kinds of outlandish and perhaps not so outlandish ways. Again, we heard about some of those ways at Second Reading.
Similarly, at the last general election candidates were intervening in elections—for instance, against Sir Nicholas Lyell in Bedfordshire North East, Mr. Rod Richards in Clwyd West and Miss Alice Mahon in Halifax. On those occasions they were able to rely on the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, in particular Section 115(2)(b) which provides, that,
"A person shall be guilty of undue influence [and thereby of corrupt practice] if … by any fraudulent device or contrivance, he impedes or prevents the free exercise of the franchise of an elector".
That seems to be somewhat serendipitous. In the case of my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead the court did not decide in his favour. But a different court and a different set of judges, perhaps by coincidence, agreed on each of the three occasions I mentioned at the last general election and granted injunctions.
We believe that it is almost as important that there should be no ambiguity about the candidates as it is that there should be no ambiguity about the political party for which people are voting. We cannot see why an amendment such as this to the election rules should not be added to the Bill in a fairly painless way. This is something which, in a sense, goes hand in glove with the registration of political parties. It means that in future there would be no ambiguity whatever for a member of the electorate voting for candidate and party. That must be desirable. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I understand the noble Lord's point but this is not the way to deal with it. In fact, I do not see how this test could work in practice. Mischievous officials have given me a brief to read out, which I do without comment: how will the returning officer know whether the candidate calling himself, for example, Gareth Williams, has always used that name or adopted it only recently?
426
The answer derives from the discussion we had to which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, earlier contributed. The real safeguard here is the party registered name together with the emblem. That will provide the safeguards required.
In response to the noble Lord's specific point concerning Sir Nicholas Lyell, he will recall that Sir Nicholas Lyell was able to obtain speedy relief from the court and the false Sir Nicholas Lyell was not allowed to stand under the bogus name.
The emblem therefore and the registered party name offer a decent safeguard. That is one reason why an emblem is important. On the basis of that explanation I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that reply. It does not go any part of the way towards accepting my case. But I understand why he would not wish to accept the case, and accept that the drafting of the amendment may not be perfect. However, the principle involved—as regards seeking to make sure that the electorate is not confused and, in a sense, firing the second barrel of a specific solution to electoral confusion—is desirable. We may well come back with some rather more tightly drafted provision at a later stage, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 9, line 24, at end insert—
("6B. No nomination of a candidate which purports to be made on behalf of a registered party shall be accepted as valid unless the relevant nomination paper is accompanied by a certificate signed by the party's registered nominating officer to the effect that the candidate is entitled to use a description identifying him with the party.
6C. The party's registered nominating officer shall not refuse the nomination of a candidate who has been selected in the manner set out in the party's constitution.
6D. A copy of each party's constitution shall be deposited with the registrar."").
The noble Lord said: We come now to the last group of amendments. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, coming in ready to continue with her debate the minute we conclude our deliberations at Committee stage.
At Second Reading I expressed some concerns in relation to Schedule 2 in that it concentrated all the power of the party machinery in central hands. It could mean that an individual, or the individual described in Schedule 2—the registered nominating officer—could refuse to register people of whom he did not approve.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, did not accept my fears and said that these matters could be dealt with by the internal constitution of the political party; and I accept that point. However, my amendment seeks to deliver safeguards by including the constitution, and making sure that a copy of each party's constitution shall be deposited with the registrar. New rules 6C and 6D indicate that, first, the party's registered nominating officer will not be able to refuse the nomination of a candidate who has been selected in the manner set out

427
in the party's constitution. I hope that will deal with the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. New rule 6D makes clear that,
"A copy of each party's constitution shall be deposited with the registrar".
It makes it clear to the registrar that the rules have been complied with.
This is a genuine concern. A number of people are worried that too much power is concentrated in the hands of the party machinery by means of a Bill of this sort; and the same is true of the extension that we are seeing, in one way or another, into proportional representation. By its nature that increases the power of the party machinery. Schedule 2, and in particular new rule 6A in paragraph 2, is a strong example of that. It requires a degree of amendment to deal with the concerns that I put forward. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: I wish to intervene briefly because I realise that we are coming to the end of Committee stage. But that does not make this amendment any less important. We on these Benches support this amendment and the spirit behind it.
I take on board much of what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said in relation to the potential over-centralisation of the parties. List systems of the kind being introduced into the European elections, and the Welsh, Scottish and other elections in the future, will inevitably put more power into the hands of political parties. It is therefore incumbent on us to make sure that those political parties behave themselves.
It is possible for the returning officer to look behind the nomination paper to make sure that due process was gone through for that candidate to be on that nomination paper. We therefore support the spirit behind the amendment and hope that something along those lines can be incorporated in the Bill. It will add to the transparency and proper process of it.
The Earl of Stockton: I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Henley, particularly new rules 6C and 6D. I declare an interest as a potential candidate for the European Parliament who has yet to be nominated. While I am absolutely convinced that my own party is happy to accept the broad range of politicals on the European issue, I would hate to think that others less generous may choose to weed out those selected by due process within their political party and so not include them. It is a necessary control on the inherent centralising tendency in the Bill, and I hope that the Government will see their way to bringing back something at a later stage to cover the point if they cannot agree to my noble friend's amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful for the explanations given, not least by the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, about the thinking behind this proposal. I come back to the stance we adopted on Second Reading. Essentially, this is a technical measure, principally designed to facilitate new systems of elections to the
428
Scottish parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the European Parliament. It involves putting forward party lists. In that context we have provided for the registration of party names, the registration of emblems and the other benefits already discussed.
The Bill does not attempt to interfere, nor do I believe that it should, in the internal organisation of political parties. Issues such as how a party selects its candidates internally have no place in the Bill. It is entirely a matter for a party whether it organises itself on a constituency basis and, if so, what degree of autonomy the individual constituency association should have in the selection of candidates. I submit that parties are entitled to determine their own constitution and rules for the selection of candidates. It is not for the registrar or the returning officers to police internal party arrangements. If a candidate has been selected properly, I do not see why a nominating officer should be able to block the nomination of that candidate. Therefore, we see no place in the Bill for this amendment. We developed the theme yesterday—unfortunately unsuccessfully, as I remember—that the electoral system is quite different from the internal party mechanism which varies from party to party in the way party members choose their candidates.
Fairly recent experience demonstrates that if a party does not abide by its own constitution and rules in the selection of candidates, a disappointed, disaffected or wronged candidate will have ready recourse to the courts. It is not for the registrar to police internal party arrangements. My objection to the amendment comes down to that simple proposition.
