Sitting of 25 November 1998

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

  Tourism
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hill.]
  9.33 am
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: It is a great pleasure to introduce this debate on tourism, which is a much under-debated subject in the House.
  Looking around my constituency, which surrounds Colchester and includes many villages, one sees that north Essex is typical of the riches that England has to offer visitors from abroad and from other parts of the United Kingdom. With all due respect to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell), Colchester has a fabulous history from Roman times, when it was established as the capital of Roman England—until it was sacked by Queen Boadicea in the Iceni uprising.
  Today, there remains most of a huge Roman wall that surrounded the old town. The town is dominated by the largest Norman keep in Europe, which was constructed over the vaults of the Roman temple that the Iceni destroyed. The so-called Dutch quarter of the town contains a wealth of timber-framed houses that were constructed from the middle ages onward.
  The scars of the English civil war remain visible on many of the buildings in the area, such as the church tower at Little Tey, which was partly destroyed by the royalists' cannon. The bullet holes from their muskets mark the beams of the pub, which is now called the Siege inn.
  Around Colchester, scores of tiny villages have survived the influx of new building, cars and commuters. They retain their charm and tranquillity, and each has its own gem of a church, many of which are of Norman or even Saxon origin. The Stour valley and estuary, which stretch along the Essex-Suffolk border and include some of the most stunning scenery in the east of England, contain Dedham Vale—dubbed Constable country by his famous travelling companion on the train.
  That is the historical, cultural and natural heritage that provides the background and basis for hundreds of businesses and thousands of livelihoods in that little corner of eastern England. Scores of bed-and-breakfast businesses depend on the regular tourist traffic that comes off the Harwich ferry. The hotels, restaurants and teashops cater for the day trippers and weekend breakers. The East of England tourist board tells me that Colchester's shops have attracted 20,000 shoppers from Europe this year, despite the excessive strength of the pound.
  122
  That is the first message: tourism is big business. Tourism and leisure are the United Kingdom's fastest-growing industry, and already comprise the fifth largest industry in the United Kingdom—it is bigger than the construction industry. Estimates vary, but it is worth more than £53 billion a year—5 per cent. of United Kingdom gross domestic product—and provides about 1.7 million jobs, which represents about 7 per cent. of employment in the United Kingdom. The British Tourist Authority claims that that is more than five times the number of jobs in the motor industry. In recent years, tourism has accounted for about 20 per cent. of new jobs in the United Kingdom economy.
  In 1997, 26.2 million visitors came to Britain. They spent more than £12.8 billion—up 3 per cent. on the previous year. In addition, £3 billion was spent on travel with British couriers. In England alone, tourism is worth £42 billion a year and employs about 1.5 million people. In Scotland and Wales, tourism is the most important industry, and provides the only growing source of employment in many areas. Tourism employs more than 8 per cent. of the work force in Scotland and 9 per cent. in Wales. Now that there is a real prospect of lasting peace in Northern Ireland, tourism is fast becoming a major growth industry there as well, so I make no apology for claiming an hour and a half of the House's time on the subject.
  The fast growth of tourism does not, however, make it an easy industry. Much employment is in the small business sector, where people work extremely hard, and long hours, for relatively little reward to establish the viability of their businesses. The BTA estimated last year that there were 220,000 businesses involved in providing services to tourism in Great Britain.
  Because of our climate, the pattern of demand is highly seasonal. One would hope, therefore, that the tourist industry would rate as one of the Government's top priorities, especially as the potential for job creation continues to be huge. I hope, therefore, that the Government have fully taken to heart the criticisms made by the Labour-dominated Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, which complained about the stated aim of the Department. Its declared
  "aim … is to improve the quality of life for all through cultural and sporting activities, and to strengthen the creative industries".
  The Select Committee report complained about the narrowness of the aim, and added:
  "Nor, most importantly, does it make any direct reference to tourism and thus is reinforced the impression that tourism is viewed as the Cinderella of the Department. Yet it is far and away the largest industry for which the Department is responsible and, in economic terms, the most important."
  On the page dealing with the aim and objectives in the Department of Culture, Media and Sport document, tourism is conspicuous by its absence. The Select Committee concluded:
  "We are, therefore, deeply concerned that, in policy statements by the Department and in public statements by Ministers, tourism is subordinated in favour of more glamorous and trivial matters."
  I am an opera-goer. I do not think that opera is trivial, but we must also recognise the importance of tourism.
  This is not a good start, after more than a year in office. Typically, once the spin doctors had got hold of the issue, there was a flurry of activity in the press, and the hapless Minister was sent on a somewhat ludicrous public

  123
  relations exercise. On 10 August, the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting began a fact-finding tour of England. I am delighted that she felt the need to find out the facts, which should have already been at her fingertips. A press release states:
  "Tourism Minister … begins a major fact finding tour of English tourist destinations in Brighton today, ahead of the publication of the Tourism strategy later this year. Over the next two months she will visit every region in England to meet local tourism representatives and hear their views on the future of tourism and what the Government can do to support it."
  That is after more than a year in office. The press release continues by quoting the Minister:
  "'With the holiday season upon us I look forward to seeing examples of best practice for myself … I want to hear … how we can back the industry locally and regionally to increase its competitiveness.
  "I will also be seeing how we can help".
  It is a great privilege for the tourist industry to have a Minister offering help after more than a year in office. If she has listened to what real people involved with the tourism industry say, she will have heard what the problems are.
  Miss Geraldine Smith: It is a bit rich of a Conservative Member to talk about what the Government have done after 18 months in power when they had 18 years in power. As a representative of a seaside resort, I have seen the tourism industry decline. Jobs have been lost in the industry and 70 per cent. of our local tourist accommodation is now being made into housing in multiple occupation. Five-bedroomed guest houses are selling for £5,000 in the resort of Morecambe. That is happening after 18 years of Conservative government. What did the Conservatives do for British tourism and for seaside resorts? They had their chance and they blew it.
  Mr. Jenkin: The important point that the hon. Lady is making is that she agrees with the Select Committee that tourism should be the Department's first priority. It is sad that, at least for the first year in government, tourism did not figure on the Department' s radar screen.
  What will the Minister have heard on her visits around the country? I hope that it went better than the social security ratios.
  The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): As the hon. Gentleman declined to answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith), I shall answer it on his behalf. Is he aware that, under the previous Government, the English tourist board's grant fell from £25 million to less than £10 million? Does he regard that as an illustration of the previous Government's commitment to tourism?
  Mr. Jenkin: The Minister is trying to deflect attention from the Select Committee's report. We should concentrate on her job in government and the fact that she has been reprimanded by the Select Committee for neglecting tourism after a year in office. That is what should occupy her, not the previous Government's record.
  What will the Minister have heard in all those tourist destinations that she visited during the recess? On the economic climate, she will have heard time and again—
  124
  if she listened—how high interest rates and a high pound have hit the cash flow of many businesses in the past 18 months. Those factors are a direct result of the Government's mistakes on economic policy.
  Independence for the Bank of England meant that interest rates rose higher and for longer than was necessary, and the British Incoming Tour Operators Association estimates that the number of overseas visitors in the current year ending in September was 4 per cent. lower than in the equivalent period for 1997, and said that the trend is still downwards. There have been 1 million fewer visitors to the United Kingdom, resulting lost income of at least £1 billion. David Quarmby, chairman of the British Tourist Authority, estimates that that will have cost the UK some 30,000 jobs.
  The Government have piled new costs on business. Those affect the labour-intensive tourist sector badly, making it more difficult to employ people flexibly, and more expensive. The Government have introduced regulations arising from the EC directives on working time, on parental leave, and on part-time workers. Much in the directives simply reflects the good practice of good employers, but the regulations necessarily involve a lot of paperwork and monitoring, and create the potential for discord between employer and employee. Perhaps the worst aspect of those new laws is that they are likely to reduce job opportunities for women, because they tend to prefer part-time jobs, many of which will be replaced by full-time jobs, which are more likely to taken by men. I should have thought that that would concern the Minister.
  Those regulations are intended to do no more than replicate the burdens on employers that already exist in other EU countries. As usual, the EU raises the level of regulation upward at a cost to the UK's industry and jobs.
  Sir Rocco Forte told Caterer and Hotelkeeper on 27 March 1997:
  "I have operated in every single one of the continental European countries and seen very clearly the disadvantages they work under."
  The Government are actively promoting the disadvantages under which the tourist industry will have to operate. The effects of the national minimum wage have yet to be felt, but that will be yet another burden.
  Miss Geraldine Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jenkin: I have given way to the hon. Lady already. I intend to be brief because I know that other hon. Members want an opportunity to speak in this debate.
  The Government have disregarded tourism, our fifth biggest industry. They have damaged the industry with the downturn made in Downing street, and have burdened it with extra regulations and costs, which will damage growth and job creation. However, what have Ministers responsible for tourism done? I refer to a document issued following the comprehensive spending review, paragraph 1 of which states:
  "For the past year we have been conducting a review of the Department's activities as part of the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review."
  The document goes on:
  "Our principal conclusion has been that all the areas for which DCMS is responsible are important".
  That stunning analysis seems to dominate the Government's flaccid thinking on that whole question. On the pretext of that earth-shattering conclusion, Ministers

  125
  announced yet another round of consultation on all aspects of DCMS, including tourism. With incredible ineptitude, they put forward four options for the future of the English tourist board, not one of which includes the possibility of its continuing in existence.
  I accept that the present relationship between the English tourist board and its regional counterparts is far from perfect. However, there are some real "sillies". For example, the English tourist board has produced a brochure entitled, "The Essential England". It deals with neither the west nor the east of England, because it was cheaper to produce a brochure that covers the east and the west. It places Buxton in the same region as Basildon and Hereford in the same region as Lowestoft. It is ludicrous to suggest that such an entity is marketable across Europe and the rest of the world.
  The correct way to market the east of England, particularly to the short-haul overseas market, is to keep it as the east of England. I commend the tremendously good brochure, which I understand has been very popular, advertising the east of England. The East of England tourist board was unable to produce enough copies, possibly because of its over-centralising attitude towards the regions.
  Mr. Richard Spring: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely symptomatic of the Secretary of State's attitude towards tourism that the consultation process on the future of the ETB took place during the high summer season? Anyone who understands small businesses would know that that placed an impossible burden on hoteliers, which underlines what my hon. Friend has been saying—that, in practice, the Government care nothing for the tourist industry.
  Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is right. Whatever the problems faced by the English tourist board, the answer is none of the four answers provided to the question that nobody has asked: do we need to get rid of the English tourist board?
  The ETB and its regional offspring look jealously at their Scottish and Welsh counterparts, which have much more substantial funding. Scotland spends £18.3 million, or £4.81 per head of population; Wales spends £14.6 million, or £6.36 per head of population; and England spends £9.73 million, or only 25p per head of population. The problems that we face in England are simply a reflection of that imbalance. I do not begrudge what the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office choose to spend on tourism, nor am I calling for higher public spending in England; but it is ludicrous to suggest that we can solve these problems by abolishing England's shop window on the world.
  The east of England, including north Essex, has its attractions, but every region of England must live under the brand name of England, or it is nowhere. I used to work for the Ford Motor Company in sales and marketing. It would be much harder to sell a Mondeo or a Focus if it did not have a Ford badge on it.
  One can only conclude that the name of England has become something of an embarrassment to Ministers in this post-devolutionary world. Scotland can have a Parliament, Wales can have an Assembly, but England must be lectured to by the Scottish Secretary. We cannot have a Parliament—we cannot even have a tourist board.
  126
  The tourist industry does not need this myopic obsession with regionalism. It would not be sensible to submerge the regional tourist boards into the new regional development authorities, because their functions would be swamped by all the other things the authorities will want to do.
  I am sure that the Minister will have a lot to say—Ministers always do—but I would be happy with quite a short speech from her. It would be nice to think that she will make an announcement to the House today on the conclusions drawn from her consultation on the future of the English tourist board, but I doubt that the Government want the House to be the first to know.
  The tourist industry is highly fragmented. Thousands of small businesses are not geared to the strategic international promotion that English tourism requires. There may well be better ways to deliver such a strategy through greater involvement of the private sector. Will the Minister tell the House—I have given her notice of this question—that the English tourist board will stay? Despite its limited budget, it plays a vital role in promoting one of our major national industries, and it should stay.
  9.52 am
  Miss Geraldine Smith: I shall highlight the enormous difficulties faced by British seaside resorts, especially those affecting my constituency. It is outrageous that our seaside resorts are still reeling from the effects of the decline of the British seaside holiday in the late 1970s and early 1980s, despite the fact that tourism is forecast to be the world's largest industry by 2000. It is vital for the future prosperity of our nation that the British tourist industry play its full part in that expansion.
  I blame the Conservatives for these problems, because they were in government for 18 years, and they did nothing to help British seaside resorts. We are living with the consequences. The town in which I grew up and have lived for most of my life was prosperous, and I have seen how the Conservatives allowed it to decline.
  Many of our resorts have great natural beauty—magnificent beaches, splendid coastal terrain and breathtaking views—but they now play host to areas of dereliction and social deprivation that would match the worst found in any of our inner cities. Without a clear recognition that those conditions exist, and action is taken to remedy the situation, these resorts, which should be the cornerstone of British tourism, will continue to decline, and our tourist industry will fail to fulfil its potential.
  I shall illustrate the problems that exist in many of our seaside resorts by referring to the position in my constituency. Over the past 20 years, 70 per cent. of the holiday accommodation in Morecambe and Heysham has ceased to be used for that purpose. Many of the huge number of redundant guesthouses and hotels are now used for multiple occupation, and are rented to families and individuals on social security benefits. Unscrupulous and usually absentee landlords have advertised extensively throughout Lancashire and elsewhere, exhorting people to come and live by the seaside. This huge pool of cheap and often sub-standard accommodation has acted as a magnet for the urban poor, the unemployed and the socially disadvantaged from those areas.
  As a result, many parts of Morecambe and Heysham have a largely migrant population without roots in the area, and those people have few prospects in life.

  127
  Hon. Members can imagine the pressure that that places on our schools, especially those providing special needs education, and on social services. People come and go from the area. The daily flow in and out of those properties makes it impossible to establish any sense of community, and it makes nonsense of any attempt to provide reliable statistics on unemployment and social needs.
  These areas not only are unemployment black spots, but have become hotbeds of crime and drug abuse. Three of the worst 10 and six of the worst 30 wards in Lancashire are in Morecambe and Lunesdale. Ill health, dereliction and social deprivation abound, but perhaps the most worrying aspect is the impact that they have on adjacent areas, causing them to decline and thus perpetuating the cycle.
  Mr. Spring: The hon. Lady describes clearly the position in her constituency. What escapes me is the role that the Labour-controlled Lancashire county council and other councils in the area have played in letting the problems develop in the first place.
  Miss Smith: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that Lancaster city council has done a good job of trying to regenerate Morecambe. Obviously, a great deal more has to be done, and we need help from central Government—I make no bones about that. I shall ask the Minister for the help we require, because we received no help during 18 years of Tory government. Local councils had to act in isolation and in very difficult circumstances.
  Morecambe and Heysham remains a beautiful area, despite these problems. I am proud to have grown up and to live there, and I want to stay there for the rest of my life. It is ideally located as a gateway to the lakes. Its views and abundant wildlife rival any in the country, and it has enormous potential for the tourism trade to be expanded. I pay tribute to our beleaguered business community, which has worked tirelessly to regenerate the resort and, against all the odds, has been remarkably successful through private-public partnerships.
  However, it is high time those in Morecambe and other seaside resorts received the full support of Government to help them in what they are trying to achieve. Like many others, my area has applied for assisted area status. Our case is fully justified, but it remains to be seen whether we will be successful.
  British seaside resorts have suffered through the collapse of their domestic tourism industries every bit as much as other areas have suffered from the decline of their core industries. Coalfield communities and areas affected by the decline in manufacturing have received assistance, and we need the same assistance. The Government should provide a package of measures aimed at regenerating seaside resorts. That is not only in the interest of those who live and work in the resorts, but in the economic interest of the nation.
  I hope that the Minister will offer some hope to seaside resorts. It is important for us to be given hope, because we have immense problems to overcome. We also have immense opportunities. Morecambe is doing well as a seaside resort, and is striving to overcome the difficulties. I cannot miss this opportunity to ask the Minister to visit my constituency in the new year. I will be interested to hear what help she can offer British seaside resorts. That support is vital, and has been lacking for many years.
  9.59 am
  Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I welcome the new Minister to the first real debate on tourism that we have had, at least since the last Session. Having spoken to members of tourism bodies over the summer, I am pleased to learn that the hon. Lady is already regarded as a well informed and enthusiastic Minister. I trust that she will raise the profile of tourism in Government, as it is one of our largest and most job-creating industries. Its success and growth are vital to a modern Britain.
  I am also pleased that the Minister has acceded to my request that she visit the beautiful and go-ahead resort of Southport. She will have plenty to see—both our traditional heritage, and the new investment that is taking place. Thanks to European, lottery and other funding, Southport's new promenade and sea defences have now been completed. The new town centre gardens have been opened on famous Lord street, the pier is to be renovated, and preparations are being made for the construction of a major new indoor complex.
  As I see it, British tourism is approaching a crossroads. Year on year there has been growth in the industry, but two major obstacles lie in the way. First, owing to the very success of the industry up to this point—it is now the fifth largest in Britain—it has grown so large that a measure of strategic planning has been essential to overcome the problem of fragmentation, and also to protect our environment from the excesses that uncontrolled and sustained growth in an industry brings.
  We need a permanent strategic body that does not merely cover the same ground as the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. I ask the Minister to consider establishing a tourism commission for England, consisting of representatives of the industry and Government. The DCMS should be involved, but so should the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. We must get away from the image of tourism as solely part of culture, rather than part of economic development.
  The tourism commission should also include tourism business leaders, as well as representatives of small businesses and other interested bodies. It could draw up a modern and relevant remit for the essential English tourist board and the British Tourist Authority; it could propose new planning regulations relevant to the needs of resorts and other tourist sites, and take evidence from trade unions and the Low Pay Commission. Tourism is one of the lowest-paying industries, with the least job security. The commission could also advise Government on their new transport policies. Tourism in England has no ombudsman, and standards vary considerably; a commission could set those standards, and appoint a watchdog to monitor them. Being a strategic rather than an operational body, it would not require any significant funding.
  I trust that the Minister recognises that those issues need to be tackled in the medium and the long term if the industry is to be stabilised, and I hope that the Department's forthcoming tourism forum document will contain proposals to that effect.
  The second obstacle to progress is the cost of tourism in Britain, compared to other European countries. As the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport observed at a recent dinner of the Tourism Society, to attract overseas visitors we must market ourselves on quality.

  129
  To secure that quality, however, we shall need investment for the upgrading and maintaining of standards. I am glad that regional development agencies will have a major responsibility to tourism. Investment for tourism projects, which can be highly influenced by the exact needs of the location, should be directed at the projects themselves, rather than being decided centrally. It is, however, essential for funds available to tourism through regional development agencies to be spent on investment. Regional tourist boards have done a great job so far on their small budgets, especially in obtaining partnership moneys, and they should be maintained; but they must take on a new role, liaising with regional development agencies.
  The lottery, through the national heritage memorial fund, has been a valuable source of money for the less commercial and non-commercial aspects of tourism, and for some major renovation projects. For example, although our Victorian piers and parks are not in themselves big money spinners, their presence attracts visitors, thus generating business for many resorts. I am keen for RDA funds for tourism to be used widely as match-funding for such investments. Many traditional resorts are members of the excellent British Resorts Association, whose advice should be sought on all aspects of regenerating our seaside towns.
  With the ending of section 4 grants, small businesses in England and Wales lost access to funds to upgrade their facilities; yet the emphasis is now on quality. Small businesses in tourism have short seasons, and work to tight budgets. Because tourism is not an industry in which major profits are generally made—except in large London enterprises—funds from within the industry are seldom available to cover even the relatively small sums that are required. RDAs should have the option of helping to fund that sort of investment as well.
  Another aspect of quality is who will monitor it. If, as is widely rumoured, the English tourist board's remit is to be reassessed, the Government must make alternative arrangements for the monitoring of standards. Another job for a tourism commission would be the drawing up of national guidelines, and the appointment of an independent monitor. That monitor should not work on a commercial basis, unlike the various bodies that currently grade hotels.
  Notwithstanding new initiatives in respect of quality, prices and costs still matter. According to figures released by the British Tourist Authority, tourism receipts, for the first time, did not grow last year. We still have many visitors, despite the crisis in Asia, but the strong pound is reducing their spending power significantly, and they are not staying as long as they used to. The big issue relating to price, however, is that many more Britons are taking advantage of the relative cheapness of travelling abroad. If prices continue to be so high that it is cheaper for most people to take a summer holiday abroad—not even taking the climate into account—our domestic tourism may go into long-term decline, unless the Government take steps to redress the balance.
  The introduction of the euro across the channel, but not in the United Kingdom, may damage us. International and business travellers will need to change their money into just one currency. Selling our holidays to Europeans will involve the expense of currency exchange, which will push up costs in comparison.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fearn: I will certainly give way to my friend from the Select Committee.
  Mr. Jenkin: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the vast majority of people who visit this country come from Europe? If so, he is much mistaken. People come from throughout the world. For instance, we have many visitors from the United States, south-east Asia and Japan, in whose decision-making the European currency issue is not paramount.
  Mr. Fearn: The Americans have certainly been a major contributor to the industry so far, and American tourists will continue to come here; but as I am sure the hon. Gentleman has noticed, the Japanese are no longer visiting the country in such large numbers.
  It is plain that, from the point of view of tourism—for which currency exchange is a major cost—the sooner the euro is introduced here, the better. I am pleased that the Government have moved to a position of "when" rather than "if'. At least our attitude is becoming clearer, and that is much better for industry than the limbo in which we have been living.
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: Is the hon. Gentleman going to mention his party's proposals for the abolition of the BTA, and explain why he considers its abolition to be good for tourism?
  Mr. Fearn: I have already mentioned the BTA twice; I have also mentioned the English tourist board. The proposal for abolition is not final, and there has been no firm statement in any of our documents.
  Until recently, much of the work of the DCMS has been preoccupied with the "cool Britannia" image and similar diversions. Issues such as the strength of the pound, and one of the highest VAT rates levied on hotel accommodation providers anywhere in Europe, have been brushed under the carpet. The VAT crisis is particularly important, and the Government should tackle it.
  Earlier this year, Deloitte and Touche published an extensive report on the likely effects on the industry, and revenue for the Treasury, of a cut in VAT on accommodation to the European average. The Government have had plenty of time to assess the report's findings. I ask the Minister—as I asked her predecessor—whether she has made any decisions on the basis of those findings, and whether she intends to press the case for a reduction of VAT to average European levels with the Treasury. Both this and the previous Government have pledged to equalise VAT rates across Europe as part of the establishment of the single market and the deal to end duty-free, which in itself will cost jobs. So far, however, the Treasury is stonewalling on the subject; nothing has happened. By equalising VAT, the Treasury could help tourism and raise revenue in the medium and long term.
  Tourism needs to be a higher priority in investment and economic development, and there should be both a closer concentration on the quality of the product that we offer the consumer and a national long-term strategy for development. So far, such a strategy is lacking.
  10.10 am
  Mr. Lawrie Quinn: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this short debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on securing it, thereby giving the House the opportunity to discuss tourism and hospitality. He and I share the view that those industries are important not only to Britain and our constituencies, but to the economy and the social well-being of all our citizens. Most commentators predict that they will soon be the largest in Britain—indeed, globally. I rise to offer the House a snapshot—a postcard from the seaside, I suppose—of local developments in the industries.
  If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were to travel to my constituency, which would of course be a great honour, you would see on entering Scarborough a sign which says, "Welcome to Scarborough … Britain's First Resort". That is true, and it represents the industries' vision in Scarborough and Whitby. I am very pleased that the Minister's tour of seaside resorts and of representatives of the tourism industry included a visit to my constituency in August. It was very closely followed by a visit from the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), the Opposition spokesman. So both parties are apparently in listening mode.
  As in the rest of the United Kingdom, the tourism industry in my constituency is fragmented and segregated. It is spread throughout rural areas, small villages, market towns and large conurbations such as Scarborough and Whitby. Tourism is of special and growing importance in north Yorkshire, especially in the North Yorkshire moors national park, which constitutes about 60 per cent. of my constituency.
  Perhaps I should send you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a postcard from the beautiful parts of the national park, such as the Esk valley. Instead of the comic seaside card that I had in mind when I got to my feet, perhaps I should be saying to all in the House, "Wish you were here." That is certainly the message that all people who work in tourism and hospitality in my constituency want me to convey. We do indeed wish that hon. Members would spend some of their hard-earned money in our resorts.
  People visit Britain not only for the great delight of its scenic beauty but for our arts and culture—our museums, galleries and theatres. Indeed, one of the best regional theatres in the country is the Stephen Joseph theatre in Scarborough, which is run by Sir Alan Ayckbourn.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: It is funded by the lottery.
  Mr. Quinn: The right hon. Lady is quite right to say that the theatre received a substantial capital contribution from the lottery, although revenue support was not thought through, and we failed to supply money. I am glad that, on the Minister's visit to Scarborough, I was able to accompany her to the theatre, where we discovered from Sir Alan Ayckbourn, no less, that tourism and hospitality are not only creative but vital industries. I take issue with the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Essex that the Department's vision does not cover the industries' creative side. The aspect is clearly stated in the Department's vision statement.
  Sporting events are very important to our industries, attracting many international visitors. There has been the recent European football championship, and there are bids
  132
  to stage the world cup and the olympic games. Given Scarborough's experience of hosting the Bulgarian football team, I would urge a note of caution. We were promised that many thousands of football fans would accompany the team, filling vacant spaces on caravan sites and in bed-and-breakfasts and hotels. Unfortunately, the fans did not visit the delights of the Yorkshire coast.
  I therefore urge that, in planning international sporting events and attractions at globally renowned venues, such as the Millennium dome, which is not too far from Scarborough, the Government contemplate ensuring that the virtuous aspects of trade and tourism spill over to the more peripheral areas, such as the north-east of England and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith). We need to plan and think about where visitors will stay.
  When my hon. Friend the Minister visited Scarborough in August, we were able to share a business breakfast with many key members of the local industry. On that occasion, she showed not only that she was in listening mode but that, a mere two weeks into her new job, she was willing to take on board the ideas, problems and concerns of people who work in the industry in my part of the world. She certainly greatly impressed many people who attended. I know that she has received many letters from my constituents who were grateful that she visited us.
  Mr. Spring: Has the hon. Gentleman asked the Deputy Prime Minister how many letters he received following his visit to Scarborough, which caused great hilarity because he left on a train but descended at the first available stop to get into his ministerial Jaguar? That was part of his listening to integrated transport strategy.
  Mr. Quinn: I am sorry to have to correct the Opposition spokesperson, but my right hon. Friend had been opening my constituency office—the first ever in Scarborough. My office is a mere five minutes walk from the railway station. The hon. Gentleman is right: my right hon. Friend took the train to Seamer. From there, he visited two proposed park-and-ride sites.[Laughter.] I am sorry, but that is on record. Those two sites are very close to Seamer railway station. Far from not being concerned with integrated transport policy, my right hon. Friend demonstrated his great concern to the people of Scarborough and Whitby. In fact, we are hopeful that, in due course, we shall be hearing about the policy.
  As evidence of the high regard in which the Minister is held in the tourist industry and the impact that she has made, I shall quote the chairman of the Scarborough hotels association, who told the local media shortly after her visit:
  "It's great to see tourism recognised as an industry and on the political agenda. We welcome this initiative and are pleased to contribute to the Minister's listening brief so early into her new role in government".
  Far from ignoring my constituents' concerns and comments, work is being done. I look forward to hearing the Minister make a statement, which will build on the Labour party policy devised under the auspices of my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry).
  Labour's document "Breaking New Ground—Labour's Strategy for Hospitality" was instrumental not only in my election to represent the seaside community of

  133
  Scarborough and Whitney but in helping to elect hon. Members across the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale, too, was elected on Labour's promise to fill the vacuum in tourism policy that was created by 18 years of the previous Government's failure. We are fulfilling that promise by listening to the industry, dealing with its concerns and working in partnership.
  I should like to mention to the House one local initiative in Scarborough with which I have been involved. We have established a Scarborough tourism forum that brings together everyone involved in tourism and hospitality. The forum is a place where we can debate the real issues of the day and look forward to the future. The Minister was able on her visit to hear about the forum's work, and I hope that she will take on board the lessons it offered when she considers any future tourism strategies and initiatives.
  I hope also that, in the near future, we shall see at all points of entry to the United Kingdom signs stating not only that Scarborough is our first national resort but that Britain is the first global resort.
  10.21 am
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on securing this debate on such an important subject, and on using the time allocated so wisely. As I realise the enormous value and importance of tourism to the United Kingdom—especially to London, which itself draws in much tourism to the United Kingdom—I should say first, in a non-political speech, that our hereditary monarchy and hereditary peerage are extremely valuable and important to tourism in London.
  As I said, tourism is important to London, and tourism in London is important to the United Kingdom. However, London is not everything in tourism. Also, with great respect to hon. Members who have already spoken in the debate, seaside resorts are not everything in tourism. We have to market the other parts of the United Kingdom abroad, and to market UK tourism inside the United Kingdom.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex, I am concerned by plans to abolish the English tourist board. What will replace it? We have heard that responsibility for tourism may be given to regional development agencies. I am troubled by such a proposal for various reasons, the first of which is that my constituency will be on the very edge of the south-west RDA, which will also include Cornwall and Devon. The south-west RDA would tend to promote Cornwall and Devon—I have nothing against those areas—at the expense of other parts of the region.
  My constituency and Gloucestershire generally, have far more in common with Herefordshire and Worcestershire than with Devon and Cornwall, and there is a strong likelihood that we in Tewkesbury would lose as a part of the south-west region. If responsibility for promoting tourism is given to RDAs, or to any similar regional authority, Tewkesbury would lose. I do not want that to happen.
  Tourism is extremely important to the town of Tewkesbury, to the Cotswolds, to many other villages in the area and to the racecourse in my constituency. In Tewkesbury, excluding the racecourse, 12 per cent.
  134
  of jobs depend on tourism, compared with the national average of 7 per cent. Tourism is a vital factor in job creation and sustainability, in education and in the preservation of old buildings.
  Tewkesbury has many old buildings. However, it also has many shops that have closed, primarily because of a shortage of tourists. Although Tewkesbury is a very beautiful and historic town, it suffers from proximity to Cheltenham, which has many chain stores. The town of Tewkesbury therefore specialises in and relies on speciality and novelty shops, on the abbey, on its many old buildings and on the river. Although those aspects of the town are extremely important—some of them are very beautiful—that is not enough. They have not only to look attractive but to draw in trade.
  I should like to stress again the importance of tourism both to my constituency and to the United Kingdom.
  10.25 am
  Mr. Christopher Fraser (Mid-Dorset and North Poole): The United Kingdom tourism industry, one of our most important money earners, now faces extremely testing times. For a long time, it has offered good prospects to those providing a high level of customer service, although rewards have rarely been achieved without significant investment and disregard of the timetable of an "ordinary" working week.
  Tourism's importance to both the national and local economies is difficult to overestimate. I shall not go back over the figures on tourism's importance to the United Kingdom, as those have been dealt with sufficiently already in this debate. Nevertheless, the business generated by tourism accounts for more than 1.5 million jobs. We should not forget that fact. Certainly in the south-west, where my constituency is located, tourism is vital.
  Foreign exchange earnings from overseas visitors make a valuable contribution to the UK's balance of payments and contribute directly to economic activity in favoured tourist destinations across the country. In Dorset, tourism plays a crucial role in local and regional economic activity and boosts local people's employment prospects—especially of school leavers, who may be unwilling or unable to move on to further or higher education. At its best, tourism produces good examples of training on the job. Many very committed young people go on to have a very successful career in the industry.
  Tourism is vital for my constituents, and a great many jobs depend on it. Any decline in trade hits our employment and economic prospects immediately and hard. Many hotels, restaurants and entertainment facilities enjoyed by local people could not survive without a thriving tourism market to support their turnover.
  We live in a popular area for visitors, not least because of the area's outstanding natural beauty. Our beaches win awards. Many people have second homes in Dorset, and, as we know, Bournemouth is a popular destination for both Conservative party and Labour party conferences.
  The economic uncertainty faced regularly by many smaller providers in the industry is compounded by the seasonal nature of much tourist activity. Almost a quarter of trips to or within Britain occur in July and August. In the off-peak months, that can cause cash flow problems, especially for smaller family-run businesses.

  135
  Then, of course, there is the weather. Apart from agriculture, the impact of poor weather is felt most keenly by tourism. If the summer is particularly bad one year, domestic demand may drop sharply. Consequent economic damage may be compounded if there is very little income at other times of year.
  It is thought that tourism has growth potential in creating jobs and generating revenue. However, many issues—not least the Government's current policies—cloud the horizon and will undermine that potential. The Government's economic policies have had a heavy impact on the industry. Interest rates and exchange rates took their toll at the height of last summer's tourism season, and extra costs will continue to pile on pressure.
  Red tape and regulation abound, and—with the introduction of the minimum wage, for example—will have a very real impact. Tourism relies on large numbers of students who undertake seasonal employment. It is also an industry in which young people have fewer qualifications but are willing to work hard for low initial reward, so that they may, with time, gain experience and better rewards.
  I fear that the Government's proposals could damage the industry, particularly in the south-west.
  Miss Geraldine Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fraser: I shall not give way to the hon. Lady. We have precious little time, and other hon. Members would like to speak.
  If starting wages increase, employers will have to rethink their strategy and staffing levels to remain competitive in the global market.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said, implementation of the European working time directive on work hours, annual leave and rest breaks also will have a major impact on the tourism industry. I am concerned that the Government have introduced regulations without adequate consultation with the tourism industry. The parental leave and the part-time workers directives are yet to come and they promise increased difficulties for an industry already under pressure.
  I hope that the Minister will answer a couple of questions. Why does England get so much less grant in aid per head of population than Scotland and Wales? The south-west—as I have said, an area in which I have a particular interest—does especially badly. Perhaps the hon. Lady will respond on that point. The south-west is not a rich area. Indeed, it is an area of great poverty; and the further west one goes, the more poverty there is. Yet there is no reward, as there is in Scotland and Wales, for the industry with which we have to work in the area that I represent.
  So far, our tourism industry has flourished, despite the rival attractions of overseas package holidays, the strength of the pound and the eternal problem of sometimes miserable weather, but I now fear for its future. Will tourism continue to prosper, and our local economy continue to reap the benefit, under a Labour Government? We face more costs, the import of more bureaucracy and
  136
  the probable demise of the English tourist board, which fights for the industry at the national level. It is symptomatic of the Government's attitude that they want to abolish the ETB without knowing how to replace it—despite the almost universal support in the industry for a strengthened and properly financed tourist board.
  Tourism is low on the Government's list of priorities. It is an afterthought and, perhaps, sometimes an irritation. The industry is misunderstood and sorely undervalued. Why else would the Department for Culture, Media and Sport issue a consultation paper requiring an industry response at its busiest time?
  I am a member of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. It recommended that the Department's annual report should provide specific information on how its sponsorship results in enhanced economic performance in each of its sectors, based on the view of the Select Committee, which was overwhelmingly stuffed with Labour Members, that the Department's objective should be to foster the tourism industry. The Government have yet to persuade us and the House that they care. There are challenging days ahead and I urge the Government, once and for all, to take tourism seriously.
  10.32 am
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I am delighted to contribute to the debate. I heartily congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on initiating it. Many hon. Members have spoken about the attractions of their constituencies and the importance of the tourism industry. That is certainly the case in South-West Surrey. The only problem for the industry is the Government's inaction in tackling the A3 at Hindhead—but more of that on another occasion.
  Tourism needs champions. It is a fascinating industry and I congratulate the Minister on taking on these responsibilities. If she can leave the Department with the official responsible for tourism being most highly regarded and envied, she will have made a difference. The legacy which she inherits is one where the snobbery of the Department gives prestige to the arts, sport and culture, but not to the industry that can create jobs and make a difference.
  Tourism could be a catalyst for the Department. We have discussed the errors that it has already made—the omission from the title, the omission from the mission, the censure from the Select Committee and its inability for several months to arrange a debate on tourism in the House. It has made many mistakes, but the hon. Lady may be able to save the day and join the list of champions of tourism and hospitality as the real sectors of growth for the next century.
  I commend some other champions to the Minister. It is a people industry; it is about education, training and the people involved thinking that they are valued. Many are taking that message seriously. David Harborne has been doing splendid work at the Hospitality Training Foundation. I commend Professor Airey at the department of tourism at my university of Surrey. They are people who think that investing in people from vocational qualifications through to degrees will make a difference. I commend the Confederation of British Industry and its tourism task force. Some of the leaders of the industry—Rank, Whitbread, Scottish and Newcastle, Madame Tussaud's and many others—say that we have to act in partnership and put more back into the industry.

  137
  Above all, I commend David Quarmby, head of the British Tourist Authority and English tourist board. It was disgraceful to launch the consultation document in such a way that it appeared to obliterate the English tourist board. My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) has done a magnificent job as our spokesman. He was at the launch of the BTA report on the day these insulting matters were being handled, and the people concerned were in ignorance of them. It is vital that there is a strong role for English tourism as well as a powerful and effective British Tourist Authority.
  I hope that the Minister will persuade her Cabinet colleague to fight for the industry in Cabinet. She can do much to raise the profile, but she has to win the battles as well. Regional development authorities and local authorities can help by being more generous on planning. Rural areas could do better if only they could get the planning consents that they needed. Many of our heritage buildings could be transformed if they could get the planning consent and support that they need. The danger is that the RDAs and the local authorities want to municipalise tourism, rather than promote it. It is essentially a private sector enterprise, not a municipal activity.
  Much has been made of seaside resorts. I happen to have a great liking for the Isle of Wight and understand the significance of tourism there. I am a great admirer of the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) and understand the importance of tourism there, too. I think that I have visited the constituencies of every hon. Member who has spoken today and appreciates the importance of the industry. I am tempted to remind the House that, when I was Secretary of State, it was the Year of the Pier. I think that people understand the importance of piers in our coastal resorts. I hope that the House will regard this as the "Year of the Peer" and understand the importance of peers in our constitution.
  10.37 am
  Mr. Bob Russell: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on initiating the debate and thank him for his generous comments about my constituency. I make but one addition to the civil war aspect and remind him that Colchester stood for Parliament.
  In a forum where there is a great deal of political disunity, tourism should be a subject that unites us. If I have any regret today, it is about the politicking that has taken place—until this morning, I was not aware that tourism was a party political issue. That is certainly not my experience in the area that I represent.
  Tourism is an inward industry, with visitors from overseas. Certainly Colchester has benefited recently from day tourists from the continent, so our greater European links need to be mentioned in that context. However, there is also tourism from within the United Kingdom, and I want to flag up one or two issues. One is the beach hut, and I declare an interest as I have a beach hut in the hon. Gentleman's constituency at Brightlingsea. The previous Government introduced value added tax on beach huts, of all things. That is not an incentive for people wishing to spend their holidays at home and be day visitors to many of our seaside resorts. The Minister is smiling, but this is an important issue in many of our smaller seaside resorts.
  138
  The second matter concerns the need for cheap accommodation, especially for young tourists from home and overseas. I make a special plea for capital grant funding for the Youth Hostels Association and similar organisations that provide accommodation for young people. I ask the Minister to investigate whether there is any way in which the Government could provide capital funding for new hostels and for refurbishment of existing ones.
  10.39 am
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: This has been a good debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), without whose initiative in calling this debate we would still be waiting for the Government to hold one. It is remarkable that there has been no Government-inspired debate on tourism since the election more than 18 months ago.
  There have been some excellent speeches, and one theme was clear throughout—tourism is important; tourism matters. Tourism matters in a constituency such as mine, where it brings in more than £100 million a year and is responsible for about 6,000 jobs. That is one reason why I take such an interest in the subject and am pleased to be part of our Front-Bench team. I also speak as a vice-president of the British Resorts Association and as patron of the Eastbourne Hotels Association.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken this morning with knowledge of the subject and conviction, and I thank them all. I fondly remember the visit to Eastbourne of my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) during the Year of the Pier. I was not sure whether the mention of civil war made by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) was historical, or referred to the one currently raging in his own parliamentary party.
  I have already mentioned my constituency. In a letter to me, the excellent director of tourism in Eastbourne, Ron Cussons, expressed his own concerns and supported those of the British Resorts Association. The Government have drawn on the BRA's excellent work in projects such as those to measure the local impact of tourism, but the director of the BRA, Peter Hampson, expressed in a letter his concerns about the new structure and role of the English tourist board. He asked:
  "Will the forthcoming tourism strategy be truly strategic …? Will Government recognise that large and medium sized coastal resort towns now all have pockets … of social and economic deprivation …? Will Government take action to ensure that the short term dispersal of asylum seekers will not have long term social and economic implications for coastal resort towns?"
  Mr. Cussons endorsed those concerns and went on:
  "The season this year has not been good due to the World Cup, the inclement weather for Eastbourne and the high exchange rate. Fortunately, the conference trade has been exceptionally good. Therefore, the hotels have traded reasonably well."
  We recently held a "listening to Britain" meeting for those involved in tourism in Eastbourne attended by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), the deputy Leader of the Opposition, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring). Those present, who represented a good cross-section of local tourism interests, voiced their concerns on several issues, including the widening tourism deficit, current rates of value added tax, the abolition of the ETB,

  139
  inadequate transport infrastructure, interest rates, the strong pound, the minimum wage and inadequate funding for tourism generally.
  We shall return to those themes, but for now I simply ask the Minister whether she agrees with David Quarmby, the chairman of the British Tourist Authority, who said:
  "1997 was a very tough year for the British tourist industry, and all the signs show that 1998 is going to be just as bad. Without the strong pound, we would have expected 30,000 new jobs and £1 billion extra revenue next year. As it is, we did well to hold on to what we had."
  What a damning indictment of the Government's economic policies. What does the Minister have to say to those 30,000 people who would have had jobs in tourism, but for her Government's policies? In opposition, the Labour party had many honeyed words for people involved in tourism throughout the country. After more than 18 months in office, how have the Labour Government risen to the challenges that other hon. Members and I have described?
  The Government's first act was to change the name of the Department, but in such a way as to emphasise the importance of other activities at the expense of tourism. I have never heard a remotely convincing explanation for the omission of tourism from the title of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. No doubt the Minister will have another try today.
  In its own statement of aims and objectives, the Department made no mention of tourism—a glaring omission. More recently, on the occasion of the appointment of the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson) to the post of Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, the Government took the opportunity to downgrade the role of Tourism Minister from Minister of State to Under-Secretary of State. Apart from the gross discourtesy to the Minister, for whom I have a high regard as a former Whip, what message does that send to an already beleaguered industry?
  In the most recent spending review, tourism received only 2 per cent. of the Department's total allocation—£6 million, compared to £115 million and £125 million for museums and the arts—yet it generates more than 80 per cent. of the Department's revenue. No wonder Richard Tobias, chief executive of the British Incoming Tour Operators Association, described the sum as "meagre". On top of all that, the Government are seriously proposing to abolish the English tourist board, while leaving the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland tourist boards in place. That has brought forth a howl of protest from every corner of the country and every section of the industry. I presume the Minister has seen the conclusion of Travel Weekly—that there is 97 per cent. support in the industry for an enhanced and strengthened ETB. The feelings of the industry were in no way assuaged by the absurdly short consultation period.
  We already know the funding figures: 25p per head for the population of England; £4.81 for Scotland; and £6.36 for Wales. The figures speak for themselves. There is no sign of the Government reintroducing section 4 grants to England, even though those are enjoyed by other parts of the UK. Fred Cubbage and his team at the South East England tourist board have stated:
  "There are more overseas visitors to the counties of South East England than to Scotland, and …. unemployment in parts of the South East are far higher than the average situation in Scotland.
  140
  Is it time to level the playing field and acknowledge the power of the England brand as one of the key magnets for overseas tourism? We think so."
  Against that background, combined with the worrying slide in revenue figures, what is the Government's solution? It is to abolish the ETB.
  That could not come at a worse time. There is a record deficit in tourism across the country and a record 10 million holidays were taken abroad last year. As if that were not bad enough, devolution is upon us: I have little doubt that Scotland and Wales will grasp the opportunity of devolution to increase their spending on promoting their countries—and why not? What implications are there for the long-term future of the BTA? The Government have become masters of the law of unintended consequences, but who is to speak up for tourism in England if the ETB is destroyed? How would the Government ensure that the strategic role now played by the ETB continued to be carried out?
  "Ah, yes," I hear the Minister say, "but what about the long-awaited tourism strategy?" What indeed? I must congratulate the hon. Lady on her attempts to right some of her predecessor's sins of omission by visiting at least some tourist resorts. However, there was a strange omission from the list that I saw, as the hon. Lady did not propose to visit the premier seaside resort in the country. Let me put that right now, by extending an enthusiastic invitation to her to visit Eastbourne and assuring her of a warm and friendly welcome.
  When are the Government going to start to listen to the tourism industry? When can we expect the Government's strategy? It has been a long time coming. We were told originally—last year—that it would be published "next summer"; then, this year, the promise was, "later this year"; and the most recent prognosis was that it would come in the next few months. On the subject of tourism, one can say without fear of contradiction that the Labour Government have hit the deck limping. Will the Minister tell the House today when precisely her strategy document will see the light of day and when the ETB will be put out of its misery?
  Today's debate is a wake-up call for a Government who have shown precious little concern for tourism—our fifth largest industry—since their election. As we have heard, the industry brings more than £50 billion a year to the British Exchequer and employs nearly 2 million British people. It directly accounts for 5 per cent. of British gross domestic product and 8 per cent. of all consumer spending.
  I can promise our tourism and hospitality industry that the Conservative party will battle for tourism in Britain. We have pushed hard to secure this opportunity to debate the crisis facing our seaside towns and tourist attractions, which is a result of the Government's lacklustre attitude toward the industry. Towns across the country, from Bournemouth and Blackpool to Skegness and Southend, need the support of the Government if they are to thrive. That support is patently not forthcoming.
  Tourists and employers are paying a high price for Labour's damaging policies. There have been four basic economic blunders: raising taxes, punishing savers, massively overspending taxpayers' money, and piling suffocating costs on to business. Those have combined to drive up interest rates and artificially strengthen the pound, causing domestic and foreign holidaymakers to stay away from Britain's coastal resorts, national parks

  141
  and major tourist attractions. In addition, the stifling regulation of job-destroying legislation, such as that on the working time directive and the minimum wage, will serve only to deepen a growing crisis in British tourism that the Government have engineered. It shows just how low a priority the Prime Minister places on that valuable national industry that his Department for Culture, Media and Sport does not identify tourism in its name, its aims or its objectives. The all-party Select Committee even acknowledged that tourism is
  "far and away the largest industry for which the Department is responsible and, in economic terms, the most important … yet tourism is subordinated in favour of more glamorous and trivial matters."
  The only attention that the Government have given to British seaside towns since the election has been to turn guesthouses into overspill DSS hostels for asylum seekers, and to delay and delay again over a fantasy tourism strategy. To add insult to injury, they have forged ahead with plans to abolish the ETB. Tourism is paying a very high price for the inadequate policies of this Labour Government.
  10.50 am
  The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): I join hon. Members on both sides of the House in congratulating the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on securing this morning's debate. We all welcome the opportunity to discuss what is undoubtedly one of Britain's most important industries.
  I take the strongest possible exception to the allegations by Opposition Members that the Government do not recognise the importance of tourism, which contributes some £53 billion a year to the economy and employs 1.7 million people. It is also one of our fastest growing industries, and we certainly take it extremely seriously. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) said that he hoped that cheap party political points would not be made during the debate, and that is certainly not my intention.
  The hon. Member for North Essex highlighted the industry's importance for employment. We have been liaising closely with the industry on the Government's proposals for the new deal to get young people off benefit and into work.
  Many hon. Members have also mentioned our current consultation on the structure of support for the industry, and I shall return to that later in my speech. The aim of our consultation was to make sure that what funds were available were used wisely. Under the departmental spending review, the British Tourist Authority has been allocated an increase of £6 million, in contrast to reductions in funding to tourism in recent years.
  Tourism is extremely important in my constituency of Rossendale and Darwen. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister appointed me to this post, I was very encouraged when the Manchester Evening News visited one of my local tourist information centres in Rawtenstall and said what a wonderful service it provided.
  Other hon. Members raised important constituency matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith) rightly referred to the plight of many seaside resorts around the country. Our domestic tourism working group charged a quality sub-group with looking at that problem. It examined a resort regeneration
  142
  action plan piloted by Redcar and Cleveland borough council, and that is likely to form part of the tourism strategy.
  Before I leave the subject, let me pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale, who is truly a champion of tourism in her constituency, and to the excellent work in Morecambe which has transformed the town in recent years. Of course I can give her the assurance that I shall visit Morecambe as soon as I can. It will not be my first visit there, but I look forward to visiting it again.
  I thank the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) for his kind words. He mentioned the success of the industry and its potential for growth. I also congratulate him, as he has become the champion of the English piers. We were all delighted to learn that Southport pier was to be refurbished and renovated.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: May I remind the Minister that it was with lottery money?
  Janet Anderson: It was indeed. We are grateful for and supportive of the money that the lottery is putting into similar projects around the country. During my fact-finding mission in August—I reassure the Opposition that it was truly a fact-finding mission—I visited the west pier in Brighton, which is also to be renovated using some lottery money, as well as considerable private sector investment. We see that very much as the way ahead.
  The hon. Member for Southport said that he thought that a strategy for the industry was missing. Let me assure him that that is no longer the case, and I shall return to that later in my speech.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) referred to my visit to his constituency in the summer. I greatly enjoyed talking to the local tourism forum, which greatly assisted our consideration of the strategy and what was needed to help the industry. We were particularly impressed by the forum in Scarborough, which included local residents as well as hoteliers and people who ran the various amusements and attractions in the area. When considering sustainable tourism, it is important to include the impact on local communities—another factor that our strategy will take into account.
  My hon. Friend also mentioned the millennium dome. We are proud of our decision to go ahead with the millennium dome, which will benefit not only London—although we expect some 3 million visitors to London for the millennium—but many other parts of the country. The excitement that has been generated by the project is incalculable. On Sunday, I very much look forward to switching on the floodlights at St. Anne's church in Turton, which have been funded specifically by millennium money.
  The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) mentioned that London was a gateway. Of course it is. Many people who come to London also visit other parts of the country. He referred to hereditary peers as a particular attraction. That may be true, but whether they have a vote is probably irrelevant.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) is a member of the Select Committee. He and some of his hon. Friends made much of the criticism by the Select Committee that the Department does not take tourism seriously. He may not be aware that one of

  143
  the first things that I did on taking this job was to change the order of my title, so I am now the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting. It may seem a small gesture, but it has been warmly welcomed by the industry.
  The hon. Gentleman may not know that I visited his part of the country in the summer and was most impressed. I was delighted to return to Studland bay, which is one of the most beautiful beaches in the country. I spent a lot of my childhood there. I was most impressed by the management scheme on Purbeck, which is an important tourism attraction. A great deal has been done to introduce park-and-ride schemes and manage the number of visitors.
  Mr. Fraser: I was aware of the hon. Lady's visit to Dorset, where there was much comment about why she did not go up in a hot air balloon in Bournemouth.
  Janet Anderson: I did many other things, but I did not go up in a hot air balloon because I did not fancy the idea, but it did not diminish my ability to learn about the local tourism industry.
  Mr. Jenkin: In the very short time she has left, will the Minister address the issue of the English tourist board?
  Janet Anderson: Of course. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman was most concerned about that issue and I shall address it before I finish my speech.
  Let me briefly thank the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) for her kind words. I agree with her whole-heartedly that the industry needs a champion. It is a fragmented industry which needs leadership. Our consultation with all sections of the industry has made that plain. We shall certainly take it on board in our strategy, which will be published in the new year because that is when most people think about their holidays.
  I should like to address the point raised by the hon. Member for North Essex about the consultation process. We consulted widely with the industry because we wanted what public money was available to be spent as wisely as possible. Despite his criticism that the consultation process was carried out over the summer, we received more than 300 responses. The overwhelming majority called for a central co-ordinating body. That will be reflected in our decision, which will be announced soon. One of the main aims of the process was to get better help to the regions. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will welcome that commitment.

  Gulf Crisis
  10.59 am
  Mr. George Galloway: This is a profoundly important subject which affects many people's lives and touches our country's vital interests. I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Minister a series of questions, not all of which I expect him to answer today, but on which I hope he will write to me in due course.
  The fact that there is a crisis in the Arabian gulf cannot be gainsaid. Just over a week ago, American and British sailors and airmen readied themselves, we are told, for political orders from the United States President and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to launch a series of devastating raids involving cruise missiles and a massive bombardment of Iraq.
  By the grace of God and the skilful diplomacy of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, the slaughter that would have resulted was averted—much, it seems, to the disappointment of some. It was reported that, after the Secretary-General had accepted Tariq Aziz's letter, President Clinton felt that he could not justify the attacks, especially as the Pentagon's assessment was that they would have left 10,000 people dead—every one of them somebody's son or daughter, father or mother, husband or wife.
  Do Her Majesty's Government share the Pentagon's estimate that 10,000 Iraqis would have been killed if the attack had gone ahead? If not, what is their estimate of what the death toll would have been? How many of the dead Iraqis does my right hon. Friend estimate would have been high officials of the Ba'ath party, important military or security officers, or innocent men, women and children with no responsibility whatever for the actions of their Government, whom they never elected and cannot remove?
  We keep hearing that the Government have no quarrel with the Iraqi people, but how many dead does my right hon. Friend think would constitute a price worth paying? Does he recall the words of the American officer who said, as he incinerated yet another hamlet on the Mekong delta, that the village would have to be destroyed in order to save it?
  My right hon. Friend will be familiar with the words of Madeleine Albright, the US Secretary of State. During an interview on US television, Lesley Stahl asked her:
  "perhaps half a million Iraqi children have died as a result of sanctions, is the price worth it?"
  Albright replied:
  "It's a very hard choice but the price … we think the price is worth it."
  Do Her Majesty's Government share the view that the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children—who, I assure my right hon. Friend, bleed just like his children and mine—is a price worth paying for their political objectives?
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: My hon. Friend will recollect very well the terrible sights in the hospitals that he and I have visited in and outside Baghdad. Does he also recall Denis Halliday writing in Middle East International on 13 November that 6,000 children were dying each and every week?
  Mr. Galloway: I remember it vividly. This week's Tribune reported that Denis Halliday, a former UN Under-Secretary-General, also said:
  "We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral."
  Those are the words not of me or my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), but of the former humanitarian co-ordinator for the UN in Baghdad.
  I fear that someone was talking to my right hon. Friend the Minister when I asked whether Her Majesty's Government shared Mrs. Albright's view that the 500,000 children who, according to Lesley Stahl, had died as a result of sanctions, were a price worth paying. Perhaps, unlike Mrs. Albright, the Government contend that children are not dying as a result of sanctions—that is the position that some Ministers seem to have adopted in the bellicose days of late. Do the Government accept that any Iraqis have died as a result of the sanctions? If so, how many, and how many would they consider a price worth paying?
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: The hon. Gentleman may be surprised to know that we have common ground on this issue, but does he have any estimates of the number of Iraqis who died in the Kurdish area before and after the Gulf war as a result of nerve agents? How many Iraqis—and, indeed, Iranians—died in the Iran-Iraq war, which was stimulated by Saddam Hussein? Although many of them were soldiers, they were all, as he rightly pointed out, some mother's son. How many people in the marsh areas have died as a result of the actions of Saddam Hussein? Most people estimate that Saddam Hussein has killed more than 500,000 of his people, so does not the hon. Gentleman believe that Saddam Hussein bears some responsibility for the situation in Iraq?
  Mr. Galloway: The figures are, in fact, rather worse than the hon. Gentleman suggests. The Iran-Iraq war was a lunatic and disastrous conflict, but it was encouraged by the west, which armed both sides, and had a vested interest in its continuing for as long as possible. The numbers who died were perhaps a million on each side, so I am in no doubt about the disastrous consequences of those eight years of war—or, indeed, of the gas attacks on Halabja. However, the Conservative Government continued to do business as usual with the Iraqi regime after the Halabja tragedy was brought to their attention, not least by Labour Members when they were in opposition. If the hon. Gentleman does not believe me, he can read the Scott report for elucidation of that point.
  It is scarcely credible that a Member of Parliament should seek to justify—if that is what was being done—our killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis on the grounds that the Iraqi dictator was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Are we saying that we are morally equivalent to the Iraqi dictatorship?
  Mr. Dalyell: Those who have seen the war memorials of first world war proportions in Iran will know that, in the Iran-Iraq war, the Iranians suffered a terrible loss. However, the Iranian Government have made it absolutely clear that the last thing they want is a British-American military strike against Iraq. Given our better relations with Iran, could not Ministers at least talk to the Iranians about the matter?
  Mr. Galloway: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and I shall deal with that point later.
  146
  The House will now be familiar with Mr. Denis Halliday, whom, I assume, my right hon. Friend the Minister will not want to accuse of ignorance or bad faith. Halliday is a former Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations, and was an official of the UN for more than 20 years. He is a respected Irish official, who formerly served as the UN humanitarian co-ordinator in Baghdad.
  Last July, Dennis Halliday resigned his post, saying that he could no longer defend a policy which he described as "bankrupt." As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow mentioned, Halliday has said that between 5,000 and 6,000 Iraqi children every month of every year are dying as a result of sanctions. Is Halliday lying? Is Halliday wrong? If he is not lying, and if he is not wrong, is the Minister really saying that we are prepared to kill more than 200 Iraqi children each day of every month of every year in pursuit of our ethical foreign policy and our non-quarrel with the Iraqi people?
  It ought not to be necessary to describe in detail the suffering of the Iraqis under sanctions, given the acres of detailed reportage by fine British journalists in some of the finest newspapers in the world—people such as the incomparable Robert Fisk, Alexander Coburn, Maggie O'Kane, Ron McKay and Felicity Arbuthnot. Again, I ask the Minister—are these people lying? Are they wrong?
  Was Martti Ahtissari—the then UN Under-Secretary-General, and now the President of friendly Finland—lying when he said:
  "nothing that we had seen or read had quite prepared us for the particular form of devastation which has now befallen Iraq"?
  Was the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation lying when it said:
  "the continued sanctions have virtually paralysed the whole economy and generated persistent deprivation, chronic hunger, endemic malnutrition, massive unemployment and widespread human suffering … with the vast majority of Iraqis simply engaged in a struggle for survival"?
  Was the UN World Food Programme lying when it reported:
  "Alarming food shortages are causing irreparable damage to an entire generation of Iraqi children …a fifth of Iraq's population is at severe nutritional risk … we are the point of no return in Iraq … the social fabric of the nation is disintegrating …people have exhausted their ability to cope"?
  Was The Lancet lying in 1995 when it said that, since 1990,
  "567,000 children in Iraq have died as a result of sanctions"?
  Mr. Ivan Lewis: Notwithstanding any differences that hon. Members may have about where the responsibility lies for the suffering of the Iraqi people—whether it is economic suffering, or suffering due to the tyranny of Saddam Hussein—does my hon. Friend agree that there have been times in history when he and other hon. Members have no doubt advocated sanctions against repressive, tyrannical regimes because that was the only way to influence those regimes? For example, did my hon. Friend advocate sanctions against South Africa during the time of apartheid?
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: And Iraq.
  Mr. Lewis: And Iraq. If so, what is the difference now?
  Mr. Galloway: There is no dispute about the quotations that I have given the House, which unequivocally place the

  147
  responsibility for the massacre upon sanctions. The UN World Food Programme, the UN children's fund, The Lancet, the president of Finland—all say that those deaths are being caused by sanctions.
  The tyranny of Saddam Hussein is another question, to which I shall return. I was on the demonstrations against the tyranny of Saddam Hussein when British Ministers were inside the embassy, signing trade deals. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) was with me in the 1970s when we formed the Campaign Against Repression and for Democratic Rights in Iraq. Perhaps he was there, and I just did not know him then. However, nobody in this House has a longer record of opposition to the Ba'ath dictatorship in Iraq than me. That I can unequivocally state.
  Mr. Lewis: I was at school in the 1970s. More seriously, will my hon. Friend answer my question? Has he personally ever advocated sanctions against the Iraqi regime, or any other tyrannical regime, because he believed—as the Government believe—that that was the only way to bring the political leadership of that country to its senses and to democracy? If so, has not he understood the inevitable consequences of those sanctions? Why is the situation now so different?
  Mr. Galloway: I was coming to that point. I, too, was at school in the 1970s—I look older than I am.
  Mr. Lewis: Not at the same school.
  Mr. Galloway: Probably not, no. However, that did not stop me demonstrating or getting involved in political work. I reiterate my point, because I suspect that there is a sub-text. No one in the entire House has been active in political campaigns against the dictatorship in Iraq for longer than me—although some have been active for as long.
  I was in favour of economic sanctions against South Africa.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: And Iraq.
  Mr. Galloway: I was in favour of sanctions, rather than war, against Iraq in 1990. I have not changed my mind about that. If I have a choice—either Iraq is bombarded with cruise missiles tonight, or sanctions continue—of course I will choose sanctions. To do otherwise would be to call upon the visitation of missiles, bombs and weapons of horrific destruction against the people of Iraq. Why is that the choice being offered me by my hon. Friends' intercessions? I want to develop the argument for a policy that does not rely upon sanctions or upon war.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South talked about sanctions bringing a regime to its senses. Is the Iraqi regime coming to its senses after eight years of appalling carnage? As the bodies are stretched end to end—the hundreds of thousands, the million or more dead Iraqis—is the Iraqi regime, in my hon. Friend's terms, coming to its senses?
  Mr. Lewis: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Galloway: No. I have given way to my hon. Friend twice, and I want to make some progress.
  148
  Is the Iraqi regime changing its policy as a result of the carnage? No. Even the best friends of this policy do not pretend that it is working. Is not a policy that is both immoral—as Dennis Halliday, the others whom I have quoted and I say—and ineffective overdue for review?
  Was the distinguished foreign editor, Victoria Brittain, lying when she said in 1995 that there are
  "20,000 new cases of child malnutrition every month"?
  Was the World Health Organisation lying when it said:
  "health conditions are deteriorating at an alarming rate under the sanctions regime … the vast majority of Iraqis continue to survive on a semi starvation diet … the damaging effects of poor nutrition are being compounded by epidemics and by a precipitous decline in health care, the most visible impact of which is seen in the dramatic rise of mortality rates amongst infants and children"?
  Are the WHO, the United Nations officials, the distinguished correspondents and the medical journals all lying when they spell out the catastrophic price that is being paid by ordinary Iraqis as the result of the policy that my right hon. Friend the Minister supports? I beg him not to try to wash his hands of all the suffering by blaming it on others. It is a spot that will not out, and all the perfumes of Arabia will not expunge it.[Interruption.]
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South may think that it is funny, but let him imagine the ocean of blood represented by all the dead people about whom all those eminent authorities have spoken.
  Mr. Lewis rose—
  Mr. Galloway: My hon. Friend is a good friend of Israel, and I will come to Israel's crimes in a moment. I have no doubt that he will want to intervene at that point, so I advise him to keep his powder dry for that.
  Mr. Dalyell: On the subject of the perfumes of Arabia, in Iraq I saw by far the worst pollution that I have ever seen anywhere. Last night, I explained to the Deputy Prime Minister that, for all his good work in Buenos Aires, sanctions create pollution because of the lack of spare parts and the endless streams of leaking, badly maintained oil wagons going from Iraq to Amman. The good work in Buenos Aires is negated by what is going on in Iraq, and indeed Iran.
  Mr. Galloway: When Baghdad was sacked by the Mongols in the 11th century, the Tigris ran red with blood. In the 15th century, it ran black after the sacking by Timur's hordes of the world's greatest library at Mustansariya. Let me assure the House that the Tigris and the Euphrates run brown today with raw sewage. People from the villages and hamlets in rural Iraq drink directly from those rivers, because of the breakdown of the water purification systems.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend talks of rivers of blood. Does he recall the article in The Sunday Telegraph by Mr. Con Coughlin, who debriefed in detail a Mr. Sami Salih, who was a friend of the person in charge of the military industrialisation commission and set out in graphic detail what is going on in Iraq today, referring to the mass executions and the huge loss of life inside and outside Baghdad, the elimination of whole villages, the destruction of houses, and the way in which Saddam Hussein is hoarding munitions and weapons of