Lord Henley: I find the Minister's response somewhat disappointing. It is in line with most of his responses today. There has been little indication that he is prepared to move on any aspects of the Bill. I suspect he is under very strong riding instructions to get the Bill through unamended in any way at all. The noble Lord smiles. I do not know what to interpret from that smile.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Like a sphinx.
Lord Henley: The noble Lord suggests a sphinx. I shall interpret it as I wish in due course. However, we shall come back to this matter at a later stage. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, from the Liberal Democrat Benches, just as I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Stockton. It is something, along with the appeals process, that we shall have to come back to at the next stage of the Bill. In the presence of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, the Deputy Chief Whip, I say that we shall probably have a slightly more exciting Report stage than Committee stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 41 to 43 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Remaining schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the early completion of the Registration of Political Parties Bill

429
means that the time available for this evening's Unstarred Question is no longer limited to the one hour dinner adjournment. The debate can now run for a maximum of one and a half hours allowing all speakers a maximum of 12 minutes in which to make their speeches. However, I am sure that noble Lords would be grateful if those noble Lords who have prepared shorter speeches would not extend them.

Social Policy
7.6 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the open letter from members of the Social Policy Association published in the Guardian of 29th July.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am delighted to observe that reports that the Minister had been locked in a broom cupboard were grossly exaggerated.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, it is true.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am delighted even more to hear that that is entirely true and that she has succeeded in securing her release. I also look forward warmly to the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. Many years ago his family and mine were close friends. I look forward to listening to him and to resuming that friendship.
Tonight I am drawing attention to an open letter from the Social Policy Association to the Secretary of State about the Government's Green Paper on welfare reform. This is an audience which may be presumed to know a certain amount about what it is talking about. The response is largely interrogatory, but it is not exactly a ringing endorsement. I have a series of supporting letters behind that open letter in the Guardian, which the Minister will have as they were addressed to him. I can take up only a limited number of the questions that they raise.
First, I take up the dissatisfaction with the Government's use of the term "welfare" rather than "social security". It is a part of the Americanisation of our public life. It could be questioned on that ground alone. It also causes some anxiety to them, as it does to me, because of the somewhat derogatory innuendoes that people sometimes sense from my noble friends.
My noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby, writing in the Guardian on 11 th February 1998, said:
"Welfare-to-work in the United States has been based on a withering moral contempt for those dependent on benefit".
Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Government to be particularly careful that nobody finds in their utterances any such suggestion of de-legitimisation or of contempt.
I was a little taken aback, to put in no higher, to see in the Statement of 28th October last an entirely unsupported statement that many are dependent on benefits when they need not be. There was no
430
supporting argument behind it and no explanation. I do not know what is meant by that. The effect on Daily Mail readers, for example, could be unfortunate. But that is not my main concern, nor indeed that of the Social Policy Association. They are concerned to find out the exact meaning of the Government's mantra, repeated over and over again, "Work for those who can, security for those who cannot". As a soundbite, I have absolutely nothing against it. However, what worries me is that I am terribly afraid that the Prime Minister may think that it means something—and once you begin thinking that, it begins to become potentially dangerous. If it were developed to have the sort of meaning which I hope it has not, it would start developing, almost inevitably and probably unintentionally, towards a distinction between the able-bodied and the impotent poor, which I am sure is not the Minister's wish.
The real problem here is who decides on the word "can". That cannot be a unilateral decision. If it were a unilateral decision by the claimant, it would make all work voluntary. If it were a unilateral decision by the state, it would turn all work into forced labour. I hope that the House will forgive me for not deciding which of those is the more unacceptable conclusion. There must be a process of negotiation. I am not sure whether that is achieved in a number of cases under the present workings of the social security system. I refer, for example, to the application of the actively-seeking-work rules. It is necessary that people should be able, for their own safety, sometimes to decide for themselves whether or not they can remain in a job. As long as people lose benefit pending appeal should they leave a job, that is not entirely achievable.
I do not generally remind the Minister of her own speeches, but her speeches on the Jobseekers Bill and on loss of benefit pending appeal were some of the best parliamentary speeches that I have ever heard in this Chamber. I have not forgotten them and I hope that the Minister has not either. If there were to be any progress on that front, I should be very glad to hear it.
The same problem arises with incapacity benefit, especially in judging the effect of pain on fitness to work. I was listening only yesterday to somebody whose sister persistently reported severe pain and an inability to move her arm. The doctors thought that she was malingering until they finally did a scan and discovered that the patient had a severe blood clot in her brain and was in imminent danger of death. I can see gross injustices occurring if we do not take some account of a claimant's own statements on the subject of pain. After all, the claimant is the only one who knows—just as I am the only one who knows how difficult it is to keep these papers in order!
There is also the danger of over-zealous enforcement. The Minister has been in office long enough now to know that whenever she and her colleagues have worked out a principle, over-enthusiastic enforcement is capable of turning it into something really dangerous. The good cause provisions in the Child Support Act are an example of that.
I agree with the Social Policy Association that, when we talk about "work for those who can", we do not find any reciprocal duty on the Government to provide work.

431
I welcome today's cut in interest rates, but, in the light of the global economic situation, I believe that, worldwide, we need to readjust our economic thinking and to think a bit more about the demand side—about the importance of keeping up demand enough to generate sufficient employment. If that is not being done, chasing claimants to look for work that is not there will be a heart-breaking process.
I was pleased to read in the papers published on 28th October, that account will be taken in interviews of individual circumstances. I should have liked to read also that account will be taken of individual areas. I am thinking of an area such as south Kilburn, where sending people round and round chasing jobs that do not exist may not be a particularly useful process.
Again, there is the problem of over-enthusiastic enforcement with that. There has recently been a case of somebody being disqualified from benefit under the actively-seeking-work rules for not applying for a job because she discovered that she was not qualified for it. If that sort of thing happens, it is a waste of employers' time as well as a cruelty to the claimant. This needs watching. As my right honourable friend Mr. Ashdown said at our spring conference, welfare to work is concerned with employability, not employment. It is not enough by itself.
Attention is also drawn to the problem of benefit levels, which is a problem that I have addressed in this Chamber a good many times. I agree with the Social Policy Association that the Green Paper contains an unfortunate phrase. It complains of people who believe that poverty is relieved exclusively by cash handouts. I have looked at my copy of the Green Paper. What I marked with a mass of red ink appears two paragraphs before, where it is stated that cash handouts alone can lead to a life of dependency. That is a statement akin to "Man shall not live by bread alone"; it is a perfectly true statement, but you do not deal with it by taking away the bread.