  149
  mass destruction under swimming pools and in parks throughout the country, to be used against his own people? The west has a responsibility to deal with Saddam in some way. The problem is that people such as my hon. Friend persist in misreading the situation, and they do not come up with solutions. What is his solution?
  Mr. Galloway: I am glad to say that I do not rely on Mr. Coughlin of The Sunday Telegraph for my information.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why not?
  Mr. Galloway: Because it is a rubbish newspaper, and he is a rubbish journalist.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: If you disagree, it is rubbish.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order.
  Mr. Galloway: I could debate with my hon. Friend the value of Mr. Conrad Black to the English-speaking world, and the value of his newspapers to the great body of newspapers.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not go down that path, but will remember that this is a time-limited debate to which others want to contribute.
  Mr. Galloway: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I have been very generous in allowing hon. Members to intervene. Perhaps I should press on.
  I am not sure what my hon. Friend's point was supposed to mean. If it means that Saddam is a tyrant, I am the last person who needs to be told about that, but how many executions has he carried out? Has he executed 567,000 children or killed more than 1 million people, which is the number that United Nations officials say have been killed by sanctions? I very much doubt it, but even if he had, is his river of blood an excuse for us to create our own? That is the $64,000 question.
  Does my right hon. Friend the Minister know the tears that have been shed over the more than 1 million corpses, dead as a result of the policy over the past eight years? Do not think that Iraqi women do not cry over the deaths of their children, or that Iraqi children do not cry over the suffering of their parents and grandparents. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow are in a position to tell the House that a walk through the vale of tears that is Iraq is almost too much for the ordinary mortal to bear, so searing is the grief, so traumatised the population, and so enraged the people with whom we say that we have no quarrel.
  What is all this for? Is it about the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force in the middle east, contrary to international law and in defiance of Security Council resolutions? It cannot be, can it? Iraq withdrew from its illegal occupation of Kuwait seven and a half years ago, while another middle eastern country, Israel, has continued to occupy not one or two but three Arab countries for decades, in absolute defiance of a whole series of United Nations Security Council resolutions, and in flagrant disregard of international law.
  150
  Iraq has rescinded its annexation of Kuwait, but has Israel rescinded its illegal annexation of the Golan heights or of east Jerusalem, the holiest of Christian places and one of the most sacred sites of Islam? The answer, of course, is that it has not.
  Is it about weapons of mass destruction, then? Well, it cannot be that, either. After all, who were the first to use chemical weapons against Kurdish tribesmen in Iraq? We were, in the 1920s, and the allies used them again in 1991, when we used what are essentially atomic weapons.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: They are not atomic weapons.
  Mr. Galloway: The weapons were made of depleted uranium: 900,000 uranium bullets and 30,000 uranium shells were used in the south of Iraq, where radioactive dust has entered the water, the food chain, the bodies, and, ultimately, the children of Iraq, and is responsible for the huge cancer and leukaemia epidemic, with a tenfold increase in the number of cancer cases in the country.
  Has my right hon. Friend the Minister read the trail-blazing journalism of Robert Fisk, the doyen of middle east correspondents, on the subject? Does he think that Fisk has got it wrong? What can he tell us about the World Health Organisation investigation? My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) says that the uranium weapons are not essentially atomic weapons, but in The Toronto Star this week Michele Landsberg said:
  "DU, a toxic nuclear waste, is used to coat missiles and bullets, increasing their armour-piercing power. It bursts into flames on impact and is 'aerosolized' into radioactive dust. The stuff remains radioactive for 4,500 million years."
  The article continued:
  "The U.S. Defence Department"
  estimates
  "that 630,000 pounds of depleted uranium were fired in the gulf in 1991".
  We used other weapons as well, such as fuel air bombs which ignite huge volumes of petrol above their human targets, creating, in effect, mini nuclear explosions. We also used napalm and cluster bombs. All those weapons were described by the 49th session of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations as
  "weapons of mass and indiscriminate destruction".
  Can my right hon. Friend the Minister do any better than his colleagues in answering the following question in a way that will make sense in the Arab world and on the streets of Muslim countries? Why is it that Israel, which illegally occupies the territories of its neighbours, and which has sought to obliterate Palestinian identity for half a century, is allowed to amass a mountain of chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons, while no Arab country is allowed to do so?
  Mr. Ivan Lewis: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Galloway: Later.
  When I asked that question in the House recently, a number of Tel Aviv's little echoes in the Chamber chorused that Israel was a democracy. Leaving aside the question of how a country that illegally occupies the territories of others can be so described, and leaving aside

  151
  the fact that 1.5 million Palestinians lived under brutal Israeli occupation for more than 30 years without ever being allowed to vote—
  Mr. Lewis: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Galloway: Later.
  Leaving aside the fact that, for the crime of telling the rest of us about Israel's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, Mordechai Vanunu is held in solitary confinement, serving a 20-year sentence, and had his jaw wired up in court like Hannibal Lecter in "The Silence of the Lambs" in case he told the court anything else, surely hon. Members, including the friends of Israel who are present, can see that international gangsterism by a country that claims to be a democracy is worse—not better—than gangsterism practised by a regime that makes no such claims.
  After all, the Iraqi people have no responsibility whatever for the actions of their Government, because they did not choose their Government and they cannot remove their Government, no matter how much we make them suffer. The Israeli people, however, are entirely responsible for the actions of their Government, because they elected their Government and they can remove their Government.
  Mr. Lewis: Does my hon. Friend accept that petty, personal and vindictive attacks do nothing to enhance his argument, but in fact undermine it? Does he accept that Israel is not only a democracy, but engaged in an on-going peace process with the Palestinians? Recent weeks have seen progress in that peace process. My hon. Friend does nothing to help his case when he seeks to rewrite history about the relationship between Israel and its neighbouring countries. The reality is that Israel has been surrounded throughout its history by countries hell bent on its destruction, including the regime in Iraq.
  The problem with my hon. Friend's whole argument is that, by turning the issue into a comparison between Israel and Iraq, he lets Saddam Hussein off the hook once again, and reinforces his strength in the Arab world. That is what is so irresponsible about my hon. Friend's argument about the British, American and Israeli Governments' responsibility. It is Saddam Hussein who is responsible for the situation that faces the Iraqi people and for the instability in the middle east.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) cannot make a speech in an intervention. May I add that moderation should be the hallmark of language in our debates? I have heard nothing out of order so far, but laying the stress on moderation would be helpful in the present atmosphere.
  Mr. Galloway: I do not believe that it can be petty and vindictive to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South, with his well known views, to intervene in my speech four times. Indeed, it is probably generous. I am not sure that the people who live in the illegally occupied Golan Heights, illegally annexed by Israel, look on Tel Aviv as a democracy. I am not sure that the people of southern Lebanon, occupied by Israel since 1982,
  152
  look upon Israel as a democracy. Certainly, the 1.5 million Palestinians who have lived for more than 30 years in occupied West Bank and Gaza have never been allowed to vote. I do not imagine that they look upon Tel Aviv as a democracy. Even if I accept that Israel is a democracy, my point is that crimes committed by a democracy are worse than crimes committed by a dictatorship. That is indisputable.
  Has anyone advanced any proposal to punish the people of Israel for the international law breaking of the Government whom they elected? No, unless one counts making them participate in the Eurovision song contest and the European cup winners cup. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister, as a long-time friend of Israel, does not like the double standards argument, but I assure him that it is an argument permanently on the lips of every Arab, from the most august in the palaces of the friendly Arab states to the man and woman in the street and it is the principal reason why his policy is utterly discredited in the Arab and Muslim world, and more widely.
  What about the white knights of UNSCOM, led by Richard Butler? Can my right hon. Friend the Minister hazard a guess why a senior—and I mean very senior—still-serving official of the UN should describe Mr. Butler to me recently, on the basis of more than 20 years' close knowledge of the man, as a "congenital liar"? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread unhappiness in the secretariat of the UN and in the Security Council about the conduct and the style of work of Mr. Butler?
  Did my right hon. Friend read the article by David Usborne in The Independent almost a year ago in which he wrote:
  "The criticism voiced privately in the corridors of UN headquarters is this: in his handling of the crisis that has put the United States on the brink of military action in the Gulf, Mr. Butler has failed utterly to lower the temperature. Indeed, by refusing to moderate his confrontational style, he has provoked almost everyone involved."
  An opinion whispered a year ago in the corridors of New York is now openly discussed by everyone, except—it seems—the US Government and our own.
  Can my right hon. Friend the Minister understand the widespread view that Mr. Butler is a provocateur who has his men swaggering around Iraq, trying not to resolve the remaining questions between the UN and Iraq, but to create pretexts for continuing the crisis and even to provoke a new and terrible military confrontation? The Arabs feel it, the majority of the permanent five on the security council feel it, and the Minister must know it. That feeling was exacerbated when Mr. Butler's deputy, the former US intelligence officer, Scott Ritter, announced to the world, after leaving his post, that he had indeed collaborated with Israeli intelligence during his time in Baghdad.
  While I am on that subject, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said four weeks ago that he would write to me about the revelation—the source of which was in New York, not Baghdad—that four named agents of the Israeli intelligence service Mossad had served under false names and false passports as UNSCOM agents of Mr. Butler in Baghdad. What has been the progress of my right hon. Friend's investigation of that matter, and when will he be in a position to write to me as he promised?
  Mr. Dalyell: A fortnight ago, the former Irish Prime Minister, Albert Reynolds, and I sat in the office of UNSCOM talking to the acting director, the honest

  153
  Finn Jaakko Ylitalo, and Caroline Cross. When we asked about Scott Ritter, they said, "Please don't mention him, we are ashamed."
  Mr. Galloway: That is widely felt.
  The events of the past week have vindicated absolutely the contentions of those who say that UNSCOM under Butler is bent upon provocation. There was the ridiculous squall over missing or non-existent paperwork which, if we had listened to the preposterous foreign affairs spokesman for the Opposition, would have seen us wipe out 10,000 people over a missing Iraqi air force diary dating back to the 1980s. It was a preposterous call, which was rightly ridiculed by Liberal Democrat spokesmen as well as by our own Government.
  What would the bombing, called for by the Opposition spokesman, have achieved? Would it have produced the diary or incinerated it? Does the diary exist or not? Cannot the Minister see that, to seek to elevate this paper chase into a casus belli against a now practically defenceless country simply reduces us to figures of ridicule?
  Some of the documents do exist and Iraq has said that the inspectors can read them but not take them away. They must read them in the presence of Prakesh Shah, the respected UN special envoy. What is wrong with that? Are we to wipe out 10,000 Iraqis in order to exercise our inalienable right to photocopy Iraq's whole national archive? If we do, how much support does the Minister think that we will have for such barbarism in the world, on the Security Council or in the Arab League?
  The problem with the documents, which Iraq says do not exist, is, in microcosm, the central problem of the whole issue. How can someone be asked to prove a negative? I could insist that the Minister is hoarding a silver threepenny bit in his house and, after he denies it, I could search his house year after year after year, all the while starving his wife and children. I might then say, finally, that the Minister must prove to me that he does not have a silver threepenny bit. That is a recipe for endless confrontation and misery.
  Then there is that old reliable chestnut, kept in reserve for that rainy day when even UNSCOM cannot justify its odyssey in Iraq any more, and that is the issue of Kuwait's missing in action. Of course, the United States has great experience of using that one and has made it the stuff of half a dozen Rambo fantasies. The search for the bones of American MIAs kept the embargo against Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos going for literally decades, and it is being dusted down again for use in the Gulf as the final excuse for continuing the quiet massacre of sanctions.
  Mr. Keith Vaz: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Galloway: I must press on.
  There is an old saying that when one is in a hole, one should stop digging. Our policy towards Iraq is in a deep hole, neither moral nor effective, yet we seem incapable of devising an exit strategy to get us all out of that hole. Let us take the most recent act of excavation in which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State was involved—the much-trumpeted act of meeting and seeking to unify the Iraqi opposition based in London. It included everyone from the Turkoman Liberationists to something called the Democratic Monarchists who seek to put on a newly
  154
  minted throne in Baghdad one of two pretenders to the kingdom—Shan-if Ali Bin Hussain—who left Iraq when he was still a baby.
  Does the Minister really believe that the Turkoman organisation—there are six such organisations of Turkomen, and Turkomen constitute no more than 6 per cent. of Iraq's population—or the Democratic Monarchists are serious contenders for power in Baghdad? There is also the so-called Iraqi National Congress, whose CIA funds have been discontinued because of the shambolic and corrupt incompetence it has displayed. Has the Minister spoken to his counterparts in friendly Jordan about the three prison sentences handed out to the INC leader, Mr. Chelabi, for his involvement in the Petra bank fraud scandal?
  The Minister met the Shi'ite representatives in the form of Iraq's Islamic Supreme Council. Given the experience of those other holy warriors whom we financed, armed and trained, the Afghan Mujaheddin, is the Minister really sure that that is the company he wishes to keep? Is it the Government's policy to try to help the Shia revolution to power in Baghdad? Do the Government think that Iraq can be ruled by Turkomen or by the two Kurdish parties when they take a break from murdering each other?
  I heard the Minister on the admirable Nicky Campbell's phone-in programme on Radio 5 yesterday. He said that he was meeting "constitutional" politicians. Really? On the very day, almost at the very hour when the Minister was pouring tea for his new friends, one of the "constitutional" activists threw two hand grenades into a crowd of people in the Shia holy city of Karbala.
  Mr. Robathan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Galloway: No, I will not give way any more.
  Of course, the grenades did not hurt the deputy Prime Minister of Iraq at whom they were aimed, but they made some spectacular holes in the faces and bodies of the civilians who were in the crowd.
  The Minister may say that he wants no part of that, although he did not quite say that on Radio 5. Does he think that that act of terrorism was unconnected with his meeting with the Opposition in London? Does he think that its timing was just a coincidence? Does he think that that will be the last act purchased, not by British money but by the $97 million voted by the US Congress for the armed overthrow of the Iraqi regime? Does he realise that that money will take us down the road that leads to the illegal mining of the harbours of Nicaragua by the Contras, to the Bay of Pigs fiasco, to the blowing up of hotel foyers in Cuba and to the obscurantist barbarism of present-day Kabul?
  Mr. Robathan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Galloway: I am not giving way again.
  Does the Minister realise that the road down which he is taking us is illegal under the very legislation that our Government rushed through both Houses of Parliament during the summer? The Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 makes it an offence under British law to plan or encourage others to plan to commit any act which would be illegal in any other country. I know that,

  155
  because I was the person responsible for defeating the attempt made by the previous Government to introduce precisely that law.
  Just what activities does the Minister imagine that the Iraqi Opposition, newly unified by him and refreshed by their $97 million, intend to plan from their bases in London? Would they be activities that are legal or illegal in Iraq? If the activities they plan are illegal in Iraq, will our Law Officers proceed to prosecute them?
  Mr. Ivan Lewis: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Galloway: I am not giving way again.
  If, as seems obvious, they do not prosecute, what will happen in the courts to any attempts to prosecute the madmen based in London who exhort others to fire upon tourists at Luxor or to murder Muslims at prayer in the mosques of Algeria? Does not the Minister know that what began with two hand grenades in Karbala will become car bombs in Baghdad, explosions in shopping malls in Mosul and carnage on the streets of Basra? Does he know that the process he unleashed on Monday is not only illegal under our laws but contrary to article 2 of the charter of the United Nations, paragraphs 4 and 7? It is contrary to the Arab states treaty against terrorism, signed by every Arab country, including Iraq, on 22 April this year and ratified by the Egyptian Parliament just last week.
  Has the Minister seen the criticism of his new initiative from Amr Moussa, the Foreign Minister of Egypt, and from the League of Arab States? What does he have to say in response to that criticism? Will my right hon Friend say how he viewed the meeting yesterday at the US embassy in Grosvenor square between Martin Endick, the US Under-Secretary of State and the Iraqi opposition groups? Unlike Her Majesty's Government, the American Administration have pledged money and arms to our new friends. What were they discussing at the meeting yesterday? Were they planning how to use those arms? Why did the meeting take place in our capital city? Are our Government privy to the strategy that was being mapped out there?
  That brings me to the nub of my argument, which is how far we have a policy of our own toward the Arabian Gulf and to what extent we are being subsumed in a crude, unsophisticated American policy which has done and will do great damage to our once pre-eminent position of influence in the middle east. We were guiding statecraft in the middle east when American cowboys were still ethnically cleansing red Indians.
  Wherever I go in the middle east, our friends ask why we are following the USA so blindly. What is in it for us, they ask. They point, for example, to Kuwait, where Britain once had most of the business, and where now we have almost none. They point out that the Union Jack has been burned in the streets along with the Stars and Stripes in countries in which the BBC, the Beatles and Bobby Charlton were once considered the acme of all that was good in the western world.
  The fact has not been missed in the middle east that there were no French aeroplanes lined up on the tarmac a fortnight ago to kill 10,000 Iraqis. There were no Italian planes, no Spanish, no German, no Dutch, no Canadian,
  156
  no Australian, no Russian, no Chinese, no Saudi, no Syrian, no Egyptian, no Moroccan, no Algerian and no Tunisian. There were no planes from the Emirates, and none from Jordan. There was no one from the coalition mustered in 1991, except for John Bull and Uncle Sam. Everyone in the world was out of step, except our Johnnie.
  If we really want to end the apparently perpetual cycle of crisis and suffering, and the threats of violence, there are measures that we can and must take. First, we need a new head of UNSCOM, a head who is respected by his colleagues, by the Security Council and in the region.
  Mr. Dalyell: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Galloway: It will surprise hon. Members and the country that no Arab inspectors are permitted in UNSCOM. That means no Saudi scientists or Jordanian engineers. Why? A new UNSCOM leadership must make the effort to build bridges in the region across which success may come.
  Secondly, light at the end of the tunnel must be offered to the Iraqis in exchange for their co-operation. Why is it so difficult to produce an agreed file of what has been achieved during eight years of UNSCOM work? Thousands of weapons have been destroyed, many hundreds of sites have been inspected and a huge monitoring apparatus has been put in place. A file might help us to put in perspective that which has not yet been achieved.
  I am among those who believe that UNSCOM has almost completely destroyed Iraq's non-conventional military capacity. I say that not because I trust the word of the Iraqi regime, but because it is not logical that Iraq would continue to endure its current agony in order to hide things that it could easily reproduce once sanctions had been lifted. The awfulness of non-conventional weapons is that they exist in the minds of scientists and engineers in all countries. Nor are Einsteins an essential requirement; a group of crazed Japanese terrorists operating from a greenhouse halfway up mount Fujiyama produced enough sarin nerve gas to massacre the population of Tokyo, and they had a delivery system—a human courier—to introduce it to the Tokyo subway.
  What is to prevent the Iraqi President from building up an arsenal again? The short answer is that we can do as much or as little to prevent that as we can to stop any dictator becoming over-powerful. Does the Indonesian dictatorship possess weapons of mass destruction? Yes, it does. Does it occupy other people's territory illegally? Yes, it does. Are we starving the Indonesian people, and proposing to bombard them until they give that territory up? No, we are not. The previous Government sold Indonesia all the arms it could buy, and even our Government have not placed a military sales embargo on Indonesia.
  UNSCOM should provide a clear list of sites that it wishes to visit. That list can be as long as UNSCOM likes, but once the sites have been inspected and cleared, the matter must be at an end. Of course international monitoring of Iraq will have to continue. Of course an embargo on weapons and military hardware should remain. I have always been in favour of a military

  157
  embargo on Iraq, unlike the Conservative party. However, only when the murderous economic sanctions are finally lifted will the Iraqi people be able to breathe again.
  Mr. Dalyell: UNSCOM tells us that it visited 496 sites, but found no violation.
  Mr. Galloway: That is correct. It also inspected all the presidential sites. I remember the maps that were brought to the House. We were told that the presidential sites were bigger than Paris, but they turned out to be smaller than Paddington. They turned out to be rather smaller than the presidential sites occupied by our royal family in London, never mind the presidential sites that that family occupies outside the capital. I am against all palaces, and I am glad that the Iraqi ones have been searched, but absolutely nothing was found in them, despite their elevation into a casus belli in February. The sites have been searched over and over. Cameras have been placed on them, but there are no violations.
  Let UNSCOM produce a list as long as it likes, so long as, once the list has been exhausted, there is no more moving of the goalposts, and no more pulling of rabbits from hats as excuses for continuing the agony. Only breathing men or women free of constant fear of hunger, illness and disease can turn their minds to politics, and to the need for democratic change in their country. That democratc change is sorely needed in Iraq.
  11.56 am
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I want to clarify one point, which is whether anything was found. Let me tell my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) exactly what has been found. Since 1991, in carrying out its mandate under United Nations Security Council resolution 687, the UN Special Commission has destroyed or made harmless a supergun, 48 Scud missiles, 40,000 chemical munitions, 690 tonnes of CW agents, 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals, and biological warfare-related factories and equipment. The International Atomic Energy Agency found a nuclear weapons programme far more advanced than suspected, and dismantled it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin made an interesting speech, and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow also intervened. However, both my hon. Friends make it their policy in the Chamber to make statements that are simply not true. When we consider in detail the allegations that my hon. Friends make, and when we research the documents that they should have researched, we find that the truth bears no resemblance to their statements.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin wrote off the comments made by Mr. Sami Salih, but that man seems to me to have been particularly well connected. He knew all the people involved, and he talked of a series of front companies managed by his friend that were responsible for the importation of defence and military equipment in breach of sanctions, and paid for from revenues for oil exported through Iranian waters and through the port of Dubai. Saddam Hussein has clearly constructed a mechanism by which to employ people to export oil in breach of sanctions to raise money to fund an internal weapons programme. That is a perfectly legitimate target for UNSCOM. We need to know what is going on.
  158
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin spoke as if there were no threat. Saddam Hussein presents a threat to people in Iraq, and to other people. My hon. Friend said that no aircraft were involved in the multi-country operation last week, but there may be a simple reason for that: many countries may not be prepared to be identified as involved in actions against Iraq for fear of Scud or chemical weapons attacks on them. If I lived in a neighbouring country, that would be my view.
  Mr. Dalyell rose—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I would like to give way to my hon. Friend, but I am conscious of the time.
  I want to move the debate on, to the position of the Iraqi National Congress and what has happened in Washington. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin knows, $95 million has been allocated to the INC for operations. The Americans have managed to find a way to justify that within their constitutional and legal arrangements. Congress has enacted legislation and has found a way. It recognises that the use of those weapons would inevitably undermine the regime in Baghdad, which must be the preoccupation and objective of all of us. The question is, what is the British position on the matter?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin set out a perfectly reasonable argument, outlining the international legal framework as he understands it, which in his view prohibits the INC in the United Kingdom from being involved in particular exercises overseas. I want it to be involved in such exercises. I want the Baghdad regime to be brought down. I believe that the civilised nations of the world have a responsibility to break down a dictator who threatens international stability and, in particular, stability in the middle east.
  Without wanting to criticise my right hon. Friend the Minister—I support the Government's position, as he knows—I want to know why the Americans are prepared to be a little more robust than the British in the way in which they advocate their support for INC activities. We seem invariably to use the terminology, "It is not our role to be involved in bringing down a foreign leader." I think that we have a responsibility, and I want us to take a more robust position.
  Finally, on sanctions busting, which I mentioned recently, I do not understand why we cannot block oil exports to Turkey from Baghdad by lorry. Information on those freight movements is well documented and those revenues, along with those secured by the sale of oil through Shatt al 'Arab and the port of Dubai, are funding the regime in Baghdad. I cannot see how it would be possible for Saddam Hussein to survive if those revenues were cut off. That is another approach, and we should be adopting it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin spoke eloquently for 50 minutes but, despite promises, did not offer us a way forward that would resolve the crisis, apart from suggesting that certain UNSCOM officials should be removed. That was his only recommendation.
  Mr. Galloway: That is not true. My hon. Friend cannot have been listening.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I listened carefully to my hon. Friend's speech, and that was the only recommendation that

  159
  I could identify. I do not believe that it will resolve the problem. We need to be far more robust and to take positive action.
  12.3 pm
  Mr. Keith Vaz: I think I am the only Member of Parliament who was born in a country in the Arab world—Yemen—and I simply want to make a brief point to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. Will he assure the House that he has had the fullest possible consultation with our allies in the Gulf?
  I recently returned from a visit to Bahrain, where some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) were related to me informally—obviously, the formal position remains that all the Gulf countries fully support the actions that are to be taken by the United Kingdom. However, the House and the rest of the Arab world should be assured that we are consulting our allies and keeping them informed of what is happening, and that we will take no action unless we have their support.
  There is a view that we are acting on our own, without consulting others. It is important for the Minister to use this opportunity to reassert the fact that we are going with the co-operation of countries that have always shown Britain good will and which want to continue to trade and invest in Britain and to remain our firmest and strongest allies.
  12.4 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On the final point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), about stopping lorries crossing the Turkish border, the economy of Jordan is entirely dependent on the oil lorries, which go all the way from the Iraqi oilfields to Oman. The Iraqis sell the oil to Jordan at 60 per cent. of cost. The Jordanian economy refines it and pays in kind. It is entirely geared to what happens in Iraq. Therefore, there will be real problems with stopping the oil lorries.
  As it is more important that the House hears the Minister than hears me, I shall make one request, which is that, before any military action is taken, a group of American and British officials should at least go to Baghdad to talk in depth to people such as Dr. Riyadh al Quasi. Many points of fact are in dispute. I understand many of the difficulties, not least with Israel, but one hears Iraqis say that there is a synagogue in Baghdad although there is not one in a number of other Arab states. I realise that the Jewish community there may be small and ancient.
  There are many matters to be discussed—and before any precipitate military action is taken, for God's sake let us send a delegation, preferably with some Arab speakers, to talk things through properly.
  12.6 pm
  Mr. Michael Howard: I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) on obtaining this debate. It is even more timely today than it might have appeared to be when he applied for it. He made a powerful speech. At the heart
  160
  of his position is concern for the future of the Iraqi people. That is a proper cause and basis for anxiety, but it is a concern shared by the international community and reflected in the fact that, notwithstanding the sanctions imposed on the Iraqi regime, it has the facility to sell $10 billion of oil a year with which to finance the purchase of food and medicine for the Iraqi people. Alas, it is not a concern shared by that regime. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, Saddam Hussein chooses instead to spend that money
  "on weapons of war and the luxurious life style of his entourage".— [Official Report, 16 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 611.]
  The concern of the international community—and, I have no doubt, that of the hon. Gentleman as well—for humanity does not stop at the borders of Iraq. What lies at the heart of the anguished consideration that so many people have so often given to the questions that arise as a result of the activities of the Iraqi regime is concern for the people in the region as a whole, as well as and including the people of Iraq. We are dealing with a regime that has proved itself capable of the most brutal treatment both of its citizens and of others—a regime that would not hesitate not only to manufacture but to use weapons of mass destruction. We are dealing with a regime that has played fast and loose with the international community. It is a regime that poses a direct threat to humanity. If Saddam Hussein gets his way, countless lives will be at risk. That is what lies at the heart of our concern.
  There is no lack of evidence to support that concern. Last week, the Prime Minister referred to the question marks that remain over 610 tonnes of precursor chemicals for the nerve gas UX; over material capable of producing large amounts of anthrax; and over missile warheads designed for chemical and biological weapons. Contrary to Iraqi assurances, traces of UX have been found in missile warhead fragments.
  Reference has been made to the recent Iraqi defector, Sami Salih. I think that the hon. Member for Kelvin acknowledged that he was well placed to testify to the intentions of the Iraqi regime. Sami Salih has said that the regime never had any intention of complying with the terms of the United Nations resolutions on weapons inspections, and that he had seen
  "missiles hidden all over Iraq".
  Another recent defector, Abbas al-Janati, told the BBC last week that rocket launchers are constantly moved between sites to outwit the UNSCOM teams, and that an army brigade was dedicated to undertaking anti-UNSCOM measures. The threat is real and appalling, and it has to be met with resolve. That real and appalling threat justifies the action taken by the United States Government and Her Majesty's Government, and it makes the most recent breach of faith by the Iraqi regime a matter of acute apprehension.
  Last week, the Prime Minister told the House:
  "One of two things will now happen: either he"—
  Saddam Hussein—
  "will co-operate, in which case inspectors will do their job, or he will fail to co-operate and … force will follow."—[Official Report, 16 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 612.]
  Within days, the Prime Minister and the international community had received their answer; within days, the work of the UNSCOM inspectors was again being thwarted; and within days Iraqi obstruction and prevarication were once again the order of the day.

  161
  Of course, we are not arguing for a precipitate response. No doubt it is necessary for a cool assessment to be made of the latest crisis, and the head of UNSCOM may want to report to the Security Council on the latest position. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether there was such a report before the Security Council last night, and give us a more comprehensive statement on the outcome of that meeting of the Security Council than has so far become available.
  What we must not have in relation to Iraq is a repeat of the lamentable saga that took place earlier this year over Kosovo. Dire threat after dire threat was issued against President Milosevic of Serbia, not least by our own Foreign Secretary. Time after time, Milosevic was given what was described as a final warning, and, time after time, nothing was done. That is a classic recipe for how not to conduct foreign policy, and the failure of that policy can, alas, be measured in the loss of life and intense suffering that took place in Kosovo. The lesson of Kosovo is clear: if a threat cannot be fulfilled, do not make it.
  The whole House will want to resolve the crisis over Iraq, including this latest episode, without needing to take military action—but resolved it must be, and if it can be resolved only through the use of force, Conservative Members will support any action that is clearly related to achievable objectives.
  I hope that the Minister will answer a number of questions. Will he clear up the confusion that evidently exists over Government policy towards the objective of removing Saddam Hussein from power? Last week, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition suggested to the Prime Minister that a prime objective of western policy should be the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. The Prime Minister appeared to agree with my right hon. Friend.
  Since then, we have heard a great deal from the Government about their efforts to help the Iraqi opposition—I hope that the Minister will tell us about any progress that has been made on that front in the past few days—but BBC news was reporting this week that neither the United States nor Britain has declared a new policy of trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Which is true? I hope the Minister will clarify this confusion.
  Can the Minister be a little more specific than he and others have been about the precise basis on which they affirm that legal authority for the use of force exists? Will he confirm that the Government believe that no further resolutions of the Security Council are necessary? Which resolutions provide the necessary authority for action, in the Government's view?
  Despite what the hon. Member for Kelvin said on the matter—I did not follow his argument at all—and in so far as resolution 687 is relevant, will the Minister comment on the references in that resolution to the return of Kuwaiti prisoners of war? He will be aware that those prisoners of war are widely thought to be still alive and that some of them have reportedly been seen in Iraq. What part does their fate play in assessing Iraqi compliance with UN resolutions?
  Will the Minister also say what assistance, if any, the Government plan to give to the Kurds in northern Iraq? He will be aware that there appears to be evidence of a recent rapprochement between the two factions. Can he tell the House more about the situation in that part of Iraq? Can he tell the House about the support for a United
  162
  Nations tribunal to try Saddam Hussein for crimes against humanity, which he is reported to have announced on Monday? What action does he propose to take to implement that proposal? What time scale is involved? What support has there been from other quarters?
  The world continues to face a threat to peace and humanity from the regime of Saddam Hussein. It is a measure of his success in the cat-and-mouse game at which he is so adept that Iraq is not the first item on our news headlines this morning, but its absence from those headlines should not lull either Saddam Hussein or anyone else into a false sense of security. I look forward to a robust and meaningful response from the Minister.
  12.16 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): I have been charged with an almost impossible task—answering an enormous number of questions—and I shall do my best to satisfy the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate.
  In introducing the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) argued that it was time to consider a new policy, although my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) intervened to make a valid point. It is worth while reminding ourselves of the chronology of events that have led to this most recent crisis.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin said that the Iraqis deserve an element of light at the end of the tunnel. That is diplomatic language that we have heard on many occasions. My hon. Friend did not mention that the chronology is crucial: the Security Council agreed unanimously that we should seek a comprehensive review of the sanctions system. That announcement was made by the Security Council on a Friday in October; it was unanimous—there were no difficulties and no differences. My hon. Friend's new policy? It was announced.
  What happened? In less than 24 hours, Baghdad had announced its refusal to co-operate with that comprehensive review. My hon. Friend has to explain to the House, and to the public outside, how it is possible for him to argue for a new way and a new approach, and then to suggest that the international community has not offered such an approach when the fact is that it has. It offered a comprehensive review, but it was rejected solidly, wholly—and, in my view, totally incomprehensibly—by Baghdad. That is the position that was taken.
  Although my hon. Friend did not refer to it, there has been a litany of broken promises from Saddam Hussein. My hon. Friend is a great democrat—a great believer in word and integrity. Let me say to him that his argument, and his emotions, could be construed by those less charitable than me as an argument in favour of the broken word and rewarding the broken word.
  Let us not forget that Iraq has promised co-operation on a number of occasions. On each occasion, that word—the word of the Iraqi leadership, not to the United Kingdom or to the United States, but to the international community—has been broken. Let me take four examples: first, the ceasefire agreement at the end of the

  163
  Gulf war. I had a wry smile on my face when my hon. Friend talked about Iraq voluntarily relinquishing Kuwait. At the end of that process—
  Mr. Galloway: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Fatchett: No, my hon. Friend spoke for 50 minutes.
  Mr. Galloway: What my right hon. Friend has said is false.
  Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend spoke for 50 minutes.
  Mr. Galloway: I did not say that.
  Mr. Fatchett: At the end of the Gulf war, the Iraqi regime signed up to United Nations resolutions and made certain commitments. Those commitments were broken.
  My hon. Friend knows that Saddam Hussein has broken his word three times in the past 12 months. First, last November, the then Russian Foreign Minister Primakov intervened to say that, with the word and co-operation of Baghdad, we could look forward to UNSCOM delivering what was necessary and that there was light at the end of the tunnel. The Russians invested a great deal in that. The Foreign Ministers of the P5—the five permanent members of the Security Council—met in Switzerland and made a deal with Primakov, but Saddam Hussein broke it within months. Secondly, Kofi Annan, to whom my hon. Friend rightly paid tribute, went to Baghdad and struck a deal with Saddam. On 5 August this year, that deal was also broken. The last agreement, made only 10 days ago, has again been broken by Saddam Hussein.
  We are dealing with a man who, time and again, has broken his word and continues to do so. The fact is that, had Saddam Hussein co-operated, sanctions could have been lifted many years ago. The international community does not want sanctions to continue, but Saddam Hussein has simply refused to co-operate over the years.
  My hon. Friend asked what the work of UNSCOM is for and challenged its work. Let me remind the House of what UNSCOM has already revealed: more than 38,000 chemical weapons and munitions; 690 tonnes of chemical weapons agents; 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals; 48 Scud missiles; a biological weapons factory designed to produce up to 50,000 litres of anthrax, botulism toxin and other agents. That shows the extent of the threat of those weapons of mass destruction, meant for the people not just of Iraq but of the whole region.
  My hon. Friend suggests that everything may now have been found. There is no guarantee of that. We know, however, that the Iraqis have a concealment committee, the purpose of which is to ensure that there is no compliance or co-operation. The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe quoted a recent report in The Sunday Telegraph on that matter. The Iraqis are not only reluctant to co-operate, but have deliberately attempted to conceal evidence from UNSCOM. We are dealing with a regime that has used weapons of mass destruction, and I have no doubt that it will use them again.
  I share the acute apprehension of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe about what has happened over the past few days. We have said that
  164
  it is another bad sign of Iraqi non co-operation. Saddam Hussein knows the consequences of continuing that non-co-operation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the legal base for any military action that we take. We believe that we have that legal base. He also asked about the nature of compliance and co-operation. He is right to draw our attention to the fact that it is not just compliance with UNSCOM, however important that may be, but that there are other elements of co-operation and compliance. He is also right to say that the Kuwaiti prisoners of war form an important part of that.
  As my hon. Friend said in his opening remarks, human rights in Iraq are another element. We have heard much evidence and many quotes this morning, but the recent report produced by the UN special rapporteur, Max van der Stoel, is the most recent authoritative report. It shows that the number of people assassinated this year for their political views has reached four figures. That is the nature of Iraq, and that is the blood that is running down the streets of Baghdad. If people want emotive language, let them have the truth, which is that the Iraqi regime has used its weapons against its own people and killed tens of thousands of them.
  My hon. Friend says that he is a great believer in democracy, human rights and socialism. I believe him; I share those views. However, one of the lessons of the 20th century is that, when one is mealy-mouthed and looks for excuses for a dictatorship, that dictatorship will continue and will create havoc wherever it can. Supporting human rights means standing up for those who will be subjected to violence by that regime in the future. I have no hesitation in doing that. I also have a view on new policy and co-operation by Iraq: we must not allow Iraq to get away with a short period of co-operation now before we undertake a comprehensive review of the sanctions regime; we must see true faith and commitment, and a willingness on the part of Iraq to carry out the commitment that it has made.
  My hon. Friend spoke a great deal about the humanitarian position. I remind the House what the international community, led by Britain under this Government and the previous Government, has done in relation to "oil for food", and the effects of that programme. Let me give the correct figures. More than $5.2 billion has been raised through the sale of oil to purchase humanitarian aid; $2.5 billion-worth of foodstuffs have arrived in Iraq; and $440 million-worth of medicines have been delivered to Iraq, leading to a marked improvement in the availability of medicines and the number of operations carried out. Those are the latest figures produced by the UN Secretary-General, which for some reason were not included in my hon. Friend's speech. I shall send them to him if he so requires.
  Mr. Galloway: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Fatchett: No. My hon. Friend spoke for a long time, which was unusual in an Adjournment debate.
  The UN special rapporteur made a number of other comments about human rights, none of which appeared in my hon. Friend's speech—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) keeps intervening from a sedentary position. He had a long time to put his case and he should now listen to the Minister's response.
  Mr. Fatchett: The special rapporteur said that he holds Iraq primarily responsible for the precarious food and health situation in Iraq. His reasons are: Iraq's refusal to take advantage of the "oil for food" programme for five years, while failing to bring about an end to the sanctions regime; Iraq's prevarication in negotiations, causing the regular interruption of oil sales; and Iraq's discrimination against Iraqis living outside Baghdad, in terms of access to medical supplies. Let me add another reason: Iraq's discrimination against ordinary Iraqis who do not form part of the elite in the Iraqi regime.
  Many other points have been raised about the Iraqi opposition. Given the short time available, I shall write to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe and my hon. Friend the Member for Workington on the points that they raised.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Fatchett: No.
  I understand the humanitarian concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin. We share those concerns. Our actions have been designed to deal with them. I must stress to my hon. Friend that he should never lose sight of an evil—the existing regime in Baghdad, which has inflicted massive suffering on its people and on people in the region. He must never find himself, in the context of a debate, defending that regime. That is against any ethical view of the world and international relations.

  1999 Eclipse (Cornwall)
  12.30 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister and I will at least agree on the fact that there will be a total eclipse of the sun in the late morning of 11 August 1999. In the United Kingdom, that will be seen across most of Cornwall and in parts of south-west Devon. It is the first place in the world that the effect will be seen, and will bring travellers from abroad. I am told that people follow eclipses wherever they occur around the globe. The rest of the UK will experience only a partial eclipse, so undoubtedly many people from other parts of the country will go to the south-west to see the total eclipse.
  I admit that I do not know how many people will come to see the eclipse. The trouble is that no one knows, not even the Minister. However, we know that it is a once-in-a-lifetime experience. The last total eclipse in the United Kingdom was 71 years ago, and the next one will not be for 92 years. It is no surprise that vast numbers of people want to see it. The majority of the accommodation in Cornwall has a waiting list, and vacancies are immediately filled if people hear of the likely problems and cancel their booking. Private properties are being let on the internet for as much as £3,500 a week to people travelling from as far afield as Japan.
  The last total eclipse visible from mainland United Kingdom was on 29 June 1927. I have a picture of it taken by my father's brother, because his family travelled to see it. At that time, 3 million people went to see the eclipse in the north of England, despite the fact that most of them did not have a car or other personal transport. It remains the biggest-ever recorded movement of people by train in one day. If even a third of that number come to Cornwall, we shall have a huge national event in an area that already suffers from bottlenecks.
  Moreover, 11 August 1999 is a Wednesday, so local people will be travelling to work. It is mid-harvest, the middle of the tourist season and in the middle of the school and university summer holidays. Cornwall and Devon are pretty much full at that time of year, even without an eclipse.
  A large influx of visitors is expected at the busiest time of the year. Some still believe that the problem is being exaggerated, and that interest in the event will not be that great. They may be right, although it is a gamble, but the media do not seem to agree, and they are professionals at judging public interest. The BBC estimates that 6,000 members of the media will be in Cornwall. Sky News will deploy 80 per cent. of its satellite relay stations, and expects to reach 70 million people in broadcasts to 40 countries around the world.
  Judging by international experience of other eclipses, the county expects 100,000 astronomers and specialist eclipse chasers to arrive. Interest will be further generated by the study of the eclipse as the central focus of the 1998–99 national core curriculum for science for every school in the country, with many schools already booking visits to the county.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: I did not know that we had a Minister for the eclipse, but I think that I can assist the hon. Gentleman. As the southern part of my constituency in the South Hams—the tip around

  167
  Salcombe, where I fortunately live—will have the same advantages for watching the eclipse as Cornwall, the public could view it from Devon, thereby reducing the number of people going to Cornwall, and the problems to which the hon. Gentleman refers. People can come to my constituency to see the eclipse as well as go to Cornwall.
  Mr. Taylor: I shall make reference to south-west Devon, because it faces the same problems, which are not unique to Cornwall, although we shall bear the brunt of them. West Cornwall will have the first and the longest eclipse, and will have the most problems—bookings certainly suggest that.
  How many people will come, and can we cope? Some 500,000 people live in the county. The number of people expected during the eclipse period will far outreach the capacity of the county's infrastructure, which is able to cope with about 900,000 without special measures. That is only 150,000 more than the usual August holiday population, so anything in excess of 150,000 visitors for the eclipse will cause problems. However, we expect far more than that.
  It is estimated that 1.2 million visitors can get into the county by road, provided that they spread out their travel over a realistic period rather than arrive immediately before and leave immediately after the eclipse. Travel about 10 days before and 10 days after the eclipse would be realistic. That would bring the population up to about 1.7 million, rather than the 900,000 that the existing infrastructure could cope with.
  It is almost impossible to estimate how many people will arrive by train, on cruise liners—many people have already booked berths—by yacht and by air on the many special flights into Newquay that are being arranged. That is likely to bring a further 100,000 visitors.
  By that stage, main roads will be jammed, as already happens on summer weekends in many parts of the county when hundreds of thousands travel to temporary camp sites. Sewerage and mains water provision for those sites is a serious problem.
  Many estimates far exceed those figures. The general prediction is in excess of 2 million visitors, and some estimates have been as high as 4 million. When we met the chief constable, he said, "That can't be allowed. We can't take more than 2 million." I asked him how we can prevent them coming, once they are in their cars and on their way, let alone stuck in a traffic jam, but there is no obvious answer.
  The Cornish riviera brochure gives us a feel of the problem. It is important to understand that this event is not being promoted by the tourist industry in Cornwall. Official brochures deliberately downplay the event, because of the concern about the number of visitors. The brochure provides
  "essential reading for intending visitors to Cornwall, before, during and after the 1999 eclipse of the sun"
  by giving "Dos" and "Don'ts". It says:

  "Do allow plenty of time for your journey and travel early.

  Do bring essential toiletries, water, or drinks and packaged food.

  Do expect delays and traffic disruption, please be patient.

  Do keep abreast of radio traffic information for local updates.

  Use Park and Ride facilities wherever possible.

  168

  Don't set off without a firm confirmation of accommodation.

  Don't travel on the day of eclipse.

  Don't observe the eclipse without following the recommended safety precautions."

  Mr. Adrian Sanders: The danger to the naked eye is an important point to mention. I am particularly concerned about children and visitors who may not be aware of the information available in the build-up to this event. Could the Government provide public information to ensure that people protect their eyes in the hour before the eclipse?
  Mr. Taylor: The Government have an extremely important role that goes way beyond anything that we can do in the two counties.
  I want to concentrate on the capacity in the area because, if it is exceeded, the worst case scenario would be a disaster involving huge road gridlocks, supply failure problems for food, money and petrol, mains water supply failures with taps running dry and emergency services unable to reach casualties or incidents.
  The Minister may think that this is primarily a local issue. It will happen locally, but if an unexpected natural event caused such problems, huge support would be available. Because it is predictable, so far no support is available.
  There are two key problems, the first of which involves sewerage and water. South West Water's best estimate is that it can purify and distribute water at a rate that would sustain a population of between 900,000 and 1 million, which is half the estimate of the number of visitors. South West Water has said that the take-up of spare bedrooms in domestic residences by friends, family and unofficial bed and breakfast guests will use all the available capacity of sewage treatment plants. That does not take account of any of the planned temporary camp sites, one of which will take 200,000—a population the size of Plymouth.
  All camp site portaloo waste will have to be disposed of by other means, and not during the eclipse, because of traffic congestion and other difficulties. That is likely to be difficult, and will cause concern about noise, odour and pollution. We do not know whether it will be possible to supply pure water at reasonable pressure to those sites. South West Water is currently working on that. It is essential to draw Ministers' attention to the funding difficulties, and to the severe risk to public health from water and sewage problems.
  Secondly, the emergency services will be affected. In a monthly newsletter to Cornwall's 312 general practitioners, the local medical committee recently announced:
  "Eclipse Health Tip of the Month—Don't get pregnant in November".
  The committee believes that, nine months from now, jams caused by the eclipse could make it impossible for expectant mums to get to hospital in time.
  That sounds quite funny, but the problem will not affect just expectant mums—although in that regard it is actually fairly serious. Any casualty may find it difficult to get to a hospital. Health services have already expressed concern about how they will cope when so many people flood into the county. Normal clinics may have to be suspended, and doctors and district nurses may have to be positioned around the county in order to deal with casualties, rather

  169
  than assuming that ambulances will be able to take casualties to hospitals. The ambulance service has told me that it is budgeting for at least one extra air ambulance, as well as motor-cycle medics and extra ambulances. It believes that it may have to call on the Royal Air Force to give helicopter assistance, and that it may also need the Royal Naval Auxiliary Service.
  The key problem is a combination of severe congestion and the fact that the county is surrounded on three sides by water. For the most part, there are no neighbouring services to help out if ours are overstretched. There is only one main general hospital in Cornwall, along with Derriford hospital, which serves east Cornwall and the Plymouth area. Although much excellent work is already being put into planning, there is only so much that local services can afford—and that, of course, will have a knock-on effect on the provision of services during the rest of the year. Moreover, there is only so much that local services can do at any price, because of the practical difficulties.
  The combination of hot weather, camping, overheated vehicles and open-air festivals is bound to cause a problem. A large number of festivals are being organised, although the best advice would be not to organise them. The difficulty is deciding what to do with all those people for all that time, as the eclipse will last for only about 20 minutes. It will be a problem either way. I understand, however, that some major bands want to give concerts on the day, and that will bring into the county people who would not have gone there to see the eclipse.
  The usual summer increase in crime will be amplified. That increase inevitably happens when extra people are present, but in this case the police will be further stretched by the need for traffic control, and by the many large events taking place. The police and other emergency services have already cancelled all leave, and will be fully manned from 30 July until 22 August, at considerable cost. I pity them: having had no holiday in the summer, they will then be allowed no holiday in the new year because of the millennium celebrations.
  The Devon and Cornwall constabulary has made an initial request to the Ministry of Defence for assistance for all three services with traffic control, recovery, the provision of helicopters for route monitoring and medical facilities during the two main weeks. Measures exist allowing the Government to declare a need for military aid to the civil community, and to agree to finance it from the contingency fund. Such aid may be needed to assist the south-west's emergency services. Support already being considered goes as far as the use of a field ambulance regiment for field hospitals, the secondment of additional doctors and dentists to help with primary care, the provision of helicopters for the movement of emergency supplies and for traffic monitoring, and the employment of the Royal Engineers to help with roads, tracking on camp sites if the weather is wet, and water supply. Someone said to me, "If it is wet, there will be no problem." On the contrary, if it is wet there may be 2 million people in the area with nothing to look at, experiencing appalling conditions. They will be on temporary camp sites, with no proper sewerage and water.
  When I asked the fire service how it would cope, a senior officer admitted that, if road congestion is anything like as severe as it is expected to be, the service does not know how it would transport firefighters to emergencies, especially if they are on the main roads.
  170
  I have already raised the costs of the eclipse with the Prime Minister. They will have to be borne by ratepayers, the health service and the police, and they will be considerable. The estimate provided by Cornwall county council following consultation with all the emergency services, and with local government, is about £5 million. That amount has been committed, but the need is greater, and many local authorities do not think that they will be able to meet that need. The police have asked the Home Office for additional support, but have received no positive response. Work is under way to produce a more co-ordinated effort. I think that there will be results early in the new year, and I hope that whichever Minister is responsible will agree to a meeting.
  Without extra help, our ambulance, police and other services will struggle to cope. Central Government will benefit from extra revenue generated by the eclipse, and businesses in the counties will certainly benefit, but emergency and other public services will bear a cost with no extra return.
  When I raised the matter with the Prime Minister, he said that funding mechanisms allowed for it. I think that, after a little more research, the Minister will agree that there is no eclipse fund as such, and that the source of any extra funding is not obvious.
  I stress that we need not just financial but practical support. I do not expect the Minister to promise huge sums today—I have participated in too many Adjournment debates to expect that—but I hope that the debate will help to focus Ministers' attention on a problem that has not received the national attention it deserves, perhaps because an even bigger event, the millennium, will take place later in the same year. The Jubilee line extension may or may not be ready for the dome, but it is certain that no new roads will be built to cater for the eclipse in Cornwall.
  I am very pleased about the vast amount of preparation being undertaken by local councils, co-ordinating groups, emergency services and the Cornish eclipse county planning co-ordinator, but I fear that it is not enough. The Government should recognise that this is a national event, which will need national support. The problem is exacerbated by an accident of geography, and by sheer uncertainty about the number of people who may arrive. That makes planning next to impossible.
  As recently as last night, the Government were not sure who would respond to the debate. The issue, after all, is covered by the Department of Health, the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office and, of course, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I welcome this Minister, and suggest that it would be practical to give our county co-ordinating committee a point of contact, in helping to co-ordinate the Government's response.
  I do not know whether the Minister fancies the job, but what we need is a Minister for the eclipse.
  12.47 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I thank the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) for giving us an opportunity to discuss an issue that has already been a subject of considerable debate, and of careful planning in Devon and Cornwall. I appreciate all the concerns that he raised.

  171
  I thank him for his offer of a new job, but, for reasons that I shall explain, I must decline it. I already have a number of responsibilities, and I believe that the mechanisms that will be provided will enable Devon and Cornwall to respond to the challenge.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, this will be the first total eclipse visible from the UK mainland since June 1927, and it will be of interest to many people. It has obvious implications for the police, local authorities and other emergency planning services. I recognise that, and will describe the steps that will be taken. I also recognise the health issues, and will speak to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health about advising the public of the risks involved in viewing the eclipse with the naked eye.
  The Devon and Cornwall constabulary will, of course, play a major role in managing the influx of extra visitors. I understand that, in recent months, the chief constable has raised with the Home Office the issue of the additional expenditure arising from the major public order operation that the police will need to undertake because of the large number of visitors who are expected to travel to Cornwall.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is responsible for emergency planning in England and Wales, expects local authority emergency planners to deal with issues arising from major incidents or emergencies according to the principles of integrated emergency management. That is an all-hazards approach to emergency planning, which encourages local emergency planners to plan with all the agencies that are likely to be involved in a major incident response. The chief characteristics of plans developed according to the principles of integrated emergency management are that they should be non-specific and flexible, and that they should work well regardless of an incident's cause. They are therefore ideal to handle an event such as the eclipse.
  It is fundamental to arrangements for dealing with an emergency that the first response should be at local level. If the scale of an incident overwhelms local resources, the first recourse is usually to mutual-aid arrangements with services in adjacent areas, and the second to military aid. The eclipse is not an unforeseen emergency, as the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell recognised; it is not a sudden danger requiring immediate action. An eclipse is an event for which there has been sufficient time for local services to plan and, accordingly, to seek assistance under mutual-aid arrangements if that is required.
  From time to time, all police forces must deal with major public events, some of which are regular and some unexpected. The role of the police in controlling any outbreaks of disorder is to preserve the peace, uphold the law and prevent the commission of offences. Police tactics and decisions on how to achieve those objectives are a matter for the independent operational judgment of chief police officers. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary expects that additional costs arising from unique occasions should usually be met from the force's budget and by using its reserves. In certain exceptional circumstances, my right hon. Friend would consider an application for a special grant, although such grants are rarely given, as the criteria are tough. The additional expenditure incurred by the force must be exceptional and of a scale likely to threaten its efficiency.
  172
  I understand that Devon and Cornwall constabulary has estimated that the additional cost of policing the eclipse next year will be about £600,000. That is less than half of 1 per cent. of the force's current budget. On the basis of information so far provided by the Devon and Cornwall police authority, it is doubtful whether it will be able to meet the criteria for a special grant that have previously been applied. I understand that the Association of Chief Police Officers, which has had a working party looking into the issue, is of the opinion that forces should not ordinarily be given special assistance and that Government funding should be allocated through the police funding formula.
  As the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell knows, police funding is allocated by means of a needs-based formula. Devon and Cornwall constabulary has done quite well under it. Over the past two years, the force has been able to increase its budget by more than the national average—by 4 per cent. in 1997–98 and by 4.5 per cent. in 1998–99. In those years, the average increase for police authorities in England and Wales was just 3.7 per cent. In the current financial year, Devon and Cornwall police authority has a budget of £167.4 million, which is a £7.2 million increase over the previous year.
  In 1997–98, Devon and Cornwall constabulary was able to increase the number of police officers by 98 to 2,962. That contrasts with an overall reduction in police numbers in England and Wales of 302. At the same time, recorded crime in the Devon and Cornwall police area fell by 8.4 per cent., compared with an average reduction in England and Wales of 7.8 per cent.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 21 July that, over the next three years, police funding would increase by £1.24 billion. Overall police funding will increase by 2.65 per cent. next year, a further 2.8 per cent. in the following year and an extra 4 per cent. in 2001–2. Provisional police funding settlements for each police authority for 1999–2000 will be announced, as the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell knows, in the reasonably near future, at the same time as the local government settlement.
  Mr. Steen: Is it the view of the Minister and the police that there will not be an invasion of tourists to watch this sight?
  Mr. Raynsford: I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear with me. The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell rightly made the point that no one knows for sure how many people will visit. One cannot anticipate for such an event. The point that I am trying to get across is that the potential scale of additional pressures can largely be foreseen, and measures can be implemented to ensure that this opportunity—it is an opportunity, as the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) and others have emphasised—can be taken without unreasonable and disastrous consequences. The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell has raised serious issues, which need to be addressed.
  I have covered the subject of police funding, and shall move on to the other services for which the eclipse will have implications, as the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell rightly emphasised. Emergency planning in the water industry is one of the other main areas affected. In June, under the provisions of section 208 of the Water Industry Act 1991, the Department issued the Security and

  173
  Emergency Measures (Water and Sewerage Undertakers) Direction 1998. It requires all water and sewerage companies in England, including South West Water, to make contingency plans, based on the integrated emergency planning concept, to cater for all types of emergency, irrespective of the cause.
  The direction specifies the main resources and facilities that water companies should provide in an emergency and the need to consult and co-operate with all relevant bodies. It states that priority should be given to the domestic needs of sick, elderly and disabled people, hospitals, schools and other vulnerable sectors of the community. It also states that regard should be given to the needs of non-domestic users and, in accompanying guidance, examples of livestock and essential food industries are given.
  One of the most significant things in the new direction, which was not in the preceding 1989 direction, is that it provides for the Secretary of State to specify the amount of water that an undertaker should provide in an emergency. Companies have been notified that that is 10 litres of drinking water a head per day. New plans to comply with the direction must be submitted to the Secretary of State by 1 April—well before the eclipse—having first been subjected to independent audit.
  It is important that all areas that are likely to be affected by the extra work created by the eclipse should keep in close contact. I know that, over the past 12 months, there has been a series of inter-agency meetings involving all those with an interest. An emergency planning co-ordination group has been taking a strategic overview of the problem and, at operational level, the plan review working party has been considering the issues. Such cross-service work is vital in identifying potential problems and producing appropriate solutions.
  On resources, I know that there have been calls for the Government to use available measures—under what is known as the Bellwin scheme—to help local authorities cope financially with emergencies. The scheme is designed to prevent an undue financial burden falling on council tax payers of an authority that is affected by an emergency or disaster that threatens life or property. An incident for which assistance is sought must involve clearly exceptional conditions by local standards, and damage to local authority infrastructure for communities must be exceptional, too. In the past, the scheme has generally been activated following events such as freak storms or floods—most recently, severe flooding across the midlands over Easter.
  On the face of it, expenditure that authorities might incur as a result of the eclipse seems likely to be outside the scheme's criteria. However, we would of course consider any case that an authority might make for the
  174
  activation of the scheme. If some of the worst prognoses of the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell turned out—unfortunately—to be true and there were very serious problems, the authority would unquestionably be in a position to seek assistance under the Bellwin scheme. I hope that that will not be so. I hope that, with sufficient forward planning, the risk can be minimised. However, I would not rule out altogether the need for such assistance in the event of a serious breakdown of normal administrative arrangements.
  As I have stressed, careful planning will be absolutely vital to make the most appropriate arrangements and, indeed, to make the most of the opportunity that is presented by this unusual event. Many more people in Devon and Cornwall will benefit through offering bed-and-breakfast facilities to visitors. Farmers and other landowners stand to gain considerably by offering campsites to cater for the expected 500,000 additional campers who cannot be accommodated on existing sites. I understand that special provisions allow sites on which camping would not normally be permitted to be brought into use for a limited period. That clearly provides an opportunity to cope with the numbers of people, and should raise income for farmers who have made available sites for such use.
  I have seen estimates that bed-and-breakfast charges and campsite fees for extra visitors could bring in more than £150 million to the area. The take-up in the unused capacity for hotels and other accommodation will also generate significant income. Given last summer's disappointing weather, I know that several hotel and tourist interests in the west country have been looking for ways in which to increase their revenue. I hope that the eclipse will provide such an opportunity. Obviously, there is an opportunity to encourage people to make a proper holiday of visiting Cornwall, rather than just going for the day. That will benefit the local economy.
  The situation is therefore by no means all doom and gloom. Indeed, there is no doubt that people in other areas in Britain wish that the eclipse could be viewed from their location. I noted the naked appeal of the hon. Member for Totnes for people to go to his constituency rather than Cornwall to view the eclipse. The eclipse will present the local tourism industry with a great opportunity to promote itself in both pleasure and business to the vast number of visitors whom the major event will attract. Many visitors will be visiting the area for the first time and may be encouraged to go back, which would be in the long-term interest of the west country's economy. I am certain that local businesses, local people, local authorities and others who have a wealth of experiences in tourism will ensure that best use is made of this wonderful opportunity for Devon and Cornwall.

  South Downs
  1 pm
  Dr. Desmond Turner: I am sure that all hon. Members are familiar with the south downs, having passed through the area on their way to Brighton for a party conference if at no other time. The downs comprise a fairly unique and sensitive area. They cover a large area, stretching from Winchester to Eastbourne, and are bordered by fairly dense population centres. The area is very dear to the public throughout virtually all south England.
  In 1949—when the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act was passed—the south downs were one of 12 areas considered for designation as a national park. As it was thought that the downs had been too damaged by "digging for victory" in the war, it was decided that they should not be so designated. None the less, it was decided that the downs should be designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty. Even in 1949, the downs clearly met the basic criteria for national park status. I submit that, today, the downs even more fully meet the criteria.
  National parks must meet four important criteria, the first of which is that they should comprise extensive tracts of open countryside. The downs cover a total area of 1,375 sq km, which, in anyone's book, is quite a large area. The south downs are larger than four existing national parks. There is no question about the natural beauty of the downs. No one disputes their designation as an area of outstanding natural beauty.
  Do the downs offer opportunities for open-air recreation? Every year, 32.5 million people resort to the south downs, demonstrating their enormous leisure use. Moreover, leisure use is greater in the downs than in any existing national park. The downs certainly score on that criterion.
  What about the proximity of the south downs to population centres? They are close to Southampton, Portsmouth, Winchester, Brighton and Hove, and Eastbourne. That does not even include—
  Mr. Tim Loughton: And Worthing.
  Dr. Turner: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for forgetting his wonderful constituency.
  Undoubtedly there are large populations right next to the south downs. Moreover, it is only a short way up the road to the vast population centre of London. The south downs probably have more people living within very easy reach than any existing national park.
  The south downs clearly meet the criteria for national park status. Comments by the Countryside Commission and others to the effect that the downs are not an upland area, and hence do not meet recent interpretations of the criteria, are poppycock. Quite simply, the criteria were established in 1949, since when no national park has been created. There has therefore been no reinterpretation of the criteria since 1949the reinterpretation argument is nonsense.
  176
  The south downs can match existing national parks also in their areas of unspoilt pasture and woodland, which—as a percentage of total area—exceed the comparable areas of at least four national parks. There can be no question but that the downs qualify as a national park.
  All parties to the argument are agreed that something must be done to give greater protection to the downs.
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie rose—
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith rose
  Dr. Turner: I have a choice. I shall take the intervention of the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith).
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Countryside Commission has strongly recommended that the south downs should not be designated as a national park? Would he care to comment on the fact that we are all agreed that the downs should have the highest protection, and that the commission's recommendation possibly has something to do with arguments to which he has not yet done justice?
  Dr. Turner: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I was about to deal with that very point.
  Mr. Tyrie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on the same point?
  Dr. Turner: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I shall deal with one intervention at a time. My time is very short.
  As I said, everyone agrees that current protection for the downs is inadequate. Several quite serious recent events have demonstrated the impotence of current protection. The only argument is whether the south downs should have national park status or be treated, under the Countryside Commission's recommendations, as an enhanced area of outstanding natural beauty. I should like quickly to examine what is offered by the options, to determine how well they might meet the objectives that must be met to protect the downs.
  Conservation is a primary objective. Reconciling conservation with the demands of leisure use also must be a primary objective. If we opt for enhanced AONB status, we will address only conservation issues and not leisure use issues. That is a very important defect in the Countryside Commission's proposals. Conversely, a national park is established with the precise powers to address both sets of issues.
  National parks are already covered by strong planning legislation, which would provide the minimum powers needed to protect the south downs. The only power provided by enhanced AONB status would be guaranteed, statutory consultation. That is not sufficient. I have been there—having served on county council planning committees—and have been through paragraph 5 consultations. I know that, sometimes, a district planning authority has already decided on a matter before it is referred to a council for consultation. Such a power is too weak to be of any real use.

  177
  The option of legislation should be very carefully considered. We have two choices on legislation. If we protect the downs under the 1949 Act, we will require no further legislation, because all the necessary powers already exist. The Secretary of State would only have to make an appropriate order. Subsequently, there would have to be a public inquiry to determine the boundaries of the area, which would be designated as a park within about 18 months.
  If the downs were designated as an enhanced AONB, a Bill would have to be introduced, as there are insufficient legislative powers to make such a designation.
  Dr. Alan Whitehead: Is my hon. Friend aware of a very good publication, from the Council for National Parks, entitled "Meeting the Challenge"? Although the publication deals specifically with the New forest, it makes some very useful general points on protecting national parks, particularly ensuring that decisions are taken independently of local vested interests.
  Dr. Turner: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Yes, I am aware of the publication. I am aware also that a debate similar to that on the south downs is occurring on the New forest. The forces ranged on either side of both debates are fairly comparable. I have great sympathy with the claims of the New forest, which I know well from my childhood. I think that my hon. Friend and I would probably agree on the issues.
  As I said, if the south downs are to be made an enhanced AONB, a Bill will be required. I do not have to remind hon. Members of current pressures on parliamentary time. At the current rate of progress, there is no real chance of the House passing any such measure in the next five years or so—if by then. Moreover, all we will have achieved in so doing is a measure of protection for the south downs that is inferior to that which is available immediately, by giving them national park status under current legislation.
  Mr. Tyrie: We all want to do our best for the south downs, which is such a beautiful area. However, is the hon. Gentleman aware that the overwhelming majority of local people have made it clear that they would prefer to continue with the existing arrangements and not have a national park? There are 14 local authorities, only one of which—the hon. Gentleman's—has said that it wants to go ahead with national park status. As far as I am aware, the other 13 have made clear their opposition to it.
  I came fresh to the subject, having moved into the area. I listened carefully to what people had to say before reaching my view that the overwhelming majority of local people want the existing arrangements, broadly speaking, to continue.
  Dr. Turner: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention as I was about to deal precisely with his point. In fact, the overwhelming majority of those who have been consulted are in favour of a national park.
  Mr. Tyrie: Not the local authorities.
  Dr. Turner: Of the 14 authorities consulted, 13 simply took a decision in committee—they did not consult a single member of their electorates. However, Brighton and Hove
  178
  consulted people living in Brighton and Hove, and the response was overwhelmingly in favour of national park status.
  Mr. Loughton: How many?
  Dr. Turner: Hundreds. A national opinion poll conducted by the Ramblers Association showed that in the Meridian television area some 84 per cent. of the public were in favour of national park status. Nationally, of all those aware of the debate, 83 per cent. were in favour. Those who thought that the area should not be given national park status were 7 per cent. and 9 per cent. respectively.
  Mr. David Lepper: Does my hon. Friend share my view that the recommendations from the Countryside Commission are flawed on three counts—first, the inadequate nature of the consultation process; secondly, the commission's failure to report accurately the response to that consultation process; and thirdly, the sheer lack of understanding of the criteria for national park status and the legal framework, as revealed in the report and recommendations?
  Dr. Turner: I concur with my hon. Friend on all those points.
  Time is running out, so I must try to conclude. We must ask, and the Countryside Commission must answer, one important question. As there is already legislation on the statute book to give the best possible protection and management of the south downs—which will give the body a status that will enable it to get funds from the European Union and other sources—why does the Countryside Commission recommend something that will require further legislation, will be exceedingly difficult to deliver and will provide a second-class alternative to national park status?
  What I am about to say may also apply to the New forest. What is going on? Are we dealing with entrenched local interests—dare I say landlords? Is it a confrontation which, in a way, mirrors the confrontation between our two Houses? I suspect that there is slightly more to the Countryside Commission's arguments than meets the eye.
  Mr. Loughton: On the point about consultation, I am not impressed by the fact that only several hundred people responded out of a 500,000 population in West Sussex, and the same applies to East Sussex. The Sussex Downs conservation board includes representatives from 11 district councils, two county councils and the unitary authority. It has had an accountable and democratic part to play in planning.
  The hon. Gentleman is suggesting taking powers from local authorities that are answerable to their electorates. Is he really saying that the views of the councils that did not consult do not matter?
  Dr. Turner: I am not saying that the views of those councils do not matter, but surely the hon. Gentleman cannot criticise consulting the public and claim that consulting a committee provides the same democratic accountability. Clearly it does not. There were thousands of responses from the public, strongly—overwhelmingly—in favour of national park status.