Attention is also drawn to a number of exclusions. Time allows me to mention only housing benefit. I hope that the Government understand that with regard to housing benefit, we are dealing with a sellers' market in which one cannot bring down rents by lowering, controlling or capping the level of housing benefit. If one does that, all that happens is either landlords stop letting to claimants or they sell the house, leave the business of letting and make more money by investing the sale price at interest. I hope the department will give that some thought. I shall be interested to hear any current government thinking on this question.
7.16 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I beg your Lordships' indulgence because this is my maiden speech. I begin by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his kind words. I look forward to our families reacquainting themselves with one another.
Over several years I did work in part-time and temporary, paid and voluntary jobs with young people on housing estates in London. Recently I have taken an
432
interest in the charity Centrepoint, which provides support for homeless nine to 25 year-old people, including a refuge for 12 to 15 year-olds, a shelter for 16 to 25 year-olds and 13 other projects in London. I therefore have an interest in this subject and some practical knowledge.
Those young people are among the most vulnerable in society. According to Centrepoint's 1996–97 annual report, nearly 50 per cent. of the people it helps come from the ethnic minorities and almost a quarter of them have been brought up in care. One young woman was physically abused by her father and later sexually abused by her stepfather. Another young man ran away at the age of 15 because his parents had often expected him to look after his younger siblings; when things went wrong, they vented their anger on him.
The Government's Green and White Papers on welfare reform, their Green Paper on the family, and the Guardian letter of 29th July agree that the family is under pressure. It could be said that the 2,500 young people Centrepoint helps each year are the fallout from this family pressure. A good test of any reform would be to see how well this group is treated in terms of housing, training and employment. The Government's Green and White Papers are positive in that they speak about helping rough sleepers. They set high targets which I very much hope are achievable.
The Government do not want to make people dependent on benefit, but rather wish to help them to find work and to develop confidence and independence. That is exactly the ethos of Centrepoint. However, I was very surprised to learn last week that, due to a stricter application of housing benefit rules, Centrepoint is a quarter of a million pounds worse off than last year. In its Soho shelter, Centrepoint aims to find more permanent accommodation within two or three days for the people it helps.
Those young people have often run from home with no papers to prove their identity. Since April the Department of Social Security has insisted on receiving original documents of identity, not photocopies, from claimants and has declined to make payments to claimants who spend less than a whole week at an address. To the Government's credit, they have recently allowed a short stay exemption of two days for those in shelters and refuges such as Centrepoint's, but this does not cover many of Centrepoint's clients whose stay is a little longer.
The original tightening of regulations in April of this year may reflect another vein within the Government's welfare policies, to which the noble Earl just drew our attention. The Government are keen to be tough on fraud and the causes of fraud. In their White Paper they emphasise the need to combat exploitation of the welfare system by the unscrupulous. However, there is a balance to be struck between being flexible enough to meet the needs of a transient group of people who may not have proper papers to prove their identity and the need to protect the taxpayer and legitimate beneficiaries.
So, to conclude, I do hope that the Government will err on the side of generosity when it comes to the needs of young homeless people. They need a helping hand to

433
enable them to find accommodation, training and work. To withdraw that hand may be to see them fall into drug taking, prostitution and crime. To give it may well see them becoming independent adults, contributors to society and to the Treasury. Not to help would be both hard-hearted and very short-sighted. I urge the Government to show flexibility.
7.21 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, it is my pleasurable task to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, on behalf of the whole House. He clearly spoke from experience, especially his own experience with young people and the homeless. He also spoke with genuine concern for social problems and made a number of very practical points. Your Lordships will know that the noble Earl follows in the distinguished steps of Earl Listowel who sat in this Chamber for more than 60 years and who became a very much loved figure. I wish the noble Earl many years equivalent to those of his father in this House. Of course, we all look forward to hearing from him again on many occasions. I regret that, unlike his father, he does not sit on the Labour Benches, but perhaps he is not very far from us in spirit. Indeed, I hope that the noble Earl will be a regular attender at our debates.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I was most interested in the letter to the Guardian of 29th July from leaders of the Social Policy Association, both for its interesting but critical and, in many ways, constructive comments and for the fact that two of its principal signatories were key members of the Commission on Social Justice set up by the late John Smith when he was leader of the Labour Party and chaired by myself. I have in mind Professor Ruth Lister and Dr. Ethne McLaughlin, both distinguished scholars of social policy. Therefore, I take a great note of what they say now, almost exactly four years after the report of our commission. Commenting on the Government's Green Paper, A New Contract for Welfare, they criticised it for lack of any mention of our commission's proposals for,
"a modernised, more inclusive social insurance system hotter attuned to women's needs and employment patterns".
I believe that they must have been thinking about a number of our commission's proposals, such as that for a part-time unemployment benefit which would be of particular value to women who, after all, represent 90 per cent. of the part-time workers in this country. It would also match the needs of part-time workers and certainly be most helpful to women.
However, both before and after the Green Paper, upon which the letter was commenting, the Government announced numerous policies designed to cater especially for—and I use the same words—women's needs and employment patterns. Indeed, like the noble Earl, I could mention the welfare to work New Deal and especially emphasise the part of it concerned with lone parents, mostly women of course. The scheme began in operation last week with lone parents.
I could mention the increases in child benefit—considerable increases on this occasion—which will be operative, together with child personal allowance increases, from next April. There is also the childcare
434
tax credit scheme which will commence from October next and 1 million new childcare places. Surely no one can deny the vital importance of childcare if women's needs are to be met. Of course, there has been improvement and simplification in child support provision. It was a pleasure for me to chair a conference a few weeks ago at which both my noble friend the Minister and the noble Earl were the principal speakers. We spent a day on that particular aspect of women's needs. I could also mention the working time regulations and part-time working directive which will increase access for part-time work. There are many policy proposals like the minimum wage which are not put forward in a way which is gender specific because they can also help men. However, I would argue that they certainly promote the needs of women, among others.
I am delighted to take part in this debate and I am especially pleased that it happens to fall on an evening when we have a little longer than the usual one-hour limit. However, in a way, the timing is not ideal for the noble Earl if he wants to be particularly critical of the Government. This debate falls only 48 hours after the announcements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his pre-Budget Statement. I could not help but be impressed by an article in yesterday's edition of the Guardian by Julia Finch in which she said:
"Chancellor Gordon Brown is rapidly asserting himself as a champion of the women of Britain".
I hope that my good friends and former colleagues on the Commission on Social Justice, Professor Lister and Dr McLaughlin, have taken note of that comment. Julia Finch used those words about Gordon Brown because she was referring to the fact that it was announced seven months ago that the children's tax credit scheme (designed to cover childcare costs and encourage women back to work) would apply only where the children were aged under 11. But Gordon Brown has now announced that that is to be extended to cover children up to the age of 14 and, if a child is disabled, it will be extended to the age of 16.