  179
  It is not necessary to take all planning powers away from district councils—that does not have to happen. It has been suggested that a strategic plan should be drawn up for a national park, to which all planning authorities should be party, and that the implementation of the plan should be delegated back to the local authorities; but that implementation must be consistent with the national park strategic plan that has been developed. So with respect, neither of the hon. Gentleman's points holds water.
  The logic of national park status for the south downs is irrefutable. It is the obvious solution and it requires no new legislation. The alternatives not only require new legislation, but will ultimately provide an inferior measure of protection. The overwhelming interest that should be considered is the public concern to protect and manage the future of the south downs.
  1.17 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) has been a tireless campaigner for national park status for the south downs. I congratulate him on securing this debate, and I am glad to have the opportunity to reply.
  The Government are still looking very carefully at the options for the future sympathetic management of the south downs. I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend by not being able to tell him and the House today of any final decision. However, we do hope to be in a position to say something very soon.
  Ministers are thoroughly convinced of the merits of the south downs as an outstanding landscape of national significance. It is one which receives an enormous number of visitors annually and which is, to many people, quintessentially English. I am glad to have this opportunity to remind my hon. Friend and others of my recent visit to the south downs. Thankfully, it was on a beautiful day at the end of September. As the guest of the Sussex Downs conservation board, I was shown some of the most famous and popular sites for visitors, including Devil's dyke and Ditchling beacon. Indeed, from Ditchling beacon I discovered how it is possible to get a real feel of the rolling "whale backed Downs" and the mosaic of landscape laid out at their feet.
  What was striking about the downs was how remote a feel there is in countryside that is in such proximity to coastal towns and communities. It is incredible to find oneself in such a wilderness only a short distance from coastal resorts. I have had a number of requests from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber to come and see more of the downs, and I intend to take up those invitations. Arrangements are in hand to do so.
  I have had a number of meetings with those, from both sides of the national park debate, who are deeply concerned about the future of the downs.
  When I visited the downs I had the benefit of having as local guides my hon. Friends the Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) and for Kemptown, as well as leading officials from the Sussex Downs conservation board. I also had a meeting in Brighton with representatives of the South Downs campaign group,
  180
  which is the grouping of national and local organisations campaigning for a national park. I have since met again some of the interested parties at the Department in London and with several other people, including the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has also discussed the issue with many of those who have a particular interest.
  I assure hon. Members that I understand how important the downs are as a recreational resource for their constituents and for many other people living in East and West Sussex, Hampshire and further afield, including the many who enjoy visiting from the London area. I have many times heard quoted the figure of 32.5 million visitors to the downs each year, which is more than twice the number visiting the Lake district. Whatever the accuracy of that figure, what is important is that we can be sure that the south downs, like a number of other areas of national beauty, are not only visited by an enormous number of people who come for all sorts of good recreational reasons, but enjoyed on a regular basis by those lucky enough to live nearby.
  What most struck me, as a visitor to the area, is that so many people feel so strongly about the south downs. Whether they declare themselves as for or against a national park, they usually want the same things. Both those who are for and those who are against a national park want a level of protection against major new development that respects the importance of the downs as a nationally recognised landscape and a resource for recreation and for biodiversity. They all want a body that is able to work with others to achieve objectives in a recognised strategic planning framework; one that has an assured future and an appropriate level of funding; and one that is able to manage the downs sympathetically and look after the interests of both local people and the downs' many visitors.
  I assure the House that the Government want those things too, and that we are going to deliver them. We want to make sure that we get the precise choice of mechanism right, because the solution must be a long-term one. That is why I am not yet in a position to tell the House which of the options the Government will finally back.
  Anyone with an interest in this debate will know that earlier this year the Countryside Commission, as the Government's statutory adviser, advised against a national park in the south downs and in favour of establishing a new statutory conservation board. That recommendation reflected the commission's assessment of the suitability of the south downs for national park status, which it has maintained since the 1950s. It does not constitute a judgment on the quality of the landscape in the south downs, because the legislation does not recognise a difference between the quality of landscapes in national parks and those in areas of outstanding natural beauty, which is the designation that already applies to the south downs.
  The recommendation reflects the way in which the Countryside Commission has applied the criteria in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. However, I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown that, if we conclude that it is right to do so, we shall ask the commission to look again at the way it operates those criteria.

  181
  I have heard criticism from some groups of the way in which the Countryside Commission carried out its consultation process about the south downs in late 1997 and early 1998. I have no wish to enter into the debate on that issue now; suffice it to say that the Government have listened to all the views expressed. My Department has received hundreds of letters since the Commission's advice was received. Brighton and Hove council should be congratulated on the consultation that it carried out locally, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. It is legitimate for him to say that, at least in his area, people can feel confident that the consultation was broad and varied.
  The Countryside Commission's advice to the Government on protected areas contains a number of strands. It is not only about the south downs, important though they are, but about the way forward in the New forest, which we shall have an opportunity to debate tomorrow. It also contains a considerable number of wider recommendations about the protection, funding and management of areas of outstanding natural beauty. Hon. Members will understand that there is a lot of interplay between these questions, and that together they are of some complexity. Those considerations have meant that it has taken some time to move toward our conclusions. To put it simply, we want to get the answers right.
  Mr. Loughton: Will the Minister address the point raised by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) about the legislative process? Will he tell us whether the Government would grant time before five years were up to push through legislation, if the existing status were enhanced instead of the national park alternative being chosen?
  Mr. Meale: We shall give due consideration to the whole process and to the results of the consultations that have been carried out. As I said, we want to take a decision and make an announcement, but we have to get it right.
  The Countryside Commission has recommended that the south downs should be the first area to benefit from a statutory AONB conservation board. It believes that that would build upon the success already achieved by the Sussex Downs conservation board, which was set up jointly by the local authorities on the Sussex downs and the Countryside Commission in 1992. Ministers have praised the performance of the Sussex Downs conservation board since it was set up and I echo that praise today. The establishment of the conservation board was purely a voluntary move toward working together by
  182
  local authorities, assisted by the Countryside Commission. They deserve praise for the effort and the funding that have gone and continue to go into it.
  However, what is being sought now is quite different—a permanent body with a statutory framework and guaranteed funding. We are still looking in detail at the commission's recommendations on statutory conservation boards, as primary legislation would be needed to provide for them. The Commission recommended that they should be funded as a partnership, with 50:50 local and national funding. Ministers have since had a considerable postbag from local authorities managing AONBs, suggesting that the AONBs should be funded like national parks.
  The Government want to do significantly more for AONBs, but we have to determine how far and how fast we can go, and what the most effective mechanisms are. As a start, we have already provided an extra £2.5 million for the new countryside agency to spend in AONBs next year. That will more than double the budget that the Countryside Commission has so far had for AONBs.
  For the purposes of today's debate, the key question is whether the south downs should have the first of a new series of statutory conservation boards, rather than become a national park. As I have said, we are not ready to announce any decision yet. If we bring forward proposals for primary legislation to provide for AONB conservation boards, we shall have to take into account how the opportunity of primary legislation can best be used to provide for the future needs of the protected areas generally, including providing the best solution for both the south downs and the New forest. There are many questions involved, including the interplay with the planning system, local democracy and the regional agenda; the precise powers and responsibilities of the authorities concerned; and the membership and funding arrangements.
  I understand the urgency felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House about providing a long-term solution for the management of the south downs. The Sussex Downs conservation board currently has funding until March 2001, but we have said that we want to settle on a long-term solution well before the current funding arrangements expire. I assure the House that we will provide that solution as soon as we can.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown, and hon. Members on both sides of the House and of differing points of view, for giving us the opportunity to consider these points today. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend, along with other hon. Members present today—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order.

  CJD and Human Growth Hormone
  1.30 pm
  Mr. Mark Oaten: I am grateful for the opportunity to highlight the plight of five families who have lost a family member from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease as a result of human growth hormone treatment. Their position has been made worse by the fact that to date they have not been entitled to any compensation because a judicial ruling in 1996 stated that damages could be paid only to victims who started the treatment, or had the majority of it, after July 1977.
  The issue concerns hon. Members on both sides of the House, particularly those who have witnessed the trauma experienced by the families involved. My constituents, Mavis and Tony Lay, lost their 22-year-old daughter Alison to that terrible disease in 1985. Alison was a clever, bubbly girl who was adored by many people. She was the first person in Britain to die from CJD. Her parents' anguish has been made worse by their continuing fight for compensation from the Department of Health.
  Let me set out the necessary background details to the case. Between 1959 and 1985, nearly 2,000 children were given human growth hormone derived from donated glands. The Medical Research Council ran the programme as a clinical trial until 1977, when the Department of Health assumed full control.
  Although the programme proved successful and was in great demand, not just in Britain but throughout the world, a number of concerns among leading scientists raised the likelihood of a link with CJD. During clinical trials, Dr. Alan Dickinson of the Agricultural Research Council, a veterinary scientist who was working on scrapie, alerted officials at the Medical Research Council to the risk of CJD being transmitted through human growth hormone. He consequently made four suggestions on how to improve the safety of the hormone. Two were never acted on, the third was only partially implemented and the fourth was not put into force until 1980—three years after the Department of Health started running the treatment. The Medical Research Council appointed two virologists as consultants, but that was not until the medical trials had been completed.
  The programme also failed to fall within the regulatory framework of the Therapeutic Substances Act 1956 or the Medicines Act 1968, so the hormone escaped any regulation in terms of its safety or purity. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that one senior Government scientist recorded that the laboratories where the hormone was prepared were "wholly inadequate and inappropriate". They were consequently shut down just one year into the Department of Health programme, after failing inspection. The full growth hormone programme ended in 1985 following the death of my former constituent, Alison Lay, from CJD, and similar deaths in the United States.
  When the families concerned took their case to trial, the High Court ruled in July 1996 that the Medical Research Council and the Department of Health were negligent in not acting on the scientists' concerns, which probably would have resulted in the suspension of the treatment from July 1977. The judge, Mr. Justice Morland, stated that, if consultants had been properly alerted, new patients would not have been started on the programme. However, he went on to say that those who were already receiving treatment would legitimately have been continued on the
  184
  programme. The ruling meant that only families of patients who started treatment after July 1977 would be entitled to compensation. As a result, several families were not entitled to compensation and were devastated.
  My constituent, Alison Lay, began her treatment in 1972 and her family have had to endure prolonged distress as a consequence of the ruling. Their trauma has been worsened by the refusal of Mr. Justice Morland to go beyond his original ruling.
  This afternoon, I would like to put to the Minister a number of compelling reasons for reviewing the matter and compensating the five families.
  The fundamental argument is simple. It points to a lack of consistency in the CJD litigation and the unfairness of the matter. It cannot be right that some people who died of CJD from contaminated growth hormone have been treated differently from the rest of the group. Although I understand and do not dispute Mr. Justice Morland's decision to institute a cut-off date, the fact that five families remain unentitled to compensation seems to be unjust and unfair.
  It is also clear that, because only five cases are outstanding, there will not be any further claims of this precise nature and that, by changing their stance, the Government would not be opening the floodgates to many appeals.
  Mrs. Teresa GormanThe hon. Gentleman is referring to human growth hormone, yet he is talking about CJD being linked to cattle and sheep. Is he talking about CJD in general or about people who had been given human growth hormone which is extracted from human pineal glands?
  Mr. Oaten: I apologise if I have not made it clear that I am referring to CJD caused by the use of human growth hormones in treating other humans.
  In view of the limited number of outstanding cases, the Government should be persuaded on compassionate grounds that some form of compensation should be awarded at limited cost to the Department of Health.
  There is an additional issue that makes a compelling case for compensation to the five families. In June this year, six individuals won compensation of between £3,500 and £300,000 due to having suffered from psychiatric illness because of "rational fears" of contracting CJD. One wonders why the principle of extended compassion cannot be stretched just a little further to encompass the five cases that I have outlined.
  Let me remind the Government of their stance on the issue in opposition, when they pressed strongly for compensation for CJD victims. For example, the then shadow Health Secretary, now the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, stated:
  "Ministers should establish an inquiry in the UK as a matter of urgency and examine ways in which a compensation scheme might be set up."
  There is certainly no doubt about the Government's recent commitment to try to settle many outstanding compensation issues.
  Perhaps the Government should follow the examples of Australia and France, where all CJD claimants have been compensated without having to establish liability. Is there not a similarity between the case of the haemophiliac

  185
  victims who became infected with HIV through contaminated factor 8 blood products? In that case, the Department established a no-fault compensation scheme. Is that not a practical example of how the remaining five CJD cases should be handled?
  It may be that the Minister will take the same view as the former Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), who stated last year in an oral reply that no further compensation should be given over and above Mr. Justice Morland's ruling because
  "it must be the first and overriding responsibility of the Department of Health to concentrate on preventing ill health and curing it when it occurs, not on compensating those who have contracted that terrible problem."—[Official Report, 18 February 1997; Vol. 290, c. 730.]
  Although I do not dispute the main responsibility of the Department of Health, there is a moral case for compensating the five families. I ask the Minister to remember the human suffering and injustice that have taken place and to try to resolve the issue speedily by compensating the five families. The numbers are small, and the cost to the Department of Health is not significant. Is it not time to end their distress? As my constituent, Mavis Lay, stated:
  "we have had enough torment over the last 14 years."
  1.39 pm
  The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) for raising the issue and to Alison Lay's parents, who have been tireless campaigners since her death.
  Let me recap the history of the tragedy. The human growth hormone treatment programme ran from 1959 to 1985 and just under 2,000 children were treated in the United Kingdom during that period. It is a real tragedy that, as a result of the programme, there have been 27 deaths in the United Kingdom from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, which, as we all now know, is a dreadful disease with awful consequences. The use of human growth hormone ended in 1985 when the link with CJD was established.
  Children with growth deficiency may suffer permanent short stature, disability or even, in some cases, death. Most children are diagnosed as having a growth deficiency by a paediatrician in a specialist child growth clinic. The growth hormone that has been used since 1985 is manufactured genetically and is regarded as safe.
  As we now know, CJD was transmitted through the human growth hormone that was used in the human growth hormone treatment programme. The administration of that programme by the Department of Health and Social Security, as it was then, was the subject of a comprehensive and open hearing in the High Court before Mr. Justice Morland, as the hon. Member for Winchester said.
  The main court hearing ran from April 1996 to July 1996. During the hearing, the judge conducted a thorough examination of a great deal of documentary evidence on the conduct of the programme, and heard evidence from witnesses, including some of the most eminent experts in the field.
  The Department co-operated as far as possible in the full production of all the documents and witnesses that could help the court to understand and unravel the
  186
  circumstances surrounding the administration of the treatment—everything that was relevant and could be traced was produced.
  Mr. Justice Morland found that the Department had been negligent in the administration of some aspects of the programme, and patients whose treatment commenced after 1 July 1977 and who had been treated with growth hormone prepared according to the Wilhelmi or Hartree Wilhelmi method were successful in their action. He ruled that, on that date, action should have been taken to withdraw the HGH treatment or clinicians should have been warned that CJD could be transmitted. The date was set as the benchmark for compensation. The Department of Health, but not the Medical Research Council, was ruled to have been negligent.
  Representatives of a number of patients who had died of CJD and whose treatment had straddled 1 July 1977 appealed against the finding—their appeal was heard in November 1997. The Court of Appeal referred the case back to Mr. Justice Morland to clarify some aspects of his original finding.
  A further hearing took place during April this year. Mr. Justice Morland reviewed his earlier judgment and upheld the appeal of those patients who were treated with Wilhelmi or Hartree Wilhelmi hormone and who had received at least half their treatment with that preparation after 1 July 1977. Fourteen patients are involved, and we are working with the legal representatives of their estates to finalise any compensation that is payable.
  The Department has accepted all those findings in full. We have sought at all times to co-operate fully with the courts and to comply as quickly as possible with their judgments. I have also accepted that any patient whose treatment with human growth hormone meets the criteria set by the court and who contracts CJD will receive compensation in terms similar to those reached for the plaintiffs who took part in the court action. Sadly, we have already had to pay interim compensation to four patients in that situation, and we will continue to make payments in any further cases that may arise.
  I am also aware of the very real worries of all those treated with human growth hormone who are well at present but could contract CJD. I am sorry that their lives should be blighted by the knowledge that they risk contracting the disease. We all wish that they were not in that position—obviously, we all hope that the worst will never happen.
  Some of the human growth hormone patients took legal action against the Department, claiming damages for the psychological harm and distress that they had suffered. I have met a number of those patients and those associated with their cases.
  The case was heard, again by Mr. Justice Morland, during April and May 1998—the judgment was given in June 1998. As a result of the earlier negligence finding against the Department, the judge found that human growth hormone patients would be entitled to compensation if their treatment was completed after 1 July 1977, they received Wilhelmi or Hartree Wilhelmi hormone and they were suffering from a recognised psychiatric illness as a result of knowing that they were at risk of CJD. Again, we have accepted that finding and have agreed and paid compensation in 29 cases. A number of further claims are being investigated.

  187
  I know that many hon. Members have been concerned about the implications of that judgment, but we must recognise that all medical treatments, particularly new treatments, carry some risk. We intend to minimise that risk. Earlier this year, we announced proposals on some of the ways in which we will review our procedures and practices and issue guidance on the safest, most effective and most appropriate management of clinical practice.
  Under those proposals, which were announced in July 1998 in the document "A First Class Service", the new national institute for clinical excellence will draw on expertise developed across a wide range of national and regional bodies to produce guidance and ensure that treatments are provided on the basis of safety, quality and efficacy.
  I am aware of the calls for a general no-fault compensation scheme. I understand the motivation for those calls—many of which are from those who, as a result of the courts' decisions, will not receive compensation—and have given the question much thought.
  The Government's policy—like that of the previous Government—is that compensation will be paid only when negligence has been proved. We believe that paying compensation on a no-fault basis would be enormously complicated, would not necessarily solve the problems that are being encountered, would be expensive and would have ramifications beyond the health service.
  We believe that compensation should be paid only when a duty of care is owed, when a negligent act has been committed and when harm has been caused by that negligence. It is clearly better for the national health service that money is spent on direct patient care, rather than on the inordinate costs incurred in fighting compensation claims. Hon. Members will want to know that we are continuing to fund the counselling service for patients who were treated with human growth hormone and their families.
  Mr. Alan DuncanI congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) on his contribution, in which he made some very serious points. However, the CJD argument has moved on. We are talking about compensation for the use of growth hormone, but what if blood products and medical instruments are found to carry similar risks? The Minister has a duty of care, so will she give a pledge to compensate those who may suffer from her negligence, and that of the Department, in not making clear today the risks of CJD infection from such sources?
  Ms Jowell: The Government are absolutely committed to publishing information and evidence on the risks from
  188
  CJD and on other public health hazards. We will seek the best scientific evidence, which we will publish and act on. Our framework for determining compensation remains that, where negligence is proved by the courts, compensation will be paid.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: Many hon. Members have constituents who are in this distressing situation. Does my right hon. Friend think that the Government—by relying today on a legalistic argument for what is a limited claim for a tiny number of people—will appear to people outside to be taking a heartless attitude?
  Ms Jowell: I very much hope that the Department's approach—which extends beyond this specific issue, and is a matter of general principle—will be seen as fair, not heartless. In everything that we have done in representing the Department's position and recognising the heartbreak suffered by the families, we have sought to establish a balance between what is fair and reasonable and not exposing the Department or the national health service to completely unfettered claims which have not been founded on clear evidence of negligence. We believe that the establishment of negligence in the courts is the fairest way of determining compensation. Once the judgment has been made, we have proceeded as quickly as possible to ensure that compensation is, in practice, paid to the families concerned.
  I wish to remind the hon. Member for Winchester of the continuing support available to families provided by a unit under the leadership of Professor Michael Preece which is located at the Institute of Child Health in London. It was established in 1992 and does valuable work in supporting patients who have CJD, as well as those who are treated with the growth hormone but who are well at present. The unit is available to provide advice for clinicians and other health or social services staff who may have contact with human growth hormone patients, as well as to mobilise local health and social services to help human growth hormone patients, especially if CJD is suspected.
  I fully understand the real concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Winchester. I am as anxious as the other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate to see what lessons can be learned from the tragic circumstances surrounding this treatment programme, to bring the matter to a swift and just conclusion and to ensure that we increase the chances of such mistakes and such dreadful tragedies never happening again.
  It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

  Agriculture Council
  2.30 pm
  Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker: I would like to take the point of order after the statement. I have had some indication of what the point of order may be, but if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I must take the statement first.
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the outcome of the European Union Agriculture Council held on 23 and 24 November, at which I represented the United Kingdom. My noble Friend Lord Sewel, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, was also present.
  The Council voted on a proposal by the Commission for the lifting of the worldwide ban on the export of British beef in respect of meat from animals born after 1 August 1996: 10 member states voted in favour of the measure; only one, Germany—for understandable domestic reasons—voted against; and Spain, France, Austria and Luxembourg abstained.
  The vote represented a substantial move towards the Commission proposal by five member states from the earlier vote in the Standing Veterinary Committee. Most importantly, the procedures under which the vote was taken in Council enable the Commission formally to adopt the decision.
  I can now announce to the House that, within the past three hours, the Commission has adopted the proposal permitting the export from the United Kingdom of boneless beef and beef products from animals slaughtered between six and 30 months of age and born after 1 August 1996. That is the date on which the Commission has verified that all contaminated feed was removed from the feed chain. There are further conditions aimed at preventing the offspring of BSE cases from entering the export scheme; a requirement for the slaughter of offspring of BSE cases; and strict rules on slaughtering and processing.
  The Government will shortly issue a consultation paper on our proposals for implementing those rules. I shall lay before Parliament secondary legislation to make compulsory the offspring cull, which has been operating since July on a voluntary basis. The legislation will provide compensation at the market rate to owners of animals slaughtered.
  I am sure that the House will welcome this excellent outcome. It has been achieved against a background of scepticism about the seriousness with which we have tackled BSE. We have overcome the misconceptions, and had our case judged objectively on its scientific merits and supported by independent Commission inspections, taking as our overriding principle the absolute need to safeguard public health.
  Every Agriculture Minister who spoke in the Council, including those who did not vote in favour, had very positive things to say about the commitment shown by the new United Kingdom Government to tackling the problems presented by BSE. The outcome is also an
  190
  affirmation of the value of the Government's close co-operation and dialogue with our partners in Europe and with the European Commission.
  The lifting of the ban comes hard on the heels of the support measures for agriculture that I announced to the House on 16 November. Both demonstrate the Government's commitment to securing a viable long-term future for the sector.
  The Council also held a discussion of the Commission's proposals for common agricultural policy reform in the context of the Agenda 2000 measures. The proposals are essential for the future stability of European agriculture, and in order to facilitate a successful enlargement of the Union to the east. The Council agreed a report to the Vienna European Council next month identifying the main outstanding issues, and expressing its determination to reach conclusions on the package as a whole by next March.
  It is an important Government objective to secure an ambitious reform of the CAP that serves the national interest, and, on behalf of the Government, I warmly welcomed the commitment by the Council to take early decisions. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made similar points in the discussion at ECOFIN on 23 November on the future financing of the European Union.
  It was a very important Council meeting for the United Kingdom. We have achieved a major objective of our policy towards Europe in the lifting of the beef export ban. Although it will take time for the British beef industry to win back markets that have been lost to it in the past two and a half years, I believe that we have created the conditions in which it can now plan for the future, confident that the industry has been modernised and is operating to the highest possible standards. Our immediate task is to work with the industry to ensure that the scheme that we have successfully negotiated in Europe works effectively to help to regain recognition for the quality of British beef on world markets.
  Mr. Tim Yeo: I welcome unreservedly the partial lifting of the beef export ban, and I warmly congratulate the Minister on his achievement. It is a tribute to his personal skills that he has secured an agreement that eluded his less diplomatic predecessor.
  In the spirit of bipartisanship, and without detracting from his negotiating success, will the Minister acknowledge that the measures needed to satisfy the European Commission were in place before the general election? Is he also aware that there will be disappointment that the lifting of the ban is only partial, and that beef on the bone will still not be eligible for export? Does the Minister agree that many customers want carcase beef, and, because they will not be able to buy it from Britain, a significant part of the market will still be closed to us?
  I turn to the conditions attached to the decision. Are there still animals in the cohort cull which need to be traced? Could he expand on the strict rules he mentioned which will be required for slaughtering and processing? For example, will the abattoirs from which beef for export will be taken have to be dedicated solely to exports? How quickly does he expect the European officials to carry out the necessary inspections in this country? What support will the Government give to the promotion of British beef

  191
  exports, especially in view of the help that was given to Northern Ireland and the need for mainland British beef producers to receive some assistance? What steps will the Government take to ensure that beef is back on more school menus? How soon will British service men abroad be able to enjoy British beef?
  Does the Minister agree that recovering our export markets requires the co-operation of all European countries? Was he concerned by the report in The Guardian today of a possible German threat to boycott British beef? The Government are keen to have dialogues with their European partners, and the Minister met a German Minister only last week. Was that possible ban discussed at that meeting? If Germany is able to ban the sale of British beef, why does not the Minister immediately halt the sale of imported pigmeat in Britain produced under conditions that we do not permit?
  In view of the Council's decision, is the lifting of the Government's home-made ban on beef on the bone in Britain now more or less likely? Does not every day that that ban remains further undermine confidence in British beef? Did the Minister use the two-day Council meeting to raise our growing concern about the export to Britain of meat products produced under conditions illegal in this country? In view of the confusion caused by conflicting statements from the Minister and the British Retail Consortium, and by the Government's failure to bring forward promised legislation on the food standards agency, is not the halting of such illegal imports, which include poultry from the far east, all the more urgent?
  Did the Council discuss the review of the labelling directive? What steps are the Government taking to end the practice of selling food labelled with a Union Jack that contains food grown outside Britain and merely processed here? Will the Minister press his fellow Ministers for more honesty in labelling?
  The Minister referred to Agenda 2000 in general terms. What progress has been made on specific issues since the March Council? For example, can he give the House the Government's view on labour unit modulation? Does he still support Lord Donoughue in the call for a 30 per cent. cut in milk support prices? What is the Government's view on proposals for national envelopes? I ask these questions in an entirely constructive spirit. The Minister deserves credit for his achievement, but the bottom line is how soon significant beef exports will resume. When will the farmgate price of British beef start to rise, and when will one of Britain's most famous and desirable products resume its rightful place at the top of menus around the world?
  Mr. Brown: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's ungrudging and unqualified endorsement of my statement. He had some subsidiary questions, some of which run a little wide of the original statement. He asked about farmgate prices in the beef sector. I am certain that, when the market returns to normal, which includes recovering a substantial proportion of the export markets that we used to have, we will see an impact on the domestic industry as well.
  I am not in a position to give the House a forecast today. I can say that it is my objective to have the date-based export scheme up and running and past its
  192
  Commission inspection by next spring, so that we will be able to make a start on exporting, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, deboned beef products worldwide. We are not talking just about trade with the European Union: it is a worldwide ban.
  On national envelopes and the British proposal, along with the Italians, the Danes and the Swedes, for a more radical review of milk quotas, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, although those things were discussed by Ministers on the Monday night, there are no conclusions yet. I can tell the House that Ministers have taken a hard look at the estimate of the costs of the different reform proposals that have been put forward by national delegations and by the Commission.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about my meeting with the British Retail Consortium to try to get clear labelling so that consumers can make a choice. I have already told the House that the agreement made was for fresh meats, processed meats and own-label meats that are directly under the control of the supermarkets concerned. I cannot ask the supermarkets for a commitment on processed meats that are supplied to them by other suppliers in turn—[Interruption.] I thought that the Conservative party used to believe in free trade. There are those of us who believe in free trade and consumer choice, and I believe that consumers should be able to choose.
  Mr. Yeo: What about illegal products?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is shouting about illegal products. If products are illegal, I and the rest of the Government stand ready to take action. I invite the hon. Gentleman to send me the specific evidence that he undoubtedly has—he would not have made the comments otherwise—about food products coming into this country without meeting the standards that Parliament requires; I will then have it looked at by the competent officials, and stand ready to respond to any serious detailed allegation that he can make.
  I must tell all hon. Members that is not enough to make generalised charges—we can all do that. Just as we object to consumers in other countries saying that they are not sure that British beef is safe to eat—they are wrong, because British beef is among the safest in the world—surely it is not right for us to say that other nation states cannot produce food products to the standards that we insist on here, because they clearly can.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about beef on the bone. I have told the House before that, when the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee reports to me that it is appropriate to lift the domestic ban on beef on the bone, I will do so. I will do so on the basis of scientific advice, not on the basis of political will, which is what the hon. Gentleman is advising me to do. At the Conservative party conference, he said that he would lift the ban. There would be no consideration of whether it would be right to do so: he would just lift it anyway. I cannot do that. It would not be responsible for me to do that. The scientific advice comes first. I will consider it, and, when it is proper for me to do so, I will lift the ban.
  The hon. Gentleman made a point about the importation of pigmeat, and invited me to ban it. If he has specific evidence that pig products that are coming into this country do not meet the proper food safety standards, I will consider that, and make sure that the appropriate authorities look at it. He must come forward with specific evidence, not generalised assertions.

  193
  The hon. Gentleman asked about consumers in Germany. I hope that consumers there, throughout western Europe and worldwide will understand that we have made an enormous effort, and spent an enormous sum—more than £4 billion will have been spent on the BSE crisis by the end—to ensure that our beef products are among the safest in the world. I fully accept that consumer perceptions may be based on the conditions of 10 years ago, not the conditions now. We must explain ourselves, and I stand ready alongside the Meat and Livestock Commission to explain what the Government have done to ensure that British beef is safe, and to enable us to recover our export markets. The effort includes serving British beef to service men overseas, and ensuring that education authorities and others in the United Kingdom who purchase meat products in bulk have confidence in British beef.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the Commission inspections. The date-based export scheme process will have to be inspected by the Commission, and I am confident that we can get that scheme up and running, and get it through its inspection. The Commission is ready to make the inspection when we get the scheme up and running. The hon. Gentleman asked about slaughterhouse rules. The scheme is slaughterhouse-based, not farm-based. The rules require slaughterhouses to be dedicated to the date-based export scheme, but they may also handle other animals, such as pigs and sheep. They cannot handle non-date-based export scheme cattle.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about progress on the cull. Some progress has been made with a voluntary cull, but there is more to do, and that is why the Government will make the cull compulsory. I shall introduce regulations soon, and compensation will be paid to farmers at market value.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me to confirm that the arrangements for lifting the ban were first put in place by the previous Government. It is true that the agreement in principle was made at Florence, but that was not the difficult bit. The difficult bit was implementing the agreement, both credibly and in a way that would persuade our partners in the European Union that we had implemented it credibly. The agreement was based on co-operative working, and on our acceptance that we had to be able to explain the scheme, to prove it and to justify it on the basis of science and on its technical implementation.
  I would not have been able to achieve agreement without the hard work, energy and skill of my predecessor, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). Agriculture Ministers from other nation states always ask after my right hon. Friend, mentioning the skilful way in which he managed the British presidency. The impact that my right hon. Friend made on the Agriculture Council during our six-month presidency convinced our EU partners that we were a new Government with a new approach, with whom they could deal. That was not the case with the previous Administration.
  Mr. David Drew: I unreservedly welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement. It is a victory for effective diplomacy and quiet negotiation, unlike what happened under the previous Administration. Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about his welcome decision to extend the cull to beasts affected by maternal
  194
  transmission of BSE, including cases in which cohorts are affected? Does he agree that we will be safe only if we move as quickly as possible towards implementing a food standards agency?
  Mr. Brown: I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks. I am committed to the food standards agency, as are other members of the Government. I intend to discuss with territorial Ministers and my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Health, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and the Chancellor how best to take the proposal forward, given that it has no slot in the legislative programme. That proposal is going to be taken forward. My hon. Friend is right to say that the cull is a necessary condition of the scheme. Of course, farmers will be compensated at market rates, but the proposal must be taken forward. The voluntary scheme has not brought in all the animals that I would have wanted, so we must make the cull compulsory.
  I estimate that about 3,500 animals will have to be culled under the scheme, which is designed to deal with maternal transmission. It is so important that we not only get the date-based export scheme up and running, but that we do so in a way that will restore consumer confidence in our products, not merely in the markets that are used to dealing with the United Kingdom but among those countries that have been the most critical and sceptical. I look forward not only to a completely clear report from the Commission but to our being able to explain what we have done in countries such as Germany, where there is still uncertainty about British beef products.
  Mr. Richard Livsey: The Liberal Democrats warmly welcome the Minister's negotiating skills. This has been one of the worst crises to affect agriculture this century, and we are pleased with the result that he has brought back from Brussels. The industry has warmly welcomed the proposal, and rightly so. It is a bit rich for the Conservative Opposition to carp about it. After all, they are equivocal about qualified majority voting and the powers of the Commission that the right hon. Gentleman has announced today. If the Opposition's policy were in place, the attitude of the Germans, who wanted to maintain the ban, would have ensured that it stayed in place. That is an extraordinary state of affairs.
  Perhaps the Minister will also accept that we are pleased that full market values will be given for animals that have to be sold under the offspring cull, which will greatly help the farming community.
  The development of the market is extremely important. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can give us some idea what the MLC will be doing to promote British beef on the continent, and why the French and the Spanish, in particular, did not vote in favour of lifting the ban, but abstained. What were their reasons for doing so, and will that affect our ability to market in France and Spain?
  Finally, the Agriculture Council discussed many other agricultural matters, and I am sure that reference was made to the package to supply food to Russia this winter to relieve starvation. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of a special scheme to send British