I am not sure that the Social Policy Association recognises clearly enough the fact that work is almost certainly a better route out of poverty than benefits. That relates to the points that the noble Earl made in his opening remarks. Of course benefits for those who cannot work through age, disability or whatever, must be adequate. I must agree with that. I say to my noble friend the Minister that we need to know more from the Government about the second part of that equation—or mantra, as the noble Earl put it—which reads: work for those who can and security for those who cannot.
The Government have made the position plain. Several Green Papers have been published and others are to follow. We all look forward to the one concerning pensions which of course affect men as well as women. There are many more aspects of the Government's policy which have yet to appear. The Government have been in power for 18 months. People on the other side of the Chamber are entitled to say that the Government can no longer spend their days blaming the previous government for this, that and the other. However, it is only 18 months. Can one really judge the capacity of the Government for building a considerable new structure of

435
welfare when up to now we have barely seen more than the rough drawings and perhaps a little of the foundations? I do not know whether the Minister would use those terms. That is the stage we have reached at the moment. It is fascinating to have this debate on the subject but I think that judgment must come later.
7.31 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for tonight's timely debate. It comes at the end of some months of confusing messages from the Government about their plans for the future of welfare provision. Since the Green Paper was launched, two Ministers have departed and numerous new documents have been produced, the last of which, Supporting Families, was launched only yesterday.
The principle which guides the reforms is work for those who can and security for those who cannot. The letter from the Social Policy Association poses the question: with all the emphasis in the welfare contract on the duties of individual benefit recipients to take up work and training, where is the duty of government and employers to provide employment? The noble Earl referred to that matter earlier. The group also reminds us that the Green Paper ignores other forms of work, mostly the work of caring undertaken in the home. That is still carried out mainly by women.
On 17th July the Telegraph stated that,
"stay at home mothers would get extra pensions",
a state funded second pension. However, there was no mention of that possibility in the booklet, Supporting Families. The Government state they are considering the role and status of carers and of the long-term care of the elderly. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that matter later. The Labour Party's manifesto clearly states,
"We will also seek to develop the administrative structure of SERPS so as to create a 'citizenship pension' for those who assume the responsibility as careers, and as a result lose out on the pension entitlements they would otherwise acquire and currently end up on means-tested benefits".
I hope the Minister will clarify that position when she replies to the debate.
I find these different messages confusing. Families face challenges from birth to the grave. Surely we should not consider certain aspects and challenges in isolation. We should consider them as a whole because in real life problems can occur at any time across the age range. This is even more worrying at a time when the numbers of elderly people are increasing dramatically, changes are occurring in family structures, there is a decline in the number of male breadwinners and a geographical dispersion of families. That will put enormous pressure on both the family and state support in future years.
In his foreword to the consultation document, Supporting Families, the right honourable Jack Straw acknowledges that family life is the foundation on which our communities, our society and our country are built. The introduction to that document states at paragraph 8 on page 4 that marriage is still the surest foundation for raising children and remains the choice of the majority
436
of people in Britain. But families need stability and they need to know where they are going. Rumours do not help. It was recently rumoured that the state pension and child benefit might be means tested or taxed. What we have is confusion. Perhaps the Minister will confirm or deny that the Government are considering taxing child benefit and that this tax may apply only to married couples.
Confusion also exists in the minds of lone parents. The New Deal which is aimed at helping parents back into work has had mixed success. On 26th October a headline stated,
"Millions spent on saving the New Deal".
A multi-million pound advertising campaign was to be launched. The Secretary of State, the right honourable Mr. Darling, gave the clearest hint that lone parents would be compelled to attend an interview. However, as regards the pilot scheme in Cardiff, only 4 per cent. of single mothers with school age children who were invited to participate replied. Some 48,000 invitations were sent and nearly 27,000 interviews were arranged. Nearly 24,500 turned up for interview. Some 17,500 signed up for the scheme but at the end of the day only 4,736 gained jobs. I am sure that all of us in this Chamber are pleased that those jobs were secured but we also have to recognise that at the present time the success rate of the scheme is somewhat disappointing.
How do lone parents view the prospect of compulsion? Last week in this House I attended the single parent roadshow which was held in the Grand Committee Room. Speakers expressed their reluctance to be forced to attend interviews. They felt that they should be able to choose whether or not they had paid employment or spent their time as homemakers with their children. They were concerned about the availability of a sufficient number of well paid jobs which would pay them more than they spent on childcare.
On 27th October Maeve Sherlock, director of the National Council for One Parent Families said that,
"the New Deal … can only be damaged by threats of compulsion".
Noble Lords should be aware of the conflicting views expressed by lone parents. For many the chance of a job is a tremendous boost and one which they relish, but for some the chance to care for their own children carries equal weight.
I have spoken at some length about the younger people in our society. I now turn to pensioners. I visited Age Concern in Leicestershire in September. I asked people there what was the greatest concern expressed by clients. Perhaps not unexpectedly, it was that of provision for old age. Like other noble Lords tonight I welcome the minimum income guarantee for pensioners which was announced recently. However, there are many pensioners who have looked ahead and who have saved a little of their own money. They now wonder whether that money will be sufficient for their needs and whether those modest savings will bring in the income they will need. They ponder whether it is worth saving when they see others who have enjoyed a similar income but who have not saved and are still looked after by the state.

437
The Government acknowledge that people are living longer and that the numbers of such people will rise dramatically. At the same time, the number of people of working age is decreasing rapidly. So it is understandable that so many people are posing questions about future provision.
I wish to add my congratulations to the noble Earl. It was a huge pleasure to hear his maiden speech. It came from the heart and from his practical experience.
Perhaps I may quote a remark of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, in a recent article in the Express on 27th July. The noble Lord said:
"The domestic programme is a ratbag of unrelated policies".
I have not been as direct as the noble Lord. However, this Government have raised the hopes of millions of people, and at this present moment they are concerned and not a little confused about what to expect. I look forward to the Minister's response, and I thank the noble Earl for making the debate possible.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, it has been some time since I have been able to say this with such a degree of certainty, but most of what I intended to say has already been said by other speakers. My remarks will therefore be restricted.
I had to agree with the initial letter in the Guardian referring to the Government's policy documents. The basic argument was: "Sounds nice; may not mean anything". Many of us who went through those papers had also said, "Yes, well-intentioned, well-intentioned".
Over the past few days some more flesh has been added to the bones of the arguments. Some of it is good, and some is promising. What troubles many of us is that we are still not sure of the overall direction. Too many matters have been left behind which need to be drawn together.