  195
  sheepmeat to Russia this winter to alleviate problems in the sheep market here and assist the Russians by preventing starvation?
  Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for today's announcement, and for the constructive part that the parliamentary Liberal Democrats have played in these matters.
  On food aid and sheepmeat, we cannot use our food surpluses crudely to provide stocks to Russia. Humanitarian aid schemes to Russia are being put in place, which involve credit lines and the provision of some food aid. They are being co-ordinated on our behalf by the European Union, and the United States has put in place a separate range of measures.
  However, in these matters we must be conscious of our obligations to the World Trade Organisation. It would not be fair to take other people's market opportunities by dumping our surpluses. Nevertheless, we should stand by Russia in what is going to be a difficult winter, and show solidarity with the Russian people, which means ensuring that any food aid sent—I am certain that some will be—gets to the people who need it. There are clear concerns about the distribution network there.
  On the opposition from France and Spain, at the Standing Veterinary Committee, France, Spain, Italy, Holland and Germany voted against the Commission's proposal. I had bilateral meetings with each of those member states, and was able to justify the Commission's proposal, which is, of course, the United Kingdom proposal, on the basis of the science and the implementation of the scheme. I was able to ensure a welcome shift towards the Commission from all those national delegations. I would have preferred a positive vote for the Commission proposal, but the best that I could get was the abstention, which enables the proposal to be brought into effect by the Commission.
  The overriding reason why countries are not able to give whole-hearted support to the scheme is the enormous damage that BSE has done to the beef market across western Europe. It is not only a United Kingdom problem; the market has fallen further in Germany than it has in this country, because of consumer fears about BSE. This is naturally a serious matter for our partners, and when we are trying to achieve agreement on matters of this kind, it is a good idea to step back and try to see the problem from their point of view, instead of asserting our own, and demanding that people always agree with us.
  The measured, science-based approach that the British Government have adopted is the right approach. It has commanded respect from national delegations, even those that have not felt able to lift the ban yet. Nobody—not a single nation state—said that it should not be lifted; the issue was timing, and clearly the political leaders will have been worried about consumer opinion in their own countries. That is a perfectly reasonable thing for them to worry about—the protection of the public must come first in these matters.
  As for explaining ourselves in difficult markets, the Government stand ready to work with the Meat and Livestock Commission—and, indeed, the industry—
  196
  to make sure that we explain ourselves and rebuild our markets. I certainly stand ready to do what the Government properly can to help.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend's announcement is a further example of the Labour Government delivering on their pledges—we have done it; the Conservatives destroyed the market.
  I take my right hon. Friend back to the Meat and Livestock Commission, and what part it can play in Europe. Will we support it with increased resources? Will it sponsor an advertising campaign throughout the European Union to develop the markets for beef, and our re-entry into those markets? Will there be any opportunity for British producers to promote beef—perhaps through trade fairs—and perhaps even to foster some sort of beef price war in Europe so that we can reclaim markets, taking into account the experience of the Northern Irish in recent months, which has not been too good?
  Mr. Brown: I welcome what my hon. Friend says, and thank him for his kind remarks.
  On exports from Northern Ireland, when I visited Bologna last week, Paolo de Castro, my Italian ministerial counterpart, served me Northern Ireland beef and Italian mushrooms for lunch. It was not only delicious, but a great compliment, and it shows how far things have moved. The best thing that we can do is explain how Britain has got through the BSE crisis, explain what measures we have put in place to ensure that exported British beef is truly among the safest in the world—that goes for Northern Ireland beef from the herd scheme that is in place in Northern Ireland as well—and restore consumer confidence in British beef as a first-class product.
  The MLC has a number of ideas, and I stand ready to explore all these matters with it, but I do not want to make a further announcement this afternoon.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I congratulate the Minister, without equivocation, on his achievement in obtaining a lifting of the export ban on British beef? There is no doubt that his personal negotiating skills have played a part, and I congratulate him on that.
  Will the Minister answer two questions? First, when does he think that SEAC will advise him to allow the sale of beef on the bone in the United Kingdom? That would be another fillip and encouragement to the farming industry. Secondly, will he ensure that the veterinary and hygiene costs that are to be imposed on our abattoirs are no greater than those imposed on abattoirs in countries elsewhere in the European Union? The abattoir industry in this country is greatly concerned that the costs that it is having to meet will put some abattoirs out of business. Those costs are unfair, and not the same as those being imposed in other EU countries.
  Mr. Brown: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. He has not always spoken warmly about the European Union and its institutions, so his remarks today are all the more welcome. I promise that I will take a hard look at the costs of the meat hygiene service and veterinary surgeons in abattoirs, and see what can be done. Public safety must come first, however, so I am not

  197
  certain that I shall be able to do everything that he wants. I take the point that he made about comparable costs in other member states. He asked about advice from SEAC. I anticipate a report from it soon.
  Dr. Gavin Strang: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he, his departmental colleagues and the Minister for the Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), deserve the thanks of the whole House for getting us to this point?
  Although I accept that, if we are to meet the stringent conditions for exporting British beef and rebuilding our export markets, the main challenge lies with the meat industry, including abattoirs, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government have an important part to play, not least because of the emphasis on traceability in relation to the cull and the criteria for exporting beef? Is he willing to take a personal interest in the new cattle traceability scheme, and do his level best to make the centre at Workington a model not just for Europe but for the rest of the world in terms of speed, reliability and overall efficiency?
  Mr. Brown: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said. He, too, has played a part in those matters. What he says about traceability is absolutely right. Traceability is here to stay. I have visited the cattle movement service headquarters at Workington—indeed, I opened it. I found the young staff enthusiastic about what they were doing, and doing a good job well. On support for the meat industry and the Meat and Livestock Commission, I shall see what I can do to help.
  Mr. Michael Jack: I hope that the Minister and the House will join me in thanking the Minister's officials, who deserve praise for their contribution to the lifting of the ban. Without their work behind the scenes, none of the progress in which we can rejoice today could have been made.
  The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) asked the Minister whether resources would be made available from within his existing budget to help with the marketing effort. Will he produce a parallel package—in pro rata terms, worth some £11 million—to that provided by the Northern Ireland Office to help it to rebuild its markets in Europe?
  Mr. Brown: I must operate within the budgetary constraints of the comprehensive spending review, but I shall see what I can do. It is right that the Government explain to those who used to be our trading partners in beef—we hope that they will be our trading partners again—exactly what we have done to ensure that the public, overseas and at home, are protected from BSE and new-variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. The only way that we can rebuild our markets is through proper explanation.
  I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about my officials. In my short time at the Department, I have been well served by senior officials, who have put in very long hours, not only to join me in the range of bilateral discussions that I have had to have with other countries, but to prepare for the meetings and
  198
  discuss with other officials, so that the Ministers I meet are properly advised. They have worked extremely hard, and deserve the House's gratitude.
  Mr. Barry Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for his successful and doughty efforts. He speaks for the whole country. How does he assess the impact of the lifting of the ban on Wales, especially on my constituency, where farmers have had a nightmarish time, and have edged towards bankruptcy? How does he assess the impact of CAP reform on dairy farming?
  Mr. Brown: The British, Italian, Danish and Swedish proposals for reform of the dairy sector are extensive, and involve a phasing out of quota by 2006. They have not been agreed by others on the Council of Ministers, and the Commission and other member states have made alternative proposals. It is too early to give my hon. Friend a definitive answer, but we want radical reform.
  The announcement was widely welcomed by farm leaders from Welsh farming unions. Such is the importance of the announcement that they were in Brussels to hear at first hand how matters had transpired at the Council of Ministers. I hope that today's announcement, together with the one I made last week on support, particularly through the hill livestock compensatory allowances, will have a positive impact on agriculture in Wales.
  Sir Peter Emery: I congratulate the Minister, as I am sure the whole House does. First, has he taken any action with America and Canada to ensure that their import ban is lifted? No one can now argue that British beef is not as safe as beef from anywhere else in the world. Secondly, is it not a hurdle to the export of animals that it has to be proved that the dam was alive six months before the animal to be exported goes into the scheme? Is it correct that a statement witnessed by the farmer will not be adequate? Will the Ministry of Agriculture establish a special unit for this purpose? If so, will he ensure that farmers, who have suffered profit losses of between 45 and 50 per cent. over these years, will not have another cost imposed on them, and that the cost will be borne by MAFF?
  Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman makes two important points. We shall have to set up a unit in MAFF to deal with that technical issue. The dam must be alive six months before the animal goes into the scheme. As certification from the farmer will not be enough, in itself, for the workings of the scheme, the only way we can verify that is to establish a unit within the Department.
  I am examining what the Government can properly do about costs. I am, in principle, considering making a contribution from the funds of my Department, at least to the start-up costs of the scheme, although some costs will have to be borne by the industry. No final decision has been reached, but the Government will have to provide some support to get the scheme up and running.
  The worldwide ban was imposed on the United Kingdom by the European Union, and it operated worldwide. We have got that lifted, so it is now possible for us to commence discussions with other countries who

  199
  were previously our trading partners in beef products, such as America and Canada, to get their bilateral bans lifted. I shall certainly attempt that.
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Obviously, this is great news for farmers in the north-west, which is the second most affected region. What can we do to promote the quality beef that is produced in England? Wales can sell its beef on the back of the success of its Welsh lamb, which is delivered all around the world. That is a prime example of the good branding of a quality product. I believe that we shall not have the same support in England. What new initiatives will the Minister introduce to support English farmers? Will he give them the same support as is given to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that issue. I shall be working with the Meat Livestock Commission to ensure that there is proper marketing support behind the new export drive. It is also important for us, as public representatives, to play our part. This issue should not become unreasonably politicised, but we should explain what our country has done to ensure that our beef is entirely safe. That is the key message we should be sending out, and it has the great merit of being completely true. Beef is safe.
  Mr. William Thompson: First, I thank the Minister for his statement, and I congratulate him on the efforts that he has made since he took office. A great handicap to the export of beef is the fact that beef on the bone cannot be exported. I know that the Minister anticipates that that ban will be lifted in the United Kingdom—in the near future, I hope. Will the same apply, in the end, to the export of beef to Europe, or will there have to be another month of tortuous negotiation with the European Commission?
  Mr. Brown: I am afraid that the blunt answer to the last question is yes. The date-based export scheme relates to deboned beef: it therefore excludes live animals and whole carcases, and, indeed, any other beef on the bone.
  As the incidence of BSE in this country lessens, we shall want to deal with the issue, but the Government's view is the same as that of the last Government when they negotiated the agreements in Florence. We think that we should make a start, and this is a good start, which will give us a chance not only to recover markets, but to explain our current arrangements to ensure that beef products from Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom are completely safe.
  Mr. Andy King: I thank my right hon. Friend for all the efforts that he has made since taking up his present post. I know that farmers in my constituency have great confidence in him, because they cancelled an arrangement that they had made to come here, yet again, to lobby Warwickshire Members. Owing to my right hon. Friend's efforts, they decided that such action was unnecessary at this time. That denotes an enormous increase in confidence in him, and in the present Government.
  200
  My right hon. Friend has plainly met one major challenge, but the greatest challenge of all will be reform of the common agricultural policy. What part are the Government taking in that?
  Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks.
  Since becoming Minister of Agriculture, I have set out to meet not just farm representatives, but individual farmers. The priorities in my work load have been informed by what I have been told by farmers, as well as their representatives.
  I assure my hon. Friend that the British Government are in the vanguard of nation states that seek radical reform of the CAP, so that it can meet the challenges of an increasingly liberalised world market that is moving remorselessly towards us, whether we reform or not. The Government believe that we should be ahead of the game, rather than running behind it.
  Mr. Tim Collins: I congratulate the Minister on bringing a good day to British farming. That has been rare in recent years. Does he accept, however, that the crisis is not yet over, and that a difficult winter lies ahead for many farmers in my constituency and elsewhere? Will he consider working with representatives of the British banking industry, and trying to persuade them that they should continue to support farmers in the coming months, so that, when better days come, there are still farmers in business to enjoy them?
  Mr. Brown: Yes. A huge effort has been made, in terms of officials' as well as Ministers' time, to secure what I have announced today. Last week, I announced a package of measures specifically designed to deal with the current difficulties in the farming sector. The purpose of all that has been to ensure that the industry can experience better times—and those better times, we hope, are being negotiated within the CAP. CAP reform is crucial to the long-term stability and security of the domestic industry.
  I hope to meet representatives of the sector that specialises in agricultural banking shortly.
  Mr. Paul Marsden: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend and his predecessor on the tremendous news that we have heard today, and on the excellent work that went into bringing it about. I pay tribute to other Shropshire Members, past and present, and to the MEP for Hereford and Shropshire—a constituency that includes Wyre Forest—who have undertaken some hard lobbying of my right hon. Friend.
  What initial targets and estimates has my right hon. Friend for the reclaiming of the export market? In particular, may I ask what figures he has in mind in relation to the next 12 months?
  Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks, and acknowledge the tribute he pays to representatives from his area, who have all played a constructive part in the discussions.
  I shall not be setting targets. It would be quite wrong for us to do anything other than acknowledge that it will be difficult to recapture markets that were lost to us.

  201
  A surplus of beef products in the EU makes it pretty difficult to do so. The important thing is that the legal barrier to us trying to do so has been lifted, and we can make a start. It will take time, and I am afraid that the early start might be slow, but we must get on with it.
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): May I also congratulate the Minister on his success in securing a lifting of the ban throughout the European Union? I thank him for his visits to Wales during a difficult period for farmers, and for his work alongside ministerial colleagues in the Welsh Office. While he thinks about ways in which we can promote Welsh beef and beef from other countries of Britain, may I commend to him the success, for example, of branding Welsh lamb? When he considers ways in which he can sell the idea of reopening markets for Welsh beef, will he remind our colleagues in Europe that some of the best beef is finished on grass? That should be an enormous selling point. Will he confirm that any measures implemented in MAFF will be mirrored in the Welsh and Scottish Offices?
  Mr. Brown: Yes, I can confirm that. My visits to Wales have enabled me to hear at first hand the views of farming leaders as well as individual farmers in Wales. The fact that the Government are listening and making policy that is informed by what farmers say has been widely welcomed—nowhere more so than in Wales. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
  Ms Sally Keeble: I welcome very much my right hon. Friend's statement. Is he aware of substantial concerns about the safety of beef production and the incidence of BSE elsewhere in Europe and the world? What discussions are taking place in Europe to ensure that other Governments implement the same stringent controls as ours in order to prevent the spread of BSE?
  Mr. Brown: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. The EU is considering Europewide measures on specified risk material and other precautionary regimes on BSE that would apply throughout Europe. The UK's contribution to those discussions is, of course, informed by our experience of these matters. I have offered to share our science and technical expertise with other member states, so that, if a crisis looms in their countries, they can get through it with knowledge of some of the things that we have had to learn the hard way.
  Mr. Tim Boswell: Although I, too, welcome the Minister's statement, which reflects his personal efforts as well as those of his predecessors, will he use this opportunity to remind the House that this decision very much falls into the context of the progressive decline of the BSE epidemic in cattle? There is a strong probability that no more than 1 per cent. of total cases ever has yet to come to light.
  In the wider context of Agenda 2000, will he consider with his European colleagues the implications of supply and demand in the European beef industry for land use, and contemplate constructive measures to encourage further extensification, and possibly the conversion of some grazing land to other uses?
  Mr. Brown: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He makes two important points. On discussions
  202
  on Agenda 2000 proposals, there is widespread recognition throughout the EU of a structural surplus in beef products with which we must deal. Within that broad recognition, there is further discussion on whether priority should be given to extensive or intensive systems. Clearly, different countries approach that depending on their domestic circumstances.
  I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the reported number of BSE-affected cattle seems to be coming down in line with predictions, which rather confirms and underpins the Government's approach.
  Mr. Michael Clapham: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his achievement, which is very welcome. However, does he agree that, if the previous Government had taken positive action when BSE first raised its head to ensure the safety of food in the food chain, the whole crisis might well have been averted?
  Mr. Brown: I do not want to say anything that might pre-empt the outcome of the BSE inquiry, the results of which will eventually come to me and my right hon. Friends. Nevertheless, it is stating the obvious to say that, in the early stages, the issue could have been handled better than it was. Specifically, it is right to say that our relationships with our European Union partners are crucially important. We must get ourselves into a position in which we are treated seriously and with respect by our partners and can negotiate with them, rather than merely shouting impotently at them.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: The Minister will know that one of the United Kingdom's largest regular sales of finished cattle is held each week at Ludlow. His announcement of the lifting of the export ban will therefore be very welcome among the beef farmers of south Shropshire, which is one the country's premier beef-producing areas. However, he will be aware also that there is not much optimism among meat traders that our export trade will be quickly regained.
  Will the right hon. Gentleman expand on his statement that that trade will be allowed only through dedicated abattoirs, whereas all hon. Members will know that every abattoir has to comply with EC standards for intra-Community trade? More to the point, will he give the House an absolute undertaking that there will be no further let or hindrance to those exports once they have passed the inspectorate at the dedicated abattoir?
  Mr. Brown: The purpose of the agreement is to ensure that beef that has gone through the scheme—the date-based export scheme is a project-specific scheme—can get into the European market. The only let and hindrance that exports would then face are free market conditions—such as consumer choice and the terms of trade—that are faced by every product. As I said, I do not believe that we will immediately be exporting vast quantities of meat. We have a lot to do to rebuild markets that we once had, in an already over-supplied market. Clearly it will not be easy, but we must make a start. We must all work together, without overstating the matter, to achieve as much as we possibly can.
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: Does my right hon. Friend remember, about two years ago, the previous

  203
  Government's policy of non-co-operation in Europe, which left us isolated and friendless in Europe? Does not last Monday's meeting and today's statement show that constructive engagement with Europe brings results? Furthermore, are not those results the best news that British farming has had for a long time—which is why, on Monday, champagne corks were popping on farms in my constituency?
  Mr. Brown: Of course my hon. Friend is right. For the Conservative party, the beef war is over.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I know that my constituents will be delighted to welcome the decision that the Minister has brought back from the Council of Ministers, and that they have been waiting for this moment since the ban was imposed. However, may I pass on to him concerns that have been expressed to me about how we will re-establish a profitable beef industry when we have no market for older cows, we have no market for offal—processors were once paid £80 a tonne for trimmings, but now must pay £60 a tonne for them to be taken away—and we have the heavy costs of inspection and traceability?
  What will the right hon. Gentleman do, first, to try to minimise those costs, and, secondly, to ensure that such costs as have to be borne are spread fairly across the industry—rather than to permit a situation in which supermarkets manage to protect their margins, while unsubsidised finishers are forced to carry an unsustainable loss?
  Mr. Brown: The Government, of course, currently carry some of those costs. I fully accept that the BSE crisis has hit the domestic industry pretty severely. Specifically, the industry now has to carry costs that it did not have to carry before. The costs of inspecting abattoirs and of traceability are here to stay, but they are not here to stay uniquely in the United Kingdom. Traceability is now a requirement across the European Union. The way forward is to ensure that we can convince consumers of the safety of our meat products, and to ensure that we—Government and industry—work hard together in trying to get back into markets that we once had but have been out of for the past two and a half years. Those obstacles will have to be overcome—the Government cannot simply lift them out of the way.
  Mr. Nick Ainger: I join in the congratulations to my right hon. Friend, especially on behalf of my constituency which is a significant beef producer. The announcement is the light at the end of the tunnel for which many of my farming constituents have been waiting.
  Does my right hon. Friend agree that to the congratulations he has received from both sides of the House should be added an apology from the Opposition, bearing in mind the evidence given by the former Health Minister, Edwina Currie, to the BSE inquiry on Monday? She said:
  "More people became ill, more people became infected and more people died because of inadequate actions by Government Ministers over a long period of time."
  204
  That should warrant at least a small apology from the Opposition.
  My right hon. Friend's statement referred to reform of the common agricultural policy. What indication has he received from our European partners that, in the Agenda 2000 negotiations, we can move towards decoupling support from production? We may well get over this crisis, but others will loom if we do not decouple support from production.
  Mr. Brown: The point about decoupling support from production—support for rural Britain—is absolutely at the heart of the current discussions on reshaping the CAP. There is a willingness among Ministers to deal with the problems of structural surplus, the challenges of world market prices and the increasing liberalisation that are marching towards us. Getting our partners to go further is a Government negotiating objective, but it is too early to say whether we will achieve all of it.
  I must not pre-empt the BSE inquiry. I note that Mrs. Currie has treated it to her opinions, and I wait to see what the inquiry makes of them.
  Mr. Robert Walter: I echo the compliments of my right hon. and hon. Friends to the Minister for this further step in restoring traditional markets to the British livestock industry. However, the statement relates to beef exported on the bone from cattle over six months old. One of our most significant traditional markets was the calf market. Can the Minister say when the resumption of calf exports is likely? Will there be any support for the calf industry beyond the announcement he made last week, which will end in March 1999?
  Mr. Brown: My announcement last week on extending the calf processing scheme at a reduced rate was designed to give some assistance to the industry in what are clearly restricted trading conditions. There are ethical problems as well as animal welfare problems with the handling of calves. I should like a domestic organic veal industry to develop, rather than looking to live exports, which are a very long way away.
  Mr. Paul Keetch: I, too, congratulate the Minister on the excellent news. The beef farmers of Herefordshire, including some of those he met a couple of weeks ago when he visited my constituency, will be delighted.
  Following on from the comments of the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson), the problem is not yet over. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that Herefordshire beef—the finest beef in the world—populates the globe, largely through the export of cattle and semen for breeding. What is the position on those exports, and when will the bans be lifted?
  Mr. Brown: I enjoyed my visit to the farms in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It gave me an opportunity to hear about the problems directly from the farmers. The export of some of the products that the hon. Gentleman mentioned is already permitted by the European Union. Today's announcement pushes forward that agenda.
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: I want to tell my right hon. Friend how impressed my

  205
  constituents, especially the farming community, are with his stewardship since his appointment. They have been writing to me to tell me that. Is he not encouraged by the fact that the national president of the National Farmers Union said this week that diplomacy rather than table thumping is the reason we have achieved this result?
  Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. The farming unions have been taken into my confidence as we have gone through the negotiations, and they have done what they can to help with their sister organisations in other member states. They welcome the Government's constructive engagements with our partners, from whom, after all, we expect to get the decision. I have had a strong welcome for the approach that the Government have adopted.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: I am delighted that the Minister is here to make his announcement to the House, and I add my congratulations. I am pleased that, for an hour and a half on the flight back from Brussels yesterday, I resisted the urge to discuss the matter with him. I know that he is interested in the Vale of York, because he met one of my constituents, the president of the National Farmers Union, there recently.
  What can the Minister do to satisfy producers and consumers of beef in this country that the high standards set in the European Union for beef production in this country are matched by foreign exporters? What can he do to put their minds at rest as to whether foreign exporters are meeting the same high standards that exporters in this country enjoy?
  Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her remarks—and, indeed, for her company on the flights
  206
  back from Brussels; we have twice been on the same flight. She asks whether other countries are maintaining the same high standards as we do, but I am afraid that, in the rest of Europe, that point is often put to me the other way around—it is our standards and our products that are questioned. What we should do—all of us; it is not a party political point—is set out to explain what our country has done and at what cost, and explain why we are now able to offer the greatest consumer safeguards anywhere in the world. British beef is among the safest in the world. That is a simple message, but we all need to get it over.
  Mr. Owen Paterson: It would be churlish not to congratulate the Minister on his success so far, and I congratulate him on that partial success. However, this morning, I had a discussion with a major meat export business, and was told that, before the ban, it exported seven to eight truckloads of dressed meat to quality distributors and restaurants in Europe. It was made clear to me that 50 per cent. of that beef was on the bone, for high-quality roasts sold to the best restaurants. It is of absolutely paramount importance that the Minister lifts the beef on the bone ban in this country, and gets the export of beef on the bone allowed to the whole of Europe. Can he give us a clearer idea of a timetable on that?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman raises two separate propositions. On the second, the right thing to do is to get the date-based export scheme—which, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, is for deboned beef—up and running and gaining market share, because, as we gain market share, we also restore consumer confidence. On the question of the domestic beef on the bone ban, as soon as SEAC reports to me setting out the parameters, I shall consider what it says; if the scientific evidence means that I can come to the House and lift the ban, I shall do so.

  Point of Order
  3.33 pm
  Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Following your previous ruling, may I ask what is the latest position in respect of Pinochet? As you probably know, the Lords have decided that Pinochet is not immune from justice, but can be extradited. That is a wonderful decision, about which Labour Members are delighted. Shall we have the opportunity to discuss the subject in the near future? As far as international law is concerned, it is good indeed that a notorious mass murderer and torturer can be brought to justice.
  Sir Norman Fowler (Sutton Goldfield): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Following this afternoon's judgment in the House of Lords on the case of General Pinochet, I have pointed out before that this House is obviously in some difficulty on the issue. So far, there have been no Government statements whatsoever on the issue, in spite of the fact that outside the House it is a matter of open debate. There have now been two judgments, in the divisional court and the House of Lords. Surely it is now time that we had a statement from the Home Secretary. People in this country are greatly concerned about the issue, and about our relations with the democratically elected Government of Chile.
  I realise that you, Madam Speaker, will not remotely have had time to consider the judgment of the House of Lords, but may I put one point to you? At the end of his judgment, Lord Nicholls said:
  "The sole question before your Lordships is whether, by reason of his status as a former head of state, Senator Pinochet is immune from the criminal processes of this country, of which extradition forms a part. Arguments about the effect on this country's diplomatic relations with Chile if extradition were allowed to proceed, or with Spain if refused, are not matters for the court. These are, par excellence, political matters for consideration by the Secretary of State in the exercise of his discretion under section 12 of the Extradition Act."
  That seems to be the point, and in view of that judgment, would it not be right for us to be able to question the Home Secretary on the use of what everyone agrees is very wide discretion? Many people here and in Chile feel that the affair has continued for long enough, and that the way forward is for the Home Secretary to use his discretion and bring the proceedings to an end.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I know that he wants to be helpful, but I am quite capable of giving a ruling. I have heard points of order from both sides, and I am well able to cope with them. As the House of Lords has decided that Senator Pinochet does not have immunity from prosecution, extradition proceedings against the senator are still pending.
  208
  I remind the House that our sub judice resolutions—to which I drew the House's attention previously and which can be found in the Standing Orders—require that there should be no comment on matters awaiting jurisdiction in the courts. The courts may have to decide whether the evidence against the senator is sufficient to warrant his trial in Spain. The matter of the charges against him therefore remains sub judice.
  Again, I reassure the House that, as soon as the issue ceases to be sub judice, I know that the Home Secretary will take the first opportunity to make a statement to the House, and it will be open to all hon. Members to question him and debate the issue. Until then, the sub judice rule remains.
  Mr. David Willetts: On a separate point of order, Madam Speaker. May I have your guidance on ministerial attendance at the debate on the Address? Is it not customary for Cabinet Ministers to reply to the debate? The Secretary of State for Education and Employment faxed me a letter this morning explaining that he would not be speaking in this evening's debate, despite the fact that it is on industry, education and employment, because he has to speak tomorrow at the annual conference of the Association of Colleges in Harrogate. The programme shows that he is speaking there at 12 noon, but I am speaking at 10.10 am and the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) is speaking at 9.50 am. If we can still debate here tonight, why cannot the Secretary of State?
  Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, I have no authority in determining which Ministers handle debates in the House, but I have the feeling of the House and will address the point in general. The House wishes a Secretary of State to be on the Front Bench during a major debate appertaining to the departmental portfolio. As for my personal feelings on the matter, I understand that Secretaries of State have urgent business elsewhere, but unless there is a matter of utmost urgency elsewhere, I believe that the House always takes priority.

BILL PRESENTED
  WATER INDUSTRY
  Mr. Secretary Prescott, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Dewar, Mr. Secretary Dobson, Mr. Secretary Darling, Mr. Secretary Michael, Mr. Michael Meacher and Mr. Alan Meale, presented a Bill to make further provision in relation to England and Wales as to charges in respect of the supply of water and the provision of sewerage services and to make provision in relation to Scotland for the establishment and functions of a Water Industry Commissioner for Scotland; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 1].
  Orders of the Day

    Debate on the Address
    [SECOND DAY]
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [24 November],
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:—
    Most Gracious Sovereign.
    We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament—[Mr. Ashton.]
    Question again proposed.

    Trade, Industry, Education and Employment
    3.39 pm
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Mandelson): This Queen's Speech has one overriding theme—modernisation. We are modernising the country, its system of government, its public sector and the economy. We are modernising education, the health service, the welfare system, the relationship between Government and business, and the fight against crime. That is precisely the programme for which the British people voted. The change that they wanted is the change that they are getting from a changed Labour party.
    Any attempt seriously to challenge or pick apart what the Government are doing was conspicuous by its absence from the Leader of the Opposition's speech yesterday, which, by the way, I thought was better than a sixth-form debating society speech—it was more an after-dinner speech.
    I am sure that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the shadow Trade and Industry Secretary, would agree with me about that. He fancies himself as the more substantial, cerebral, worldly and charismatic leader—the Newt Gingrich of the Conservative party. I can hear him up at the Dispatch Box—the Press Gallery full, the fanatical cry of the true believers behind him—as he tears into the Government's intellectual inconsistencies and ideological inexactitudes.
    Alas, it was not to be. The man who made it to the Dispatch Box was not the pretender but the leader himself, of whom the right hon. Gentleman once said:
    "I've had more interesting conversations with a bathroom sponge."
    Mr. John Redwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman immediately withdraw that preposterous comment, which I never made? Will he accept that I thought that the Leader of the Opposition gave a superb speech yesterday, which tore the Government to shreds? The right hon. Gentleman should heed my right hon. Friend's message.
    Mr. Mandelson: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has thrown in the towel already. He should not allow himself to be goaded so easily. On hearing the result of the Conservative party leadership election, he said that the worst of all six candidates had been chosen.
    Mr. Redwood rose—
    Mr. Mandelson: A denial?
    Mr. Redwood: That was another misstatement by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Mandelson: What a way to speak of one's leader. We certainly would not get away with it in our party—the men in the dark would not stand for it.
    What, after the rhetoric was finished, was left of the bathroom sponge? In my view, there was very little. The Conservatives cannot oppose the investment and reform in schools. They do not dare oppose the money for and change to the national health service. They would not

    211
    know where to start in presenting an alternative to welfare reform and, in the fight against crime, they are precisely nowhere.
    That is not surprising from a party that, in 18 long years, talked a good game but travelled backwards. It has now decided to win back the political middle ground by lurching further to the right. In the process, it has offered no new ideas, no shred of analysis and no proposals to modernise Britain—nothing, zero, zilch. While the Government modernise, they sloganise.
    The Government will stick to their guns. We will not be deflected—however many battalions of hereditary peers are thrown in our way—from our programme to strengthen democracy, to create opportunity and higher living standards and to bring about improvement for the many and not the few.
    The Government's legislative programme for this Session is founded on the twin themes of modernisation and fairness. Labour's first Session in government for 18 years saw an unprecedented programme of legislation—47 Acts of Parliament in 18 months. My Department has been at the heart of that effort.
    What a contrast with the previous Administration. In the two Sessions before the election in May last year, the Department of Trade and Industry took through just two programmed Bills—just two. In the Session that has just gone, we put five Acts on to the statute book.
    The Competition Act 1998 will finally reform a competition regime that was widely regarded as out of date, toothless and badly in need of a rethink. We did that—the Tories promised to do so, but delivered nothing. Now, of course, the right hon. Member for Wokingham claims that he never supported that reform anyway. How comforting that must be to business—to know that all the time he was representing their interests as the Minister responsible for competition, he never actually believed in it.
    The National Minimum Wage Act 1998 is a key part of the Government's commitment to fairness and decent minimum standards. The Wireless Telegraphy Act 1998 will encourage the efficient use of an increasingly scarce resource which will be vital to our drive to build a business environment that fosters innovation and encourages enterprise in the information age. The Fossil Fuel Levy Act 1998 is a clear commitment to the promotion of renewable energy sources. Last but not least, the Late Payment of Commercial Debts Act 1998 establishes the principle that small firms cannot and should not be bullied by larger competitors. Five Acts were initiated from my Department, Madam Speaker, compared to none at all from the Conservative Government in the Session before the election.
    Our commitment to legislation which is based on modernisation and fairness will continue in the coming Session. First, we will aim to modernise employee relations so as to promote partnership at work and underpin a flexible and efficient labour market. What is clear to everyone bar the Conservative party is that workplaces where there is mutual respect and minimum standards of protection, safety and consultation, work better and more productively.
    If businesses are to be competitive, to innovate and to anticipate their customers' needs, they need the wholehearted commitment of their employees. That commitment
    212
    will be given by people who feel that they are treated reasonably and fairly. That underpins our proposed legislation.
    We will introduce a forward-looking Bill to modernise our framework of employment law. The Bill will honour all the commitments that we gave in the White Paper which we published earlier this year. It will address family-friendly employment practices, to reflect the fact that the labour market is changing and needs more, not less, flexibility to enable men and women to cope with home and work; it will provide new rights for individuals at work, including greater protection against unfair dismissal; and establish a new statutory procedure for the recognition of trade unions.
    We have listened carefully to all the responses to the White Paper, and they have helped us to develop and to refine the detail; to fill in the gaps; to ensure that the proposals will work well and strike a fair balance; and, yes, to give reassurance, where justified, to employers who are understandably concerned about the impact of the proposed legislation on their businesses.
    Let me make this further point, too. Our measures are well judged for our country's needs. Others in Europe may have their own views on what is appropriate for their domestic needs. In this matter of collective rights and workplace relations, where there are wide differences of practice between member states, subsidiarity is important—that means each acting according to his own need and his own willingness to sign up. I would like all in the European Union to respect that principle in employment and social legislation.
    Mr. Christopher Gill rose—
    Mr. John Bercow rose—
    Mr. Mandelson: The second item of proposed legislation being prepared by my Department goes to the heart of Britain's economic future—the harnessing of the internet to business, and the contribution that electronic commerce will make to our competitiveness. Electronic commerce is radically changing the nature of individual businesses, markets and entire economies. However, most of our laws—in the United Kingdom and elsewhere—were designed to regulate the trade in physical goods. The countries that first succeed in adapting their legal and regulatory environment to the requirements of electronic commerce will achieve all the advantages of the first mover. We must be the trail-blazers, at the front of the pack.
    There is a hugely important leadership role for my Department in partnership with the private sector. It must become nothing short of a national crusade for Britain to become world leaders in internet business and in generating electronic profits. That is why the Government have set the ambitious goal of creating in the United Kingdom the best environment in the world for electronic trading by 2002.
    The White Paper on competitiveness, which I shall publish shortly, will set out our strategy for achieving that. At its heart will be legislation to ensure that businesses and consumers have the same confidence in electronic transactions as they do in pen-and-paper agreements.
    Mr. John Hayes: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Mandelson: No.

    213
    Those exciting developments are part of the fast evolving knowledge economy. With ever greater computing power and more connected, more international networks, the result is global competition on a vast scale, with low barriers to market entry and mind-boggling innovation.
    Mr. Bercow: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Mandelson: No.
    For the weak and uncompetitive in our economy, for those who are unwilling to change, this revolution will pose a threat. Only for the competitive and strong, for those who are open to new ideas, it presents a major opportunity.
    Mr. Hayes: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Mandelson: No.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: I fear that it will be a point of frustration.
    Mr. Paterson: Correct, Madam Speaker. I have been in the House only 18 months, but I understand that it is the convention that one does not interrupt a ministerial statement but that one is allowed to ask to intervene during a debate. Is this a statement or a debate?
    Madam Speaker: This is undoubtedly a debate, but of course it is for the Minister or whoever has the Floor to determine whether to accept an intervention. That is not a matter for the Chair.
    Mr. Mandelson: It is for all the reasons that I have given that we put so much stress on raising companies' competitiveness. To create and safeguard the employment that we need, we must ensure that the weak in our economy become the strong. Let us be clear: the knowledge revolution is not a revolution of an elite of knowledge-based services or high-tech businesses. It applies to such businesses, of course, but it applies to all businesses: to large and small; to manufacturing and services in all parts of the country.
    Some question the relevance of the knowledge economy to manufacturing, but they forget about design, product control, market creation, marketing itself and best practice management, all of which require knowledge workers. To take an example that is topical this afternoon, farming is still one of the most manual of industries, but many modern tractors are mobile offices, and some even have satellite location devices installed.
    The truth is that competitive advantage increasingly depends on knowledge: on new ideas for new products. Better use of knowledge means designing products that better suit customers' needs, creating less pollution, higher profits and more rewarding jobs.[Interruption.]
    Mr. Bercow rose—
    Mr. Paterson rose—
    Mr. Mandelson: It does not surprise me that Opposition Front Benchers have no interest in the future
    214
    of the economy. They are chattering among themselves. To give them the chance to recover their posture, I shall give way, not to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) but to the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), who is wearing a more highly coloured tie.
    Mr. Paterson: I am touched by the compliment to my tie, but I wish to bring the Secretary of State back to the subject of the debate—trade and industry. Why do countries that have pursued the employment policies pushed through by his Government have levels of unemployment two or three times higher than those of this country, which is enjoying the benefits of the policies of the previous Government?
    Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman must realise that we have no intention of introducing any legislation that presents a burden on business and reduces the competitiveness of British firms. Our aim in employment legislation is simply to increase flexibility in our labour market and also—I am sorry it is an alien concept to Conservative Members—to introduce an element of fairness and minimum standards of safety and protection for people who work in this country. I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to support that, given what he believes in and the party to which he belongs, but that is what we believe in and what we intend to do.
    Mr. Bercow rose—
    Mr. Graham Brady rose—
    Mr. Mandelson: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady).
    Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way to me. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is performing a service for other Opposition Members who wish to intervene.
    The Secretary of State suggested that he has no intention of adding costs to industry, which bemused Conservative Members. Has he read the submission by the Engineering Employers Federation to the Department of Trade and Industry about the enormous complexity of the regulations on the national minimum wage, and does he accept that there is a problem?
    Mr. Mandelson: I do not know what the problem is to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The Confederation of British Industry has made it clear that it is content with the way in which the Government have introduced the national minimum wage, and it has co-operated with us throughout. The CBI and others are now considering the draft regulations that we have published which will cover the implementation and enforcement of the national minimum wage. We look forward to hearing everyone's views in the consultation, and I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that every comment and observation submitted to my Department about those regulations will be carefully considered.
    Mr. Bercow rose—
    Mr. Barry Sheerman rose—
    Mr. Mandelson: I give way to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Sheerman: The Opposition have brought the Engineering Employers Federation into the debate,

    215
    but those of us who regularly meet its representatives hear what they say about the inheritance of 18 years of failure to educate and train people in the new technologies. That is the real burden that our industry faces, especially engineering. It faces the lack of modern apprenticeships and not enough well-trained workers. That deficiency in skill levels is undermining our performance and it is an inheritance from that lot—the Conservatives—who have nothing to boast about.
    Mr. Mandelson: Yes, and every business and employers' organisation I talk to knows that we have to make up for the lost time under the previous Administration. Those businesses and employers organisations have a profound understanding of where our economy is going and the challenges posed to every business by the creation of a knowledge-driven economy.
    Mr. Bercow rose—
    Mr. Phil Willis rose—
    Mr. Mandelson: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis).
    Mr. Willis: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way and for bringing into the debate some of the real issues, one of which is the knowledge capital that we need for the next millennium. Why did not the Government include in the Gracious Speech a Bill to cover lifelong learning, especially as they published a Green Paper about it in the previous Session? Such a Bill should be at the heart of the Government's intentions for the development of human capital, and would address the point made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman).
    Mr. Mandelson: The very important initiative that was heralded by the lifelong learning Green Paper is already up and running. It has already been established that the headquarters of the university for industry will be in Sheffield. That represents an extremely important step forward for the knowledge capital to which the hon. Gentleman is referring. It creates huge opportunities for many millions of people in this country.
    We need only look at the sources of competitiveness and lower costs that come from the development of the knowledge-driven economy. For example, General Motors saved $1.5 million on painting costs through the better use of information, and the General Electric Lighting company secured a 30 per cent. cut in procurement labour costs through internet purchasing.
    In common with companies, countries need to stay ahead of the game or they will be replaced by new entrants.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Mandelson: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I wish to make some more progress.
    The forthcoming White Paper will set out how the Government plan to help build a knowledge-driven economy, to put the future on Britain's side and to reverse
    216
    this country's economic decline of the past 20 years or more. It will set out what we are doing to enhance the capability of business, how we plan to help businesses to collaborate with each other to compete and to collaborate with others in the public sector and in education, and how competitive markets should drive innovation and enterprise.
    Caroline Flint: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Mandelson: Let me make some more progress.
    We have strengths on which to build in this country. We have a world-class science base, we have enterprising people—many with the right skills, but others willing to acquire them—and we have a strong digital infrastructure.
    The Government are playing their part, with £1.4 billion additional funding in science announced in the comprehensive spending review, a programme of investment in education that is one of the largest committed by any Government anywhere and a programme to build up the skills of those starting new and innovative businesses. I set Business Links a challenge to support 10,000 such businesses a year by 2002. We are developing more imaginative ways of financing growth businesses and new measures to spread the adoption of digital technologies by small and medium-sized firms.
    To underpin all those measures, we need a culture change to support enterprise, to applaud success and to remove the stigma of honest failure. Here again, the Government must give a stronger lead, and I shall be announcing measures to address that aspect, too.
    This is not about Government telling business what to do. It is important that we lead through our own activities, in particular by working towards the Prime Minister's target that 25 per cent. of Government services should be available electronically by 2002. I stress that the greatest contribution the Government can make to enterprise is by ensuring that open and transparent markets provide the spur to business to innovate and become competitive. That is a key role and responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry. We must ensure that all our policies—across the board—promote innovation and risk-taking, and help build the knowledge-driven economy in which enterprise flourishes.
    When I spoke of the knowledge-driven economy and the importance of electronic commerce in our previous debate, the right hon. Member for Wokingham, the shadow spokesman, shouted, "Rubbish" and, "Claptrap." That is not surprising from someone who inhabits Planet Zog and remains blissfully unaware of the conditions and challenges facing business in the real world. I believe that he is wrong. In fact, he is more than wrong; he is being quite stupid. He refuses to see the opportunity that the information age and the knowledge-driven economy present to reverse the long years of decline that the Tories did nothing to prevent.
    We are not going to take chances with Britain's future.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Will my right hon. Friend please give way?
    Mr. Mandelson: In advance of the White Paper—
    Hon. Members: Give way.
    Mr. Jones: Will my right hon. Friend please give way?
    Mr. Mandelson: I will give way soon if my hon. Friend will allow me to continue for the moment.

    217
    In advance of the White Paper, I can announce the Prime Minister's decision to appoint a high-ranking digital envoy—[Laughter.] See how the Tories laugh. They are locked somewhere in the last century and they have not the faintest idea of what is happening in the real economy, and not one idea or one shred of analysis to support the sort of economy that we must create.
    Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Mandelson: Locked in the past, locked in the past, locked in the past.
    The Prime Minister is absolutely right to appoint a person to help prepare Britain for and to lead us into the digital future. That individual will speak for the United Kingdom in the international arena, will promote the United Kingdom as a global hub for electronic commerce business and investment, and will drive forward the cross-Government strategy for electronic commerce that I shall set out in the forthcoming White Paper. The advertisement for the new post will be in next week's press, but the shadow Secretary of State need not apply, as he seems far from looking to the future. We want someone who can look to the future, not someone who prefers to play politics with the nation's future and to talk down our economic prospects, as the right hon. Gentleman persistently does.
    Mr. Barry Jones: I appreciate my right hon. Friend's cogent speech, and I enjoy his teasing of his shadow. May I tell him, however, of the sense of dread in the British steel industry? The problem appears to be the dumping of steel products from the far east, which is putting many of our largest steel works at a great disadvantage. Can the Government intervene to urge the European Commission to do something about such dumping?
    Mr. Mandelson: My hon. Friend raises an issue that is of great concern to the steel industry and its employees. I recently met Sir Brian Moffat, the chairman of British Steel, and the executive heads of the British Iron and Steel Producers Association. I learned at first hand the extremely difficult trading conditions that they face, and I heard the allegations that have been made of unfair trading and dumping by some countries. I have invited them to submit details to the Department of Trade and Industry, and to the competent body—the Commission of the European Union. It is for others to submit such details and allegations, but I shall ensure that allegations are properly examined, and that where action can and should be taken, everything will be done to ensure that it is.
    I want to return to what the Opposition have said in the past. They have not said it today, but the shadow Secretary of State will no doubt remedy that fact when he rises to trot out the same tired phrases warning of economic catastrophe and disaster.
    Mr. Bercow: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Paterson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Mandelson: I have given way once already to the hon. Member for North Shropshire, and I do not think that he should come back for a second go.
    218
    The shadow Secretary of State will accuse the Government not only of selling out the British economy, but of fiddling the figures and of making up the productivity gap, which, in fact, as everyone knows and as every independent commentator acknowledges, separates us from our competitors.[Interruption.] It is amazing how quickly after leaving office the Conservatives have ceased to resemble a governing party, and how hard they find it to muster the credibility needed by any half-decent official Opposition. Nowhere—
    Mr. Bercow rose—
    Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman may want to intervene later, because I was about to say that nowhere is that lack of credibility more demonstrated by the Opposition than in relation to Europe. The European Union gives the United Kingdom access to a market of 370 million consumers—it is by far our largest market. That is why, even though we will not be joining the economic and monetary union on 1 January, we are determined to work towards its successful introduction. Should it be in our economic interests to do so, and should Parliament and the people give their assent, we have made it clear that we believe that Britain should join. The Opposition are in a terrible mess.
    Mr. Stephen Dorrell: The Secretary of State is dealing with an issue that is important for this country's future economic performance: the relationship between this country and Europe. The question for the Government is whether it is their policy to create convergence between this country and the member states of the euro. If not, do they believe that convergence circumstances could come about without that being their explicit policy?
    Mr. Mandelson: It is certainly the case that one cannot create convergence between economies artificially by means of contrived accounting. There must be real convergence. Most people would agree that objective circumstances are leading us towards convergence and, indeed, the economic policies and strategies that the Government are pursuing are assisting that process. I have not the faintest idea whether that is welcome to the right hon. Gentleman, because he has adopted a number of positions on the single currency and it is Wednesday today, so I do not know what position he may be holding.
    Mr. David Chidgey: Perhaps we could draw the debate back to the Government's position on the euro. I believe that I am right in saying that the right hon. Gentleman said that, when it was in Britain's economic interests to join, it would be the Government's policy to recommend that process. Will he advise the House of any scenario in which he felt it might not be in Britain's economic interests to join the euro?
    Mr. Mandelson: If the convergence of our economies has not been achieved and if, in our opinion, the objective economic circumstances and the necessary structural reforms and flexibilities that need to exist throughout the economies of Europe have not yet been achieved. We have to fulfil all those tests. Those are important questions for us to answer, and answer them we will, but not now; we will do so in due course, when the economic

    219
    circumstances arise and when it is in our economic interests to do so. In the meantime, we will do what any half-intelligent Government would do, which is to prepare for the eventuality of our entry to the single currency so that, if and when we are in a position to enter it, we can put that choice to Parliament and the British people, who can then take that decision to go in. For us to do so successfully, British business must have prepared beforehand.
    Mr. Geraint Davies: While I agree with the Government's policy, does my right hon. Friend agree with the 114 leading business men representing 20 FTSE companies, who put their names to a statement in the Financial Times on Monday and who said that the best policy for Britain would be one based on the assumption that we will join the single currency? The reverse would be that, if we proceed on the assumption that we will not join, there will be massive disinvestment in British industry.
    Mr. Mandelson: We have to take very seriously the views of British business and, in particular, the views of those business people who signed the advertisement and made that statement, because they are operating not in the pursuit of some right-wing political ideology but in the interests of their business, and therefore the economic interests of this country. I talk to business men a lot—both to the mildly pro-Europe and the mildly anti. What unites them is their complete bewilderment and bemusement at the mess that the Opposition are in on the subject. We have only to listen to them on the subject. Some in the Conservative party say, "No single currency for 10 years." Others say, "Not in our lifetime." Given the average age of Conservative association members, I do not know which is the more Euro-sceptic position.
    Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Mandelson: No.
    I want to be clear about this, too, and I emphasise it: if economic and monetary union is to be successful, there must be a flexible, competitive Europe and comprehensive structural reform in Europe's labour, product and capital markets. That is an absolutely indispensable condition for EMU to be launched successfully and on a sustainable basis. That is what we argued in our presidency, and it is what we shall continue to fight for through the processes agreed at the Cardiff summit.
    I welcome the wide support across Europe for that agenda of structural reform, which has been voiced by Chancellor Schröder; Massimo D'Alema, the new Italian Prime Minister; and Dominique Strauss-Kahn in France. That unity of view, and that degree of consensus about the need for structural reform—economic reform—in Europe if the single currency is to be a success, is the most striking feature of the current political scene.
    Caroline Flint: My right hon. Friend may be aware that there is a lobby of Parliament today by textile workers. In relation to textiles and his argument about Europe, will his Department consider encouraging innovation in our small and medium textile enterprises?
    220
    Italy, for example, supports its textiles and clothing industry. This country has 350,000 workers in that industry, but many are in small and medium enterprises which need the thrust of the Government to support innovation and competition. I hope that we can learn something from our European neighbours.
    Mr. Mandelson: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend about the importance and the potential of that industry. I am glad to tell the House that my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry only yesterday met representatives of the employers and of the trade unions, all of whom share that strong commitment to the future of the textiles industry. My Department stands by to assist them in all their efforts and to do everything that it can to make sure that the industry has a successful and prosperous future.
    When we took office, we apparently inherited a golden economic legacy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Conservative Members never tire of cheering that. They tell us that they left us a Ferrari of an economy—some Ferrari.
    Mr. Redwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Mandelson: The Conservatives had put the economy up on blocks, stuck it in reverse and taken a large number of miles off the clock.
    Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. In 1995, BMW-Rover said that Britain was the best place, bar none, in Europe for investment in the motor industry. When the Conservatives left office, the investment was proceeding and the company was profitable. Why is it now losing heavily? Why is there a crisis at Longbridge? Have not the Government's mistakes caused that?
    Mr. Mandelson: The right hon. Gentleman may not have noticed that the Government do not own or run Rover; Rover owns and runs Rover, and that is how it will remain. I am sorry about what has happened to Rover, because it is an excellent company with great potential, but its slide in relative productivity did not start on 2 May 1997. It has its roots in lack of strategic grip and poor management decision making. Management decision making should have got on top of the situation a long time ago, before it created the difficult circumstances and conditions that now face the company.
    I am glad that management and work force at Rover are now joined in a firm commitment to achieve changes and restructuring in the company to make sure that it has a future. The Government have stood by and helped to facilitate those important discussions within Rover, and we shall continue to do so. We shall give whatever support it is sensible and appropriate for us to give to ensure that those changes take place.
    Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Mandelson: Well, I—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I give the casting vote to the Speaker, who has given me the nod.
    Mr. Bercow: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for reluctantly giving way.

    221
    If the Minister is as concerned about competitiveness and regulation as he claimed earlier in his speech, why did he have the brass neck, on 4 November, to dismiss the CBI's estimate of an annual cost of £200 million for the parental leave directive as "a tiny fraction" of business costs? Why was he unaware that his Department had produced an alternative estimate of £55 million a year? Why was he so palpably ignorant of the matters for which he is ministerially responsible to this House?
    Mr. Mandelson: That is a very important question, and it was well worth waiting for. I do not dismiss £200 million lightly, without coupling it with the observation—as I did—that employers and their representatives in Europe joined hands with trade union representatives in agreeing that the measures be adopted.
    Mr. Bercow indicated dissent.
    Mr. Mandelson: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman cannot agree, but that is his Euro-sceptic privilege. He agrees with nothing that comes within a million miles of the European Commission. An agreed measure was proposed, and this country would do well to implement it.
    The right hon. Member for Wokingham is doubtless about to leap to his feet to disown the previous Government's record in office, as he spent our last debate doing, and say, "Not my fault, guy. All the others' doing. I was nowhere near the clot when the decisions were taken." I do not know what the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), who is lurking on the Back Benches ready to intervene, will have to say about that. Incidentally, the entire House will join me in offering him our sincere congratulations on his new honour.
    I for one am sick of the Tories disowning their record: macro-economic instability; a relentless cycle of boom and bust, which cost a million jobs every time they had to slam on the brakes; a huge productivity gap; a real performance shortfall, with no statistical fiddle, as the right hon. Member for Wokingham asserts; and a culture of social exclusion, with millions throughout the land cast aside with no skills, education, jobs or hope. Those people had a vote, and they used it at the last election. We started immediately to put things back together again.
    I do not pretend that all is rosy in the economy. Anyone with half an eye on the world economy, a quarter of which is now experiencing recession, knows that all is not rosy. However, despite the Asian crisis, Britain's exports to Europe and the United States continue to grow in both value and volume. Employment rose by 124,000 in the three months to September, and we continue to attract record inward investment. This week, the Economist intelligence unit—not Millbank—announced that we remain one of the most favourable locations for investment in the world. The right hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that it cited, in particular, Labour Britain's business-friendly climate, the sophistication of our capital markets and the fact that our labour market will remain one of the most flexible in the world as the reasons for our continuing to be a number one target for inward investment.
    We have made it clear in the legislative plans announced in the Gracious Speech that this country's future depends on realising the potential of our people. It is no longer acceptable to write off one third of the
    222
    population through sheer neglect. They deserve better. We began to provide that on 2 May 1997, and we shall continue to do so in the coming Session.
    4.25 pm
    Mr. John Redwood: We are thrice blessed in this debate. We are blessed with the presence of the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), who is listening attentively.The Spectator named him a parliamentarian of the year in the award ceremony earlier today. I am sure that we all want to congratulate him. He may need our commiserations, because I understand that he is the "Minister to Watch". Some Ministers who are watched too closely never recover from the experience, but it is perhaps the Secretary of State who should watch out, because the Minister of State has shown himself to be a formidable performer over the years.
    Our second blessing is the participation of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). I am not surprised that the Secretary of State was so reluctant to take his interventions, because he won the award of "Back Bencher to Watch". I have been watching him for a long time, and I like what I see. He is not afraid to tell the truth and to threaten the Government.[Interruption.] Before Labour Members get too excited, I should point out that they were part of the conspiracy to close my hon. Friend down in this important debate. They knew that he would put the Secretary of State on the spot, so they had to give him some cover and protection.
    Our third blessing is that we are honoured with the presence of the Secretary of State, on his most recent visit from cyberspace. He delivered a virtual speech. I wondered whether the parade of platitudes would ever end, and whether he would mention British industry. We had to drag it out of him by interventions and questions. He even seemed tired of his own monotonous tone of voice. It was a dreadful performance from the Secretary of State, and it will not go unnoticed in the industrial heartlands of this country.
    The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): It says here.
    Mr. Redwood: The Minister of State believes that my remarks are scripted. How could they possibly be scripted when I am responding to the debate from notes I made during the Secretary of State's speech, so that I do him no conceivable injustice? When I have finished with this sheet, the Minister is welcome to inspect it to see that I came, I listened and I discovered that the speech was sadly lacking in any substance, any hope for British industry or any sign that the Secretary of State understands why British manufacturers are struggling.
    The shadow Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), said in a debate the other day that what we see of the Government's attitude to manufacturing industry is
    "four soundbites and a funeral."—[Official Report, 10 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 197.]
    Once again, the Secretary of State came to the House to perform the last rites. So worried is he about the state of manufacturing industry, that he can get through an entire script—although not all the interventions—without mentioning British manufacturing or British industry.

    223
    There was no mention of the textile workers on a lobby, and no mention of the plight of British steel.[Interruption.] I just said that there were interventions on these matters, but there was no mention in the Secretary of State's text of the textile and steel industries, and his only reference to the motor car industry was an attempted joke at the expense of the previous Government.
    The Secretary of State does not care about basic manufacturing industry, about closures or about the damage that his policies are doing. He said that the Opposition have no policies to modernise Britain. That is grossly unfair. In the area over which the Secretary of State and I spar, the Opposition are coming up with imaginative ideas that could make a difference and improve life. Why is the Secretary of State still unable to say whether he will introduce competition into the water industry? We have set out a way of doing that. That important monopoly industry needs the competitive challenge. If he is so keen on competition, why will he not answer our question, and why will he not back our plan?
    When will the right hon. Gentleman respond to our plans for the Post Office? Why must we wait for month after month, with our Post Office unable to compete properly because its hands are tied behind its back by the Secretary of State's lack of a policy? When will his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions produce policies aimed at raising significant private finance for the tube system, which desperately needs new investment and has been starved of cash by this miserable Government?
    Yvette Cooper: While the right hon. Gentleman is talking about policy, perhaps he can clear up a key policy issue that greatly concerns British industry.
    Yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman shook his head vigorously when the Prime Minister suggested that his party wanted to reverse Bank of England independence. Perhaps he will clear up that point of principle now. Does he support the deputy leader of his party, who said that interest rate decisions should be made by the Chancellor and not by the Bank of England?
    Mr. Redwood: I shook my head at the Prime Minister's pathetic performance in response to the formidable performance of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—although their respective performances did not surprise me.
    I have been very clear about my position, the position of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the position of all members of the shadow Cabinet in regard to the Bank of England. We opposed granting it independence. We said that that would be very damaging, and we were right: so far, it has proved very damaging to British business. In 2001 or thereabouts, when we have a general election, we will tell the hon. Lady and her colleagues what is the right policy for 2002. She can read nothing into that answer, except that the Opposition have been right so far. They have opposed the independence of the Bank of England vigorously, because so far it has been wrong. But of course we shall look carefully at the situation in 2001, when there will be so many things to put right that we shall have to choose which to put right first.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Perhaps I can raise another sensitive little subject. If the euro were
    224
    to succeed, and if the European countries benefited generally from its introduction, would the Conservative party go into the next general election on the basis of wholesale opposition and refusal to join the currency?
    Mr. Redwood: There is no way in which a case for the success of the euro can be proved by the time of the next election. The euro notes and coin will not even be in circulation by that time. We are saying that we should not rush in. We should see the euro through at least a complete economic cycle. We must see the whole scheme up and running—and that means the notes and coin as well as the bank accounts and the invoicing, which will go ahead on a random basis from the beginning of January next year, depending on the choice of agents and companies on the continent.
    The hon. Gentleman is right in supposing that the Conservative party will go proudly into the next election saying no to the euro for the following Parliament, because it would be too risky for the United Kingdom—for her businesses and her democracy—to join the scheme on such a time scale. I only wish that the Labour party had the courage to put the matter to the British people now. We would love to fight the referendum now: the Conservatives would achieve a spectacular result, and British business could then be relieved of its uncertainty. The Government should understand that that uncertainty is caused by their ridiculous policy. They say that they wish to join the European currency—
    Mr. Bercow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Mandelson: Give way.
    Mr. Redwood: The Secretary of State will know that, unlike him, I am going to give way at any minute, but I am making an important point. The Government should know that the uncertainty is of their making. Business does not know whether to spend £10 billion or £15 billion on preparing for the euro as our currency—because the Government say that in principle they want it—or whether to take our advice, and decide that the Government will not win the election or the referendum and that it is therefore better to save the money. That is the uncertainty that the Government are creating for business.
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his characteristically generous remarks a few moments ago.
    Does my right hon. Friend not think it extraordinary that, for all his ostensible enthusiasm for the United States economy, the Secretary of State, when challenged before the Trade and Industry Select Committee on 4 November about the merits of sunset regulation in the United States—whereby regulations lapse automatically after a period if they are not considered useful—said that he did not know what that meant?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order.
    Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, even at this late stage, he can educate the Secretary of State?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When I get to my feet, the hon. Gentleman must sit down.
    Mr. Bercow: I have finished.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I know that the hon. Gentleman has finished, because I have finished him. His interventions are far too long.
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham made a very powerful point. It is amazing

    225
    that a Secretary of State who speaks the language of deregulation has no idea what a sunset regulation might be. It shows that he is not thinking the language of deregulation into action. The first thing that one learns when deregulating is to ensure that no regulation can last too long, and that a positive act must renew it if it can be demonstrated that it continues to be required.
    The Secretary of State spent most of his speech on the subject of electronic commerce. He dared to say that the Opposition do not understand the importance of it, and implied that we do not wish the industry well. He should know that I come from the Thames valley, which is at the forefront of electronic commerce. I am extremely proud of my constituents' achievements in companies there. I can tell the Secretary of State this for nothing: they know a great deal more about electronic commerce than he ever will. They are already running very dramatic, profitable and successful businesses using electronic commerce, and the last thing they want from him is messy, meddlesome regulation which could make their task more difficult. He would be well advised to be careful before his regulation intrudes into a very successful and growing part of the British economy.
    Mr. Mandelson: Will the right hon. Gentleman clear up something for me? He talks about messy, meddling intervention. Why, therefore, was it the Conservative party's policy when in office to introduce legislation on mandatory licensing?
    Mr. Redwood: The form of that licensing did not result in preventing people from doing things that they wished to do, or restricting their action. It was put out to consultation. The issue before us is whether it is a good idea for the Secretary of State to press on with legislation which many in the industry think is half-baked, not thought through and potentially damaging.
    Mr. Mandelson rose—
    Mr. Redwood: I will give way when I have finished my point. The Secretary of State should know that the advice that I have taken so far from the industry is that the Bill is in search of a policy—as always with this DTI—and that the ideas so far are different from those of the previous Conservative Administration and would be damaging.
    Mr. Mandelson: The proposed electronic commerce Bill will introduce a voluntary licensing regime for bodies providing electronic signature and confidentiality services. What is the Opposition's policy? Is it to stick with the unpopular policy that they had in government, or to support ours? Which is it?
    Mr. Redwood: Our policy now is to be very careful about any legislation in this area and to be very critical of proposals that we think will emerge in the Bill. The Secretary of State is not in a position today to tell the House how he intends to regulate inscription and signature. I am very suspicious of him finding a way of doing so with any success. Assuming that he will not, I assure him that we shall oppose the legislation. Does he wish to intervene to clarify what he will do?
    Mr. Mandelson: I just do not understand this. Where and when did this conversion take place, and for
    226
    what reason? The previous Government proposed a policy of statutorily backed mandatory licensing. Why has the right hon. Gentleman changed his view?
    Mr. Redwood: I do not seem to remember supporting that proposition at the time—[Interruption.] We have consulted widely on these matters. Trying to legislate successfully in the area would be hazardous. We shall be very critical of any Government proposal which we think could be damaging. I am quite sure that those who worked on the proposals under the previous Government would be very happy to explain what they had in mind, and will be free to table amendments in Committee to try to make the Bill more to our joint liking. According to my industry sources, the Government's proposals are a long way from the previous Government's original ideas and would be very damaging—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.
    Mr. Redwood rose—
    Fiona Mactaggart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Redwood indicated assent.
    Fiona Mactaggart: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that businesses in the Thames valley might think from what he is saying that he is putting a higher priority on a petty attempt to put down the Secretary of State than on their future profitability? When I talk to them, I certainly expect that to be their interpretation of his remarks.
    Mr. Redwood: I do not think that the hon. Lady understands the matter, either. I have consulted on the issue with businesses in and just outside my constituency, and have promised to represent their views. On both encryption and signature, they are very worried that even a permissive, voluntary system could damage their commercial interests.[Interruption.] The Secretary of State is not interested in the issue. He is making that quite clear by his juvenile sedentary interventions.
    I assure the Secretary of State that the Opposition are very concerned that we must have the best possible climate in all senses—tax, regulation and general economic performance—for the success of the electronic commerce industry.
    I assure the Secretary of State also that I am well aware that we are one of the world leaders in the industry. There are some things that we can learn from the United States, and some things that it can learn from us. There is work to be done on that. However, I am not yet satisfied that the measures that he will propose will help the cause of electronic commerce in Britain. He must allow me to reserve my scepticism until he can make a better case and tell us what he intends to do on the issues, with specific answers to specific questions.
    Mr. Chidgey: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the point, will he tell us whether, in the previous

    227
    Government, on third-party confidentiality of encryption, he was ever a supporter of the concept that GCHQ should be the third party?
    Mr. Redwood: I never expressed a view on that matter, which is very ancient history. It would be much better if the House concentrated on debating the present and the future rather than what might or might not have been said or done some years ago under the previous Government.
    The Queen's Speech fails to deal with the pressing problems of British industry and commerce. It proposes taking power away from people and giving it to politicians. It puts Labour politicians first and people last. The public are not clamouring for reform of the House of Lords but demanding more jobs, and better schools and hospitals.
    The Queen's Speech does absolutely nothing to stop the collapse in manufacturing industry that we are witnessing daily. There is nothing in it to prevent a single factory closure. Worst of all, under this Secretary of State, it threatens to undo much of the good that was done to United Kingdom industrial relations in the 1980s and 1990s.
    We fear that the Queen's Speech will take us back to the bad old days, back to the bad old ways. I pay tribute to both Conservative Prime Ministers in the previous Government, one of whom is in the Chamber, for their success in changing the industrial relations climate and industrial relations law.[Interruption.] Yes, I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) on his recent honour, which is a fitting tribute to, among other things, the contribution that the Conservative Government made to industrial peace and harmony—something which Labour could never achieve in its days in office in the 1970s.
    Labour's Euro-election system is designed to take the power to choose a candidate from people and to give it to politicians. Labour's trade union changes are designed to take the power of choice from individual workers and to give it to trade union leaders. Labour's grammar school proposals are designed to take the power of choice from parents and pupils attending those schools—a power from which, in various capacities, many of us have benefited over the years. Labour's transport policy allows Ministers to circulate in ministerial cars in style, leaving the rest of us to hire taxis and to gridlock.
    The Opposition offers a better vision of the future than the miserable vision on offer in the Queen's Speech. Our vision goes with the grain of human nature. It is one that trusts people to make more of their own choices, and strengthens rather than undermines people's democratic rights.
    People are being let down by the Government's merciless assault on manufacturing. High interest rates, high sterling, high taxes and greater regulation are all making their impact felt. Day after day, we see job loss after job loss. Day after day, we see factory closure after factory closure—usually in the constituencies of Labour members.
    Mr. Geraint Davies: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned high exchange rates. How would he control them? Does he agree with Oskar Lafontaine, the German
    228
    Finance Minister, that there should be currency target zones? If not, how would he control exchange rates? Would he set the Monetary Policy Committee two targets, one for prices and one for exchange rates? If so, how would he overcome the conflicts inherent in those targets?
    Mr. Redwood: When there was a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer prepared to take responsibility for these matters, he took the exchange rate into account when forming interest rate judgments—and did a rather better job for manufacturing in the mid-1990s before we lost office than the Labour Government are able to do through their independent central bank. I know which of those business would rather have at the moment. My advice to the Monetary Policy Committee and the Chancellor is to take into account the impact that the current mix of high taxes, high exchange rate and high interest rates is having on manufacturing, because it is clearly doing an enormous amount of damage.
    During the past seven days, 1,000 jobs have gone at BTR Siebe and 268 at William Baird, and 1,600 are going at British Steel. What do the Government say in the Queen's Speech is the answer—that we should abolish hereditary peers in the House of Lords just in case they might be a voice for manufacturing.[Interruption.] Labour Members obviously do not like any disagreement with Government policy and the pager message. That is why they want to get rid of independent voices in the House of Lords. But they still cannot tell us what they will replace them with, because they do not want any independent voices in the House of Lords. When the other place has finished standing up for our right to choose a candidate in an election, I hope that it will stand up for the right of manufacturers to have a decent deal from this Government.
    Mr. Christopher Leslie: In the interests of industry at large, does the right hon. Gentleman believe that we should retain hereditary peers in the House of Lords?
    Mr. Redwood: The Opposition have made it clear that the Government should not get rid of one part of the House of Lords until they have something better to put in its place. We would be happy to listen to what the Government have to say about a better solution. If they came up with one, I dare say we would welcome it. In the meantime, we are holding our own inquiry into the matter, which will run in parallel with the royal commission. It is nonsense to get rid of a chunk of the House of Lords before the royal commission has reported on how that can best be organised.
    Since we last debated the crisis in manufacturing a few weeks ago, 600 jobs have gone at Ionica, 225 at Desmond and Sons, 100 at Sally Ferries, 300 at British Gas, 90 at ICI, 80 at Coopers Tools and 70 at Umbro—I could go on with a much longer list. A job goes every 10 minutes, but still the Secretary of State will do nothing. He will not even debate the issue in the House when we give him the opportunity to do so.
    Yvette Cooper: If the right hon. Gentleman cares so much about job losses and unemployment, why does he want to abolish the new deal?
    Mr. Redwood: Because it is not working. The Conservative Government got far more young people into