The idea of interviews has been touched on by a number of speakers. It could either make or break this new approach. If interviews are used creatively and look towards a person's needs, they will be a good thing. They may well mean that the overall bill will go up—when it comes to disability matters, for instance, we know that there is under-claiming.
Also, in any area where there are complicated forms, a few people will have read them all backwards and know exactly what they are doing, and many more will not. In any field we come across there will be small numbers of people knowing exactly what they want, even smaller areas of complicated fraud, and large numbers of people who are not extracting the correct benefit.
There is also a problem that sits like a dark shadow beside the Government; namely, that at present the economy is in slow-down. How deep that is and how long it will last we do not know. "Welfare to work" may mean exactly that. It may mean welfare to absolutely no work; or merely welfare to training schemes that go on forever.
438
I hate to say this, but we have been down this path many times. Indeed, I remember when, at the age of 16, the YOPS scheme was thrown at us. We were told: "If you join the scheme you will be able to find jobs". I remember many of the people with whom I was at school ending up on those schemes and saying, "God, four weeks of making tea, and out!". With the best will in the world, that danger is still there. Unless we attempt to address it in the maintenance of the scheme, matters could go wrong again. I very much doubt whether any new scheme brought forward by the present Government would be anywhere near as bad as that scheme. I sincerely hope that at the very least the Government will not make the same level of mistakes. But it must always be remembered that unless the scheme works properly, it will merely involve further shifting around of paper.
I wish to put a specific question to the Minister. It was raised initially by my noble friend Lord Goodhart in relation to the Statement made two days ago and relates to students who fall into a loophole, to use my noble friend's words, if they become disabled at the age of 20 or more. It means that they will not qualify for severe disability allowance since it is limited to those who are under 20; however, they will not qualify for income capacity benefit as they have had no chance to contribute. If we are talking of getting people into work, I suggest that the matter of people in training should be addressed by the Government.
There will always be loopholes in all types of regulation. I hope that this one has merely been overlooked. It has happened before under governments of all colours at all times. I should be glad if the Minister could offer some reassurance that this matter has either been dealt with, or will be dealt with in future.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for initiating this debate, and in particular for the reference to the letter in the Guardian from the Social Policy Association. As he pointed out, there is a rather more lengthy letter elaborating some of the points made in that published in the press.
I wish to join with those who have congratulated the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, on his maiden speech. He spoke with great feeling and experience in regard to those who suffer, in London in particular. He also referred to the problems of ethnic minorities—a matter specifically referred to in the letter that we are debating, and in relation to which, as the letter points out, the Government have not made any clear pronouncements. We welcome the noble Earl's speech, and look forward to hearing him again. I suppose that in many ways he exemplifies the case for the hereditary peerage. Alas, while hoping that we shall hear him on many more occasions, his time may be—though I hope not—somewhat limited.
The document to which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred gives a lukewarm response to the Government's publication on a new policy for welfare. Indeed, it states

439
in terms—and it is almost the best that it can say—that they could do quite a bit better. That is scarcely a ringing endorsement.
I have much sympathy with the view expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in questioning the use of the expression, "welfare", as against "social security". There are some problems. However, it is difficult to find a phrase that does not carry some of the overtones which are so unfortunate, for instance, in the United States.
The letter should be read in the context of the Chancellor's Statement this week. It is concerned in particular with the question of opportunities for employment. The fact that the Chancellor envisages a slow-down clearly diminishes the case for creating more jobs, and that is to be regretted.
When I pointed out yesterday that the growth rate in Britain is likely to be less than half that in France, Germany or Australia, the reply I received from the Government Front Bench was that that is because we are at a different stage of the cycle. The Government ought to consider the implication of that remark, which must be that we are now in a general down-turn. At all events, it is an important issue.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister one specific question regarding employment in her own department. We are told that the Government are to spend some £7 billion in improving the IT arrangements throughout her department. That must presumably create a strong likelihood of redundancies as a result of such a massive injection of technology. Since this forms part of the overall employment situation, perhaps the Minister will tell us what is intended.
It remains my view that, despite today's cut in interest rates, the situation faced by the Chancellor is critical. I am reminded of the story of the small child who was asked by his teacher to continue a story in which the hero was tied to the railway line and the express was approaching at 80 mph. The teacher said: "Now get on with the rest of the story"—to which he replied, with one splendid leap, "Our hero extricated himself from his predicament". That is rather the kind of feeling that I got from the Chancellor's Statement this week.
There is one aspect of the Chancellor's Statement which I should be grateful if the Minister could explain. The noble Baroness asks me whether it relates to social security. It does indeed; that is the point. The Chancellor is constantly poaching in the area of social security. If there is any good news, it is given by the Chancellor, not by the Secretary of State. There is no doubt that the Chancellor is becoming more and more involved in this area, and shifting Treasury Ministers into the department is not deterring him. The Chancellor said:
"Already 29,000 companies have signed up to the New Deal and 30,000 have found jobs with employers, jobs they would not have had without the New Deal".—[Official Report, 3/11/98; col. 160.]
How does he know that they would not have got those jobs but for the New Deal? Our view on this side of the House is that a considerable amount of the increase in jobs has been due to the underlying situation and not to the New Deal. I hope that, in defence of the Chancellor, the Minister can tell us what the position is.
440
With regard to the letter which the noble Earl has drawn to our attention, one of the supporting papers, by Professor Ruth Lister, states that there are at least three holes in the Government's policies. She says:
"First, the Green Paper does not offer a clear strategy for the reform of the structure of social security. In particular, it contains nothing of substance about the future of the National Insurance system. The only clue to the Government's thinking is one opaque paragraph that explains that the Budget 'changes to the National Insurance scheme provide an opportunity to update the contributory principle"'.
I repeat a point which I have made previously. It seems clear to me that the Government are undermining the contributory principle which has formed the basis of entitlement under our system ever since the end of the Second World War. Measure after measure tends to do this. I therefore raise another point which is relevant in this context. The Chancellor said in his Statement:
"And business will be pleased that I can announce that from April, employers will not pay national insurance on earnings below £83 a week, the 1999 level for the personal tax allowance".—[Official Report, 3/11/98; co1.160]
That is one of the cases in which he made an announcement which we all know he made in the previous Budget. This tendency to regurgitate statements time and again as if they are news is becoming a hallmark of the present government.
The noble Baroness will know perfectly well what I am going to say next, because we debated the matter at length last year. There is no reference in the Pre-Budget Statement to what many people supposed would be in the previous Budget; namely, whether the employee's threshold for contribution would be raised in the same way. The noble Baroness will recall that on that occasion she said clearly that the position of people who no longer paid contributions would be protected. It remains a mystery as to how the Government will do that. Perhaps I may therefore ask the noble Baroness whether the proposal as far as employees are concerned is still on the agenda. It seems strange that it appeared in the previous Budget but is not in the Pre-Budget Statement this year. What do the Government intend to do about the contributory principle in that respect?
As regards the uncertainty in the document to which the noble Earl referred, it seems that the contributory principle is under attack, with all the implications that that will have for means-testing the national insurance pension. Means-testing has become a major feature of the way in which the Government are proceeding. In particular, there is what seems to me to be a disgraceful proposal that a disabled person who has managed to obtain employment and has contributed to a defined-contribution company pension scheme should have that pension taken into account in assessing his disability allowance. Though he did not speak in the House the other day, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, is on record as being opposed to that proposal, and I am glad to see that the Liberal Democrat Party take the same view. I find it an extraordinary proposition that a disabled person who manages to obtain work and build up a company pension should have that pension taken into account when assessing his disability allowance.

441
Finally, having in mind the injunction of the noble Earl who introduced the debate, I come to the question of interviews and compulsion, matters referred to by my noble friend Lady Byford and others. One of the threads that has run through the debate is an increasing concern about the Government's attitude to the social security budget. It seems to me extraordinary that in the Statement made from the Front Bench last week we were told that the Government would not compel people who were terminally ill to attend interviews. I can imagine that an official might include that in a Statement to the House, but I cannot imagine that Ministers would even conceive that it might be necessary to do so because Members of this House might think that such a thing could happen.
This raises concerns. Because the Government have so blatantly failed to cut the social security budget in order to spend more on health and education, there are being introduced a series of relatively minor but rather nasty matters with regard to which the House should consider whether the money saved justifies the degree of hardship that is likely to be incurred as a result.
I believe that this has been a helpful debate. We look forward to the Minister's reply. The way things are developing gives people, not least those who wrote to the Guardian, considerable cause for concern.
7.56 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, we have a custom of welcoming debates in this House, whatever their content, though in truth some debates are rather more welcome than others. However, I welcome this debate without reservation because it raises profound and interesting questions about welfare reform. I also welcome it because, as all those who spoke have said, it gave us the opportunity to hear the wise, generous, moving and compassionate speech of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who spoke from his personal experience of Centrepoint and widened that out into some apt and pertinent comments on our social security system. We all enjoyed listening to his speech and benefited from it; I think we shall all remember it.
I should like to say a few general words about the letter which inspired the debate. As noble Lords have said, the letter welcomed our consultation. There were some warm, slightly fuzzy words in it about our acceptance of a mission to clear the route into paid work for those on benefit. But the letter criticised us more for what is not said than for what is said in the Green Paper. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, shares my view. It is like the irritation authors have when reviewers criticise them for not having written the book that the reviewer would like them to have written and instead having written a different book. It seems to me unfair to be criticised for what one has not done as opposed to what one is seeking to do.
The Green Paper set out to consult on the principles that should guide reforms, not on new reforms themselves, and to establish support and consensus for the future shape of reforms. I hope that the members of
442
the Social Policy Association, whose views I take very seriously and whose work I have read over two decades of social policy research, will recognise, as they see our reforms taking shape, that their criticism was a little hasty.
I agree with the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that if we are not careful the word "welfare" can too easily slip into carrying the stigma that I have seen it carry in some of the poorest housing estates in St. Louis where, the moment one obtained a job, one was out of housing because one was no longer on welfare. Welfare was for those who had dropped out and were to be stigmatised. As someone who cherishes our welfare state, which I believe is one of the proudest achievements of the 1945 government, I too should be appalled if welfare became part of a language of contempt for those who are dependent on benefit and who therefore, by our use of language, become moral outlaws in our society.
The reason that we use the word "welfare" is for the opposite reason. For us, welfare is more than merely social security, important though that is. It embraces health, education, housing and, in social policy terms, what we used to call the social wage. We are arguing to encourage people into partnership with us, to find their own way through into prosperity. That is not only a matter for social security but for the full array of the agencies of government. That is why the word welfare has been used rather than social security.
To understand the basis of our reform, we must appreciate our starting point. To adapt slightly what George Eliot said, the happiest nations have no history. I am not sure whether the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would agree with that. I suspect that it might do him and me out of jobs. We are not in that happy state because social security has a past. It is worth reminding ourselves that in Beveridge's era matters were very different. Some of the statistics still have a power to startle. Women's work then was predominantly in the home while their husbands earned a wage. Today, two women out of three of working age have a job. An intriguing point is that 50 years ago men insured against the risk of a long retirement because the average life expectancy was only 66. Nowadays, men and women need to save for the expectation of 10 or more years of retirement.
The nature of the family has also changed. There were fewer lone parents in Beveridge's day. This was mainly because of shotgun marriages: women got married when they got pregnant. Often men did not want to marry until they were sure that a woman could become pregnant. That may not have said much for the happiness of the marriage, but marriage there was. Today the number is 1.75 million. The noble Lord queries that. I can assure him that, if we look at any of the research on birth registrar statistics, a very high proportion of first births were registered within a month, two months or three months of marriage through from the 1815 period to the Second World War and the widespread use of contraception.

443
Welfare has changed. The state no longer has a monopoly on welfare. Occupational pensions, for example, have played a huge part in enriching the older generation. So these are just some of the examples of social, economic and demographic influences that have changed our world and therefore require us to change our approach to social security.
Over this period, spending on social security has moved inexorably upwards. More and more has been spent and yet, in many ways, less and less has been achieved. By many of the indicators that the noble Lord shared with us, inequality has widened. Between 1979 and 1994–95, households in the top fifth of the population saw income rises in excess of 50 per cent. But the income of those in the bottom fifth of the population barely rose in real terms; in many cases it actually fell.
Worklessness increased too. Almost one in five of working age householders have no breadwinner compared to less than one in 10 in 1979. Nearly three million children are growing up in workless households. Nearly two million children are growing up in families where there is no maintenance from a father.
We must fashion a welfare system which fits this world. I see the Government's role as, first, running an efficient economy, a point made by several noble Lords tonight; secondly, promoting work for those who are able; and, thirdly—and no less importantly—securing a decent standard of living for those unable to do paid work. We have also to value unwaged work as well.
The letter from members of the Social Policy Association asks, as have some of your Lordships tonight, how our strategy for welfare to work fits into the context of an uncertain world economy. It is a pertinent point. For the first time Britain has a consistent framework for both monetary and fiscal policy, one which has replaced boom and bust with stable growth. Under the previous government we saw taxes cut in good times and public spending cut in bad times—and then we were surprised to see the effect of that creeping through into unemployment.
We now have prudent fiscal planning. Even allowing for slower world economic growth, the Government will deliver their spending commitments without risk to public finances. We expect current account surpluses of £33 billion over the next five years. We expect to meet our targets for inflation. In the context of our prudent fiscal planning, the Bank of England monetary policy committee, as your Lordships have mentioned, has decided to cut interest rates again today.
An uncertain economic outlook makes investment in helping people into work rather than dependent on social security even more important. That is why the stable course set out in the pre-Budget Report sets out the platform for the new deal to succeed.
It is worth reminding ourselves that employment has risen by 400,000 since the general election. The economy is still expanding and creating new jobs. About
444
two million people either move into employment or change jobs each quarter, and 250,000 people leave the claimant count each month. Over 200,000 new vacancies are being notified to job centres every month. The last statistics showed that there are currently approximately 300,000 job vacancies in our economy. Many of those vacancies will be part-time. But those changes in the labour market are very often on the side of what single parents tell us that they want—part-time jobs so that they can balance their responsibilities to their children as well as to work.
We believe that prudence in running the economy gives us a firm foundation on which to base reform. We will avoid boom and bust. As a corollary, we shall not end up cutting taxes in good times only to slash spending in bad times. We shall not end up increasing inequality in good times and in the bad times increasing unemployment. That will not be our policy and we will not go down that path.
The first thing, therefore, is to secure sound economic policy, and we are doing so. Our second objective is to promote work. I am not ashamed to say that I believe—and I think your Lordships will agree—that that is the best route, in many ways the only route, out of poverty. It facilitates social inclusion; it gives status; it strengthens independence; it adds a quality to life; and it is the gateway to economic advancement and the foundation of a secure future.
I remember Frank Field telling me that he was talking to his Birkenhead constituents and asked a 10 year-old what he was going to do when he grew up? A decade ago, that 10 year-old would have said, "I am going to be an engine driver" or "I am going to be an airline pilot." This 10 year-old said, "When I grow up I am going to claim my giro payment." That is not a society fit for our children to inherit.
So we must promote work. So important is work that we have attacked worklessness relentlessly since coming to office. Let me respond to a comment made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, when he said that he read a sinister meaning into the language in the statement that people are dependent on benefits who need not be. That is not because we necessarily believe that it is through some act of lack of moral fibre on their part that they are unemployed. Very often, particularly for disabled people, it is because of the exclusion imposed upon them by society; or, for lone parents, because of a lack of childcare and so on, that makes choice of work possible.
The noble Lord asked whether the claimant would have a say in the choice of work. Obviously, it depends on whether we are talking about a young person aged 18 to 24 where we say it is no lack of choice simply to be on benefit. As for other groups of society, the personal adviser approach offers partnership. I thought that the phrases that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, used were exactly right. The personal gateway interviews should be creative, positive, enthusing, inspiring and problem-solving. What the single gateway

445
is about, particularly for lone parents and disabled persons, is a recognition that the knowledge of opportunity is itself about empowering somebody to make choices. Without that knowledge people do not have the strength to take the risk, to take the chances, to explore the opportunities. When they do manage to do so, they will then see that their lives, and the lives of their children, are immensely and immeasurably enriched. That is the point of the interview. Without that knowledge, people do not know what they do not know. With that interview and working with the advisers—in just the language that the noble Lord has spoken of—we hope to give people the empowerment to take and regain control over their lives, to make their own choices and set their own courses.
So we have a four-fold strategy—extra help into work through the range of new deal programmes. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, or the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked whether we were confident that the new deals were producing extra jobs over and beyond the rate that would have been the case without them. We are monitoring our pilots—particularly our new deal pilot for lone parents—and we are already finding a modest, additional value-added factor. Area for area—control groups versus pilot groups—where the new deal is running, a higher proportion of lone parents are going into work than in identical areas where it is not. It is modest. The programme is still in its early stages. We hope to roll it across the country. If we can continue with those results, then both for disabled people and lone parents we will see positive value coming from the New Deal.
So far, so good. We have a long way to go and we are certainly not complacent. We are researching it carefully and the evidence, though we are still at the beginning, is on the side that the New Deal is the most effective way we have so far found to make that possible. If other people, including Her Majesty's Opposition, have alternative views about how best to encourage people into work, we would be delighted to explore them. It does not have to be a party point. But, so far, no one has come to us with a better way forward.
So the first thing we are doing is extending help for work through the range of New Deal programmes. Secondly, we are seeking to make work pay through the minimum wage and tax credits, although I have to say that I am slightly startled by the position of Her Majesty's Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. They are opposed to the working families' tax credit and therefore they are opposed to all those efforts which will spring so many families off dependency on benefits and into work that will probably pay. But perhaps that was another off-the-cuff policy that the Conservative Party will go on to review, re-consider and revise and then change its mind. Let us hope so. It would be nice to think that on an all-party basis we wish to see people move off dependency into a system in which work is rewarded and people do not lose money by moving into work through penal marginal withdrawal rates.
446
Thirdly, we are removing barriers to work in the benefits system by, for example, allowing those on incapacity benefit to take a job without losing benefit if they fall ill again within 12 months. We are helping people to stay in work by removing the barriers of prejudice; for example, in terms of ensuring that there is a Disability Rights Commission for disabled people, which I know your Lordships will welcome. So on a whole array of fronts we are trying in a positive and creative way to ensure that people get help to move into work.
Our third area of activity is for the group of people who were the concern especially of the letter writers referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. That group is those who cannot work. We recognise that work cannot be the solution for all. As a society, we owe it to those who cannot do paid work to ensure that they have a decent standard of living. We are determined to do that. The Social Policy Association would have us focus more on benefit levels. There is force in its argument and I shall answer it. We have to accept the fundamental point that merely raising benefit levels will never stop poor people being poor or make them prosperous. The statistics I was given by officials a year or so ago showed that to raise all benefit levels by £10 a week would cost us more than £20 billion a year. They would still be poor but we would have spent £20 billion—the same amount that we spend on schools and the same amount that we spend on hospitals. Yet most people in that situation would still be leading lives confined and circumscribed by absolute poverty.
Over the course of this Parliament such a rise would consume all the extra resources that we have earmarked for health and education. Is that the right way forward? We think not. However, we do accept the need to raise benefit levels where we can focus help on those in greatest need. That is what we are doing. We are helping pensioners in terms of the guaranteed minimum income; we are helping families through the increase in child benefit; and we are helping disabled people through the disability income guarantee. Above all, there is a huge increase for young people who become disabled before they can ever enter the world of work. As a result, they will be floated off means-tested benefits in terms of income support for, it is to be hoped, life.
The other main criticism of the Social Policy Association was our failure to say how we should overhaul the entire system and whether in particular we were moving away from a contributory system to means-testing. I think that is partly because of the letter writers' failure to understand that we were consulting on principles and not on the specific reforms. We have set out an ambitious programme for facilitating work which will see a variety of measures ranging from benefits to services and civil rights. Many of our reforms that are in the pipeline will, as my noble friend Lord Borrie said, disproportionately benefit women because women are disproportionately recipients of social security benefits.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Surely the contributory principle is that one only gets benefits if one has met certain contribution requirements. Therefore, the argument that this ought not to be covered by the Green Paper seems an extraordinary one.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Green Paper set out the principles by which we will go on to adopt reforms. Perhaps I may take up the points made about the social insurance scheme. Our approach has three principles. The first is that protection is better than cure. It is better to fence off the precipice than send in the ambulances. We seek partnership with the private sector and we seek to prioritise in order to focus most resources where they can do most good.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, raised the issue of social insurance benefits. There is a popular assumption that social insurance benefits must always be better than means-tested benefits. This is a false dichotomy. Not all benefits are either contributory benefits or means-tested benefits. Child benefit and disability living allowance are neither contributory nor means-tested. The new incapacity benefit for younger people who have become disabled before the age of 20 will neither be contributory nor means-tested. We have extended, to coin a phrase, a third way of benefits between those two. They each have their own strengths and weaknesses.
Noble Lords do not need me to remind them that national insurance benefits are cheaper to administer and command wider political support, but they have rarely been paid at a substantial level and they are not well focused on need. Means-tested benefits can be expensive to run and can discourage saving but can be more focused on need. We need a variety of benefits. No one category fits all need. Over the next couple of years we will be working out the best benefit structure to meet the different categories of need in our society. We should be judged on the efficacy of that structure.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, commented on the confusion of our messages, particularly to women and to families. No, what we were saying was not confusion. We were saying that there are choices that individuals, not government, may seek to make. A woman may choose to stay with her children; she may wish to have some work and also have childcare; she may wish to work full time. We are saying that, whatever her choice, we as a society and we as government stand behind her shoulder and empower her to make those choices. Therefore, we will support her in whichever of those paths she treads. That is not a confusing message. It is not a conflicting message. We are saying that we are behind her right to choose and will make that right a reality by empowering positively, through childcare, education, training and family-friendly employment, her right to make those choices.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. Will she confirm that lone parents will not be required to come to interview to take jobs in order to be entitled to payment? That is where the confusion lies. At some stage over the past few weeks many speeches have been made on the topic.
448
Some of the lone parents I have spoken to have been under the impression that they would not be entitled to payment if they did not come to interview. I explained in my speech that some of them feel that they would like to choose not to have to come to interview, that they do not wish to work and that that is their right. On the one hand, it has been suggested that they have to come to interview in order to be entitled to the benefit. Indeed, what will happen to those on benefit now? On the other hand, the Minister has today implied that that is not so. That is where the confusion lies.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that confuses two separate policy initiatives. I can well understand why people might be confused as they do overlap. One is the New Deal, which is voluntary and is for lone parents and disabled people, and the other is the single gateway. In the single gateway process we are saying that in certain pilot areas—it may well be rolled out nationwide after the year 2000 if it is successful—new claimants for benefit acquire that benefit through the process of an interview. That was commonplace in 1979 when we carried out 5 million to 6 million interviews a year. It was dropped in the name of expediency by the subsequent government and the number fell to around 500,000. In those gateway pilots we are saying that to acquire income support a disabled person or a lone parent will have an interview. One signs on through an interview rather than through a telephone call or the return of a piece of paper. At that interview, if one is a lone parent, one will probably discuss access to child maintenance, opportunities for education and training, and so on. But there is absolutely no compulsion to go beyond that attendance at interview. That is the first point at which one claims benefit. There is no requirement to go on to work subsequently if one is a lone parent or disabled person. That is one's choice.
We want people to have the knowledge to make an informed choice. In a way compulsion is a red herring. We say that benefit is acquired at the interview rather than as now through a piece of paper. That has always been the way it has been done in the past. I can see why the message has become confused. We regard childcare as being at least as important as going out to work, but we know that most married women choose to do both. We want to ensure that lone parents have the same right to exercise that choice as married women. Seventy-five per cent. of married women with a child under 12 work whereas only about 40 per cent. of lone parents do so. Why? The answer is that they do not have the mechanisms for child support, the knowledge and the infrastructure that they would otherwise have. We will help them if that is what they wish to do but they cannot make that choice unless they know about it. That is how we hope to use the interviewing process.
Time has moved on and I am exploiting the goodwill of the House. I have not covered every point and I shall write to noble Lords as necessary. I could go on for another half an hour but to your Lordships' relief I shall not. To conclude, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said

449
that the Social Policy Association's assessment of the Green Paper A New Contract for Welfare was that they could do better. The Government agree. As a society we can, should and must do better. The Green Paper sets out the principles for reform, not the reforms
450
themselves. We are now putting those principles into practice. We have already done a good deal and we shall do more, and by that we shall rightly be judged.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past eight o'clock.

  High Speed Ferries
  High Speed Ferries
  House Building: Funding
  House Building: Funding
  Bovine TB Survey Forms
  Bovine TB Survey Forms
  Pesticide Use on Genetically Engineered Crops
  Pesticide Use on Genetically Engineered Crops
  Public Analyst
  Public Analyst
  Defence Diversification
  Defence Diversification
  Territorial Army
  Territorial Army
  Senior Police Officers: Disciplinary Procedures
  Senior Police Officers: Disciplinary Procedures
  Independent Commission on the Voting System
  Independent Commission on the Voting System
  Foreign Drivers: Moving Traffic Offence Penalties
  Foreign Drivers: Moving Traffic Offence Penalties
  Prisons: "Riots"
  Prisons: "Riots"
  Prisoners: PO Box Numbers Ban
  Prisoners: PO Box Numbers Ban
  Policing: Key Objectives
  Policing: Key Objectives
  Asylum Statistics: Monthly Data
  Asylum Statistics: Monthly Data
  Prison Service: Quantum Project
  Prison Service: Quantum Project
  Boundary Commission Report
  Boundary Commission Report
  Prevention of Terrorism Legislation: Annual Review
  Prevention of Terrorism Legislation: Annual Review
  Youth Justice Board
  Youth Justice Board
  The Monarchy
  The Monarchy
  Asylum Seekers: False Travel Documents
  Asylum Seekers: False Travel Documents
  Genetic Testing and Insurance
  Genetic Testing and Insurance