    229
    work and back to work under a sensible economic policy and without a new deal, at much less cost to the public purse, than the Government are doing at some cost to the public purse. The hon. Lady claims to know about Treasury affairs. Perhaps, unlike the Secretary of State, she has read the minutes of the MPC meetings over recent months. If she has, she will have noted that it was fears about the minimum wage and the increase in public spending that led to interest rates staying higher for longer than manufacturing could afford. She should be urging lower public spending, which is what our view on the new deal would achieve.
    Yvette Cooper: While the right hon. Gentleman is on the subject of interest rates, is he aware that, if they rose to the 15 per cent. level that they were under his Government, that would cost British business an extra £28 billion? Is that the sort of interest rate setting policy to which he wants us to return?
    Mr. Redwood: The Opposition do not want interest rates at that level. If the hon. Lady had been listening, she would know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and others have been urging lower rates, not higher. She may wish to reflect on the fact that, when interest rates were that high, Britain was in the exchange rate mechanism—a policy which those on her Front Bench supported to the rafters. It was the only economic policy we followed that the Labour party supported, and it supported it fully. It has never apologised, to this day, for the mistake it made in that particular case.[Laughter.] I do not know why Labour Members are laughing. They well know that not all Conservatives wanted the problems that occurred in the early 1990s, and they well know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has made a suitable apology, as I have often reminded the House.
    What do the Government do about all the job losses? They make the problem worse by making it more expensive to make goods in Britain—£2,300 million extra each year for the working time regulations; £2,900 million a year extra for the minimum wage; and now trade union laws that will make it more difficult and costly to make goods in Britain.
    Before Labour Members think that they have a clever point to make about my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, let me put a point to the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend cared deeply about jobs in Britain, and one of things he did in Europe was to make sure that we had the right not to go into damaging social chapter measures, which are now coming in, thick and fast, under the Labour Government. I applaud what my right hon. Friend did, because he did it in the best interests of Britain. It worked: a lot of investors came here in the mid-1990s, thanking him for keeping us out of those damaging regulations. Now, we are being dragged in.
    Why did the Secretary of State not keep us out of the social chapter, and instead judge each measure on its merits? He told us today that conditions vary around the European Union and that some countries need different labour measures from others. I agree. Why did he not keep the power, which my right hon. Friend protected, to choose separate labour measures for this country?
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how he can
    230
    reconcile his opposition to giving employment rights to part-time workers, who are mostly women, with his party's apparent support for the family?
    Mr. Redwood: We think that the best support one can give the family is to have a labour market that works—one that makes it more likely that one or both of the parents can get a job if that is their choice or their need. We are extremely worried about the accumulation of too many burdens which, far from helping the people who most need help—those who have the fewest skills, or those who have been out of work for a long time—will make it more difficult for them to get the jobs that they need. That is not a family-friendly policy, but economic illiteracy of the first order.
    Dr. Starkey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Redwood: The hon. Lady's point did not succeed the first time, and I doubt that it will fare better the second time.
    With all those regulations coming in, it is no wonder that so many companies are giving up and taking their business elsewhere. The Secretary of State should take note of the warnings from Marks and Spencer. After decades of buying British and backing British manufacturers, the company has concluded that it must buy a lot more abroad in order to stay in the marketplace. That has happened under the Labour Government—Marks and Spencer did not do it under the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon. It is a direct threat to the jobs of the textile workers who came to lobby the House today. What is the Secretary of State going to do about it? Does he not see that it is because he has made it too dear to make things in Britain that Marks and Spencer has come to that sad judgment?
    If the Secretary of State wants further evidence, this morning we read in an excellent article in The Daily Telegraph that Rolls-Royce Engines will move its production to the United States of America if the Government inflict any more costly burdens on employment from Brussels. That is a stark warning from a senior industrialist who is not a Euro-sceptic fanatic of the sort the Secretary of State likes to deride, but a serious business man who runs a big, competitive and successful international enterprise and who is now issuing a warning to the Secretary of State, to the Government and to the whole European Union that they are getting it wrong and that they are going to destroy jobs.
    Mr. Mandelson: It would be as well to state for the record what Sir Ralph said. He said:
    "The last thing we want is the on-costs associated with the social costs of Europe, but I don't see any sign of its happening and the current government is not going down that path."
    Mr. Redwood: The Government are going down that path. They are in no position to resist it, because the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and their right

    231
    hon. Friends have given away the UK's power to make our own decisions—[Interruption.] There is nothing they can do, so the threat is real—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) must be quiet in the Chamber.
    Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What protection does the gentleman from Rolls-Royce have against a direct misquote from an Opposition spokesman? How can he answer that?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that it was a misquote. There has been a contribution, which was rebutted by the Secretary of State in an intervention. That is what debate is all about—people put an argument and others rebut it. It is not expected that hon. Members should, while seated, throw arguments across the Chamber.
    Mr. Redwood: I am grateful for your wise judgment, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I find it odd that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) had to raise that as a point of order, when I have given way to all those who want me to give way and would be happy to debate that point with him.
    Mr. Tim Collins rose—
    Mr. Redwood: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in just a moment.
    The position is clear. The story is for all to see in The Daily Telegraph today. The Secretary of State has offered a further quotation, but the fact remains that the Government cannot resist the very threat that the gentleman in question mentioned, because they have thrown away our power of independent government in that respect.
    Mr. Collins: On the subject of Rolls-Royce, would my right hon. Friend care to respond to the fact that Rolls-Royce briefed me and a number of other hon. Gentlemen about its grave concern that the Secretary of State is contemplating eliminating CARAD—the civil aviation research and demonstration scheme—the research programme on which aerospace, Britain's most important manufacturing industry, depends?
    Mr. Redwood: The House is grateful to my hon. Friend for that worrying intelligence. I hope that the Minister who replies to the debate will answer that question, as it greatly concerns one of Britain's most successful industries. Even the Secretary of State would agree that it has done a pretty good job over recent years, although he is a hard taskmaster when it comes to awarding any plaudits to managers or employees in British industry.
    What will it take to make the Government listen? Many of the most important people in the debate agree that, if
    232
    we want more jobs, we must make it cheaper, not dearer, to employ people. One important figure in the debate said:
    "Lowering labour costs forms one of the main methods of making entrepreneurial activity attractive again … I favour lowering labour costs, particularly for lower skilled people at the bottom end of the scale."
    Labour Members are quiet because they are hoping that I was quoting Baroness Thatcher or my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, but I have to disappoint them. It was Gerhard Schröder, Germany's new Chancellor. He went on to say:
    "Similar methods are needed to adapt working time … In fifteen years' time only half of those employed in the German economy will benefit from a secure, full time job".
    Gerhard Schröder predicts that, the more protection there is for the favoured ones in big companies, the less protection and the less success there will be for everyone else. That is exactly our worry about the current trend of Government policy and European policy generally. In other words, Gerhard Schröder is saying that, at exactly the same time as Britain is making it dearer to employ people and imposing more regulations making it less flexible, Germany knows that she needs to go in entirely the opposite direction.
    I have another interesting quote from a little nearer home. A self-appointed luminary here in the United Kingdom tells us:
    "Jobs for life are gone, nine to five working is no longer the norm. No amount of social regulation can protect jobs in an economy that becomes uncompetitive."
    Labour Back Benchers had better steel themselves for two pieces of bad news about that quote. First, I have some sympathy with it, and secondly, of course, it comes from the pen of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. If he believes that Britain has to be more competitive, why is he doing so much to undermine our competitiveness?
    If the Secretary of State agrees with Gerhard Schröder about needing to make it cheaper and easier to employ people, why has Labour decided to make it so much dearer? If he is telling us the truth when he says:
    "We do not want to second guess markets or substitute for management decisions"—
    another snappy quote from the right hon. Gentleman—why is he busily doing just that with minimum wages, new trade union proposals and many more regulations? Does he realise that people on low wages will soon realise that they have been cheated as well? The idea of the minimum wage is not to boost their living standards, which would be a noble idea, but to cut their benefit top-ups, as is clear from the way in which the measure was introduced.
    Has the Secretary of State seen last month's massive trade deficit in manufactured goods reported in today's announcement? Labour has at last broken new economic records, having achieved the largest ever single month's trade deficit in goods—it is a monumental example of their monumental incompetence. If we make it too dear to make things in Britain, naturally we will all sell less abroad and buy more from overseas. It is a sure sign that Labour is not working and that Labour is bad for business.
    The Opposition say that we should give manufacturing a break, free it from regulations and reduce the taxes. It is no good saying that it should be easier and cheaper to make things in Britain, but do nothing about it;

    233
    the Government should do a U-turn before it is too late to save manufacturing jobs and factories and free business to compete and succeed.
    The Secretary of State is, of course, in a perpetual spin. First he tells us that Brazil is such an important market that he must go there twice in the same year. Then he decides that he must cancel the trip. After months of telling us that the visit was crucial, he now tells us that it was an unnecessary hangover from his predecessor's regime. If that is so, why did he not cancel it when he first took up his job? That would have minimised the embarrassment to Britain. How much business is at risk from the cancellation of the trip?
    Mr. Mandelson: May I explain? It was arranged only last Wednesday that Trade and Industry questions would take place slap bang in the middle of the visit. Of course I had to cancel; if I had not, I would not have been here to answer the right hon. Gentleman's questions.
    Mr. Redwood: I find it touching that the right hon. Gentleman takes his duties to the House so seriously. However, it is in the Government's power to choose the schedule for questions; I would have been amenable to any proposal to move questions to another day to accommodate the Secretary of State's important trade trip to Brazil. We need to know what meetings he had to cancel and what business is at risk, as we had been told that the trip represented a very necessary expenditure of public money.
    Such rudeness to an overseas country is perhaps not surprising given the Government's appalling record in promoting British exports—they have thrown away millions of pounds of orders from Chile by their cack-handed handling of the Pinochet case. Like the Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman is a walking disaster when it comes to diplomacy in Britain's commercial interest. On his most recent visit to Brazil, he sparked an unfortunate political row when he criticised the Workers party.
    The right hon. Gentleman has, of course, insulted many others, including the horny-handed sons of toil, as he calls them, in his constituency. He has also condemned most of his Cabinet colleagues as cowards. Looking at today's press, I think that the charge of cowardice would be more fairly levelled at him than at many of those with whom he tries to work.
    The Guardian today reports that it has been told by sources close to the right hon. Gentleman that the Confederation of British Industry has been rebuffed over the fairness at work Bill. We are told authoritatively that the Bill will represent a decisive shift of direction in favour of the trade unions. Meanwhile, The Times is told equally authoritatively that the Secretary of State
    "has angered unions by considering employers' demands to water down elements of the White Paper".
    The master of spin is caught red-handed—or is it blue-handed? A newspaper that inclines to the unions is told that he is the friend of the full trade union monty, whereas a newspaper with unhappy memories of trade union activity is told that he is a friend of business, valiantly trying to stifle the baser instincts of his predecessor and some of his colleagues.
    Is not the House owed some straight talking? I remember the Secretary of State's promise: "No more spin, honest." Is he backing the unions or the CBI? In a
    234
    debate with me on television today, the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Makerfield, was unable to answer, as he still had not had his instructions from the Secretary of State. A Bill is to be introduced, but we still do not know who has won and what the decision will be on crucial issues.
    Will there be automatic trade union recognition if 50 per cent. or more of the work force in a firm or place of employment are already members of the union? If so, that will be, as I assumed, a victory for the trade unions. Will he raise or abolish the ceiling on unfair dismissal compensation? He seems to say yes—at last, after all the spinning, an honest nod from the Secretary of State, saying that the unions have won after all. What a surprise.
    The Secretary of State must be dizzy from so much spinning, but eventually the spinning must stop. He must decide not only those issues, but how the minimum wage legislation will work and how the competition mess—a Bill in search of a policy—will be sorted out. He must also sort out the Post Office, energy policy and all the other things heaped on his desk that he seems unable to determine.
    The right hon. Gentleman prides himself on being a man of great influence on the press. For the most part, he has little need to worry about unfriendly stories. He can call proprietors and editors—with a few brave exceptions—and have a journalist dealt with if a story is not to his liking.
    The Secretary of State should remember that the issue before the British people at the next election will not be who has been the best spin master, but what is the reality. They will know the reality—whether we have more strikes or fewer and more manufacturing jobs or fewer, and whether people are investing here in new factories or closing factories down. They will have rumbled the Secretary of State, however good the spin. Today, the spin has gone horribly wrong, because he has been caught, through his agents, saying different things to different audiences about the same subject.[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) wish to intervene? Obviously not. He thought better of it, because he realises that the Secretary of State cannot be defended.
    The Secretary of State should remember Wapping. He should remember the damage that union action did to the newspaper industry. He should remember the terrible scenes of unions set against management. He should remember worker set against worker, and the picket lines and strife that characterised the bad old days of the 1970s and early 1980s before the Conservative Government reformed industrial relations. We do not want to see that again, and we fear that disrupting the settlement that we left the Government could bring back those dreadful old ways.
    Now, the Secretary of State has decided to gum up the works in the exciting world of the internet and electronic communications. Perhaps he is so worried that the new media will not be on clean feed from Millbank tower that he wants to legislate to make sure that he can crack all their codes. Clearly, he wants to know what is going on in this new world. As I have explained, we have strong reservations about giving the Secretary of State this power, and about the wisdom of trying to freeze the technology while it is developing so rapidly. We are worried that the Secretary of State's wish to legislate on signatures and authority is a back-door way for the Government to damage our freedom.

    235
    I wonder whether the Secretary of State is in the mood to answer one more question. Has he decided that he has to ditch Labour's pre-election policy on this very issue? Before the election, Labour said:
    "Attempts to control the use of encryption technology are worrying in principle, unworkable in practice and damaging to the long term economic value of the information networks."
    Labour went on to say, in an unusually vivid phrase, that there was
    "no fundamental difference between an encrypted file and a locked safe."
    Exactly, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Would Houdini like to get out of that one? Is that not a dramatic change of policy? Is not the truth that the Secretary of Stare is so ashamed of what is going on in manufacturing that he wishes to claim the credit for internet and cyberspace technology, and has decided that the only way to do that is to put through a Bill? Now, having decided that he must try to invent something to go in the Bill, he has latched on to what Governments always latch on to in these circumstances—the wish to regulate, control and interfere in people's private business.
    The Secretary of State is in grave danger of running up against all those who believe in freedom and liberty in our country—people who are very worried about this dramatic 180 deg U-turn on this crucial policy by the Labour Administration.
    The new Government in Germany are waking up to the problems of their social models at exactly the same time as the British Government are bringing in the old German model to this country. The new Chancellor of Germany has stated:
    "More than 4 million people out of work and their families are paying the price of insufficient economic flexibility."
    Meanwhile, the British Government claim that Europe is coming our way.
    The Government say that there will not be more or higher taxes, but that there will be more flexible labour markets. They say that getting people back to work across Europe is the new number one priority. Yet everything we see from their deliberations in Europe is pointing in the other direction. According to Mr. Santer—who should know—the Government have signed up to more and higher taxes from Brussels.
    As recently as 1997, the Government signed up to a document which said:
    "tax measures which provide for a significantly lower effective level of taxation, including zero taxation, than those levels which generally apply in the Member State in question are to be regarded as potentially harmful and therefore covered by this code … Member States commit themselves to re-examining their existing laws and established practices, having regard to the principle underlying the code … Member States will amend such laws and practices as necessary".
    I agree that that is not as clearly drafted as we might like, but it means in effect that the Government have signed up to higher taxation in the name of banning so-called unfair taxation. There it is, lock on the door, in a Commission document, clearly understood by Mr. Santer, who has translated it into better English than the original document.
    236
    The new European document, to which the Europeans signed up only last month, goes even further. It says:
    "We welcome the political agreement reached among Member States on the fiscal packages as a first step in the right direction. EMU will intensify the potential for tax competition. Therefore, further efforts have to be undertaken to avoid harmful tax competition among the Member States."
    That is crystal clear: unfair tax competition is having lower taxes than one's neighbours. Britain had lower taxes, thanks to the two previous Prime Ministers. As a result, we have considerably lower unemployment than on the continent, which is another welcome divergence engineered by Conservative Ministers.
    Labour wants to destroy both competitive advantages at a stroke, with a policy that drives up manufacturing unemployment and takes away some of our business tax advantages. The Government say maybe to another savings tax from Europe and to more VAT.[Laughter.]
    Government Back Benchers find this so uncomfortable that they are behaving in a silly way. They well know that the Government have blown it on common taxation and they do not know how to defend the position, so they will not intervene or contribute to the debate, but merely try to disrupt it in a rather juvenile way.
    The Government say maybe to more VAT. Indeed, the directive proposed in June says:
    "the objective of this Directive, which is that of the effective taxation of savings income within the Community, cannot be sufficiently realised by the Member States and can therefore be better achieved by the Community."
    The proposal is to negotiate on that directive to create a uniform and high savings tax throughout Europe, which will damage savers and especially the City of London.
    The Government say that they are out to modernise this country. They should have said that they are out to demolish it. They claimed that they would keep Scotland in the Union, but devolution is threatening that Union. They said that devolution would crush Scottish nationalism overnight, but it has given it a great new strength. They claimed that they wanted a strong Parliament, but they are out to abolish the second Chamber in all but name, because it dared to disagree, and they like to stifle debate in this Chamber whenever possible.
    The Government told the Liberals that they would be important if they went on to Labour pagers, but Labour Back Benchers could have told them that it does not quite work like that. They claimed that they would transfer power to people, but they are taking it away from them. They said that they would stand up for Britain in Europe, but they have sold us out in Europe on taxation and labour market regulation. They said that they would encourage manufacturing, but they are closing it down. They said that they believed in freedom of information, but in practice they believe in secrecy.
    I see that the Secretary of State does not believe that he should listen to these important charges against the Government. He knows that they have broken yet another crucial promise on freedom of information.
    Far from modernising our democracy, the Government are undermining it, boosting Scottish nationalism and fuelling a false English patriotism. They are trying to do to Parliament what Guy Fawkes was prevented from doing. Their constitutional gunpowder is exploding dangerously. They are doing untold damage. Conservative

    237
    Members will fight for the industry that we want to protect, for the democracy that we love and for the country that we serve.
    5.14 pm
    Ms Harriet Harman rose—
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting my right hon. Friend. In view of Madam Speaker's specific request this afternoon, I have cancelled my arrangements and I will wind up the debate. I thought that it was courteous to let the House know that.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Harriet Harman.
    Ms Harman: During the speech of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), my hon. Friends began to form a lobby to beg my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to bring in the working time directive and extend it straight away to the right hon. Gentleman's speeches.
    Having returned to the Back Benches after 14 years on the Front Benches, I should like to return to an issue that I raised when I was first a Back Bencher and have pursued and been committed to ever since—family-friendly employment, which, I am delighted to say, the Government have included in their legislative plans. I firmly believe that that is one of the most important and modernising parts of the Government's legislative programme.
    Under "Fairness at Work", parents will, for the first time, have the legal right to take time off work when their children need them. The right to family leave is of immense practical and symbolic importance to millions of parents and their children. It is vital for the growing number of women who juggle their responsibilities at work with their responsibilities towards their children. It is also an important signal that the Government recognise that a growing number of fathers want to be there when their child is born and to play a greater part in caring for their children, as well as working to provide for them. Above all, it is important for children, because it recognises that they need their parents' time, as well as seemingly vast quantities of their money.
    There are times when a child needs his or her parent, and when only a parent will do. The world of work has changed, and so have families. The legislation recognises that. Britain's competitiveness, about which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke so passionately, depends on its work force, half of whom are now women.
    Women work because they want to. They now have educational qualifications that are equal to men's. They have a contribution to make to the world of work, and they have the custody of half of what my right hon. Friend described as this country's knowledge capital.
    Women work because they need to. Nearly half the children in this country depend on the woman's earnings as well as the man's, and nearly half the mothers with children under five are now working.
    Women also work because we need them to. There is not an industry or a service in any sector of the economy that would survive without women's work. Many women
    238
    work to set an example to their children that life is about work and not merely about depending on benefits. That is especially important for the 2 million children who are being brought up by a lone mother.
    Women's work is not optional: it is an integral part of our modern economy. Women are here to stay as part of our work force. As well as being indispensable to the modern world of work, they remain indispensable to their children. It is still mothers who shoulder most of the responsibility for children and nearly all the responsibility for domestic tasks, although fathers are getting more involved in the care of their children, which is a welcome trend that is set to continue.
    The Government will continue to modernise public policy to catch up with the changing world at work and the changing life of families. The Government are introducing a national child care strategy to ensure high-quality affordable child care for all who want it, helping children to flourish and ensuring that their parents can work without worry. The Government established the new deal for lone parents, recognising for the first time that jobcentres should help mothers who want to work even if they are not registered as unemployed.
    The Government are introducing the minimum wage and the working families tax credit so that fathers do not have to work all hours to make ends meet and thereby discover that they are exiled from the lives of their own children and their home.
    The legal right to family leave takes another step forward. It joins together many different parts of the Government's modernising agenda. It is a substantial and practical part of our determination to be a family friendly Government and to put families and parenting at the heart of our policy. It is an important part, too, of our welfare-to-work policy, especially for women. It is part of our rights and responsibilities agenda for fathers.
    Mr. Willis: The right hon. Lady is making a passionate case for family-friendly legislation. Does she agree that one of the great omissions from the Queen's Speech is a Bill to reform the Child Support Agency, a great abomination which still exists and which undermines family values?
    Ms Harman: I made a statement in the House earlier this year saying that we will introduce reforms of the Child Support Agency, but it is important to consult and get it right. That is why it is right to have a pre-legislative stage and to consult, especially with the Select Committee, to ensure that we get right the difficult but important area of fathers' continuing responsibilities to provide financially for their children even though they no longer live with them. We need a fair balance among fathers, their new families, lone mothers, the children and the taxpayer. I urge the hon. Gentleman not to worry on that score, because the Government will take that agenda forward.
    Family leave is part of the new agenda of flexibility in the labour market, with changing working patterns demanded by both employers and employees. It is also an important and practical way to help carers. I wish to make four suggestions to the Government about family leave: they should consult business; they should monitor the implementation of family leave; they should pay for some of it; and they should include carers.

    239
    First, when it comes to consultation, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will discover that many businesses are light years ahead of the Government and public policy on the issue of family leave. I urge him to learn, as I am sure he will, from their experience, to listen to their advice and to build on their good practice. Organisations such as Opportunity 2000 and many individual employers will offer help and advice.
    I suggest, too, that my right hon. Friend listens to those who have cared about this issue and campaigned on it for many years, including organisations such as the Maternity Alliance, New Ways to Work and the Women's TUC. They know the subject inside out and will advise and support the Government. However, I urge my right hon. Friend not to take any notice of employers who fail to recognise that the world has changed. They want to employ women, and their businesses depend on women, but they refuse to recognise that their work force has changed and their work patterns must also change.
    Secondly, I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider carefully the experience of the United States of America in introducing family leave. In 1993, the first piece of legislation that President Clinton signed on taking office was the Family and Medical Leave Act. Before its introduction, it was controversial, and business had grave concerns that it might affect competitiveness. Instead of legislating and leaving everyone to get on with it, the American Government set up a family and medical leave commission to monitor how the new law was working, to give out information to spread good practice, and to report back to Congress two years later. In 1996, the commission reported to Congress that the Act had had no harmful effects on competitiveness but had had a beneficial effect on families.
    Thirdly, I ask the Government to consider paying for family leave, at least for low-income families. If we do not pay for family leave for lone mothers, the danger is that they will leave their jobs and go back on to income support when their families need them. The importance of the new deal for lone parents is to help mothers off benefit and into work, but we need to help them stay there and to discharge their responsibilities to their children. If we do not pay for family leave for low-income families, they might feel that they cannot afford to take it—but low-income families need fathers' and mothers' time just like other families. Alternatively, parents may take family leave but face reduced income when the children are young and need that income most.
    Welfare to work, the minimum wage and the working families tax credit are all policies designed to improve the income of working families with young children. Sir Donald Acheson's report on public health, which will be published tomorrow, will identify the need to ensure the highest possible income for families with young children. I suggest that we pay for family leave, or at least some of it, as a tax credit for families on low incomes who are already eligible for the working families tax credit.
    Mr. Terry Rooney: My right hon. Friend knows of my deep personal interest in this subject. Does she agree that it would be consistent with the child
    240
    care allowance in the working families tax credit to make a payment to those who want to stay in work, as well as those entering work?
    Ms Harman: A tax credit for family leave would sit well with the working families tax credit and the child care tax credit. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) for his long-standing campaign on the issue, which arose—I hope he will not mind my telling the House—from the fact that his father asked for time off work when his wife was having a child. He was not allowed time off, but took it anyway to care for his children: he was then sacked and was unemployed for two years. The law remains the same to this day, and that is why it is right to change it in legislation that will be introduced under the Queen's speech.
    Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I am listening carefully to the right hon. Lady's speech. Before she leaves the impression that all employers are ogres and all employees are wonderful people, may I pray in aid a great supporter of the Labour party, Carmen Calill? She was a rampaging feminist in her younger years and became the editor of Virago and then HarperCollins. She once described to me the almost impossible situation she faced in employing many women. She had to let them go from key roles for long periods and could not replace them, because she had to keep their jobs open. The right hon. Lady extols the virtues of more legislation that would restrict employers, but can she explain how she expects employers to cope with the practical aspects of all those wonderful ideas?
    Ms Harman: The practical implementation should follow extensive consultation with employers, including those who have implemented family-friendly employment for years. We should draw on the experience of the Americans, who went from no family leave to full family leave with no effects on competitiveness.
    Fourthly, I suggest that the Government should ensure that time off work is available for those caring for young children and also for those caring for elderly or disabled relatives, as in the United States. As our population ages, more and more people—mostly women, but a growing number of men—try to combine paid work with their caring responsibilities. We want and need them to be able to do both. The Government are taking a radical and modernising step by introducing for the first time a legal right to family leave. I warmly congratulate them.
    5.28 pm
    Mr. John Major: I can tell the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) that returning to the Back Benches has its charms. I speak with some experience, and I hope that she also learns to love the experience. Back Benchers need not be unthinking lobby fodder, and I hope that the right hon. Lady will join the army of Back Benchers who have a proper role to play in ensuring that the Executive always reflects parliamentary opinion first and foremost.
    Let me say at the outset that I approve of some of the policies that the Government have followed in the past 18 months and propose to introduce. That is not surprising, as some of them were policies that I followed. Others are similar to policies that I was following, but have been redesigned a little.

    241
    Let us ease aside from the belief that there is a sharp difference on every issue between the Government and the Opposition parties. That is not so. It is the Opposition's role to concentrate on the points on which we disagree, but there are some areas of agreement. The fact that there is agreement on some issues is one of the strengths of this parliamentary system.
    This is in many ways a rather unusual Queen's Speech, particularly for the second year of a Parliament, in that its theme is difficult to discern. The Secretary of State bravely suggested that it was modernisation and fairness, and who could disagree with the principle of the right sort of modernisation and fairness? Nobody asks for the reverse. However, we must consider whether the Queen's Speech contains the hard-backed policies that will achieve that in an advantageous way. That is a point with which many Opposition Members might disagree.
    The Secretary of State made some intriguing remarks, often off script and occasionally in response to interventions, either proper or from a sedentary position. He said one or two things with which I agree strongly. He spoke about collective rights within the European Union, but said that there are different practices in some countries. He clearly meant the different historical, industrial and commercial practices, many of which we find in the United Kingdom. Unless I misheard him, he spoke warmly of the principle of subsidiarity, which I had the privilege of enshrining in the Maastricht treaty some years ago. I strongly agree with him about that.
    However, the Secretary of State touched on weaker ground, on which I notice that he did not take an intervention. Although I agree with the principle of subsidiarity and with the fact that we are different in some respects, the fact that the Prime Minister agreed to the social chapter in Amsterdam shows clearly that almost everything in the social chapter is determined by qualified majority voting, not by unanimity.
    That means that, even though the Secretary of State may oppose it, it is entirely possible, indeed probable, that legislation will be passed in the European Union that our Government would not pass for the reasons that the Secretary of State set out, but that he would not be able to block. It is the practice in other European countries, it is enshrined in the broad principles of the social chapter, and it will be decided by qualified majority voting.
    Yvette Cooper: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Major: Let me make some more progress.
    I welcome the Secretary of State for Education and Employment back to the House. I am sure that he made the right decision to return. I hope that when, the right hon. Gentleman replies to the debate, he will explain how the Government propose to protect Britain from legislation of which they do not approve, but which would otherwise be imposed on us by qualified majority voting under the agreement made by the Prime Minister in Amsterdam.
    Mr. Mandelson: If he does not mind my saying so, the right hon. Gentleman is being very defeatist. Surely, when one is in the councils of Europe, it is possible to use the power of persuasion to convert people to one's point of view. That is much more effective than standing on the
    242
    sidelines bellowing at people through a megaphone. For example, over the past 18 months, we have achieved a darn sight more on the ban on British beef by having our arguments listened to and through the power of persuasion than the right hon. Gentleman's party achieved on most issues during 18 years in office.
    Mr. Major: The right hon. Gentleman's idea of political persuasion is to bend someone's arm behind their back.
    If what the Secretary of State said is true, perhaps he can explain why the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not a member of the Committee considering the euro. Despite the fact that sterling is one of the great currencies of Europe and that our European colleagues want sterling to enter at some stage—as do the Government—the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not welcome at the meetings. The Government still say that persuasion works. In reality, one can persuade from time to time. I persuaded our European partners to give us the opt-out on a single currency that the Government now use. I note that I received no acknowledgement of, or gratitude for, that. Of course, it is possible to persuade sometimes, but often it is not.
    The Secretary of State spoke earlier about not accepting legislation that we do not wish to accept. I remind him that he has signed up to an agreement under which he may not be able to prevent damaging legislation.
    Mr. Paul Keetch: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Major: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I should like to make some progress.
    The Secretary of State spoke about convergence and the euro. Of course, what he said is right. Of course, it must not be artificial. He gave the impression that my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), who asked a question, was talking about artificiality. Europe has spent the past few years seeking to converge the real elements of its economy. Many in Europe have done so. They have taken significant decisions on public expenditure and taxation in order to seek convergence.
    The right hon. Gentleman did not deal—the Government will have to deal with this one day—with how we are to avoid the convergence of taxation, if we are to proceed with the euro. The Chancellor says that he will not accept the convergence of taxation, and I agree with him. I will stand shoulder to shoulder with the Chancellor on the question of not accepting the convergence of taxation, and throwing away the advantages of a relatively low-tax United Kingdom economy, because that is one of the reasons for the inward investment and the relative prosperity that we have gained over other countries in recent years. However, we need to know exactly what the Government intend to say about that. I understand the difficulties, but the Government will need to be clear soon.
    The Secretary of State said, intriguingly, that we shall join the euro when it is in our interests to do so. That seemed familiar to me. I seem to remember hearing that somewhere before. In fact, I seem to remember uttering that expression. It was about the time when the present Prime Minister was accusing me of not being clear about

    243
    whether we would join the euro. However, if he will forgive me putting it this way, I notice that the Prime Minister, who accused me of sitting on the fence, is now seated squarely on the adjacent spike. That is a wise place for him to be, but he might acknowledge—it would make for a more graceful occasion if he did—that the policy that he criticised before was a wise one that he, equally wisely, is following now.
    Let me deal with something that underlies all the ambitions of the Government and the Opposition for the well-being of this country. Many of the artificial arguments that we have across the Chamber are arguments not about ends but about means. For example, the big argument about the social chapter is not about whether workers should have better rights. The Government believe that the social chapter is right and that it enshrines more rights for workers. Our argument is not that we do not wish workers to have rights, but that we feel that, as a result of the social chapter, other workers may not get jobs that they should have. Let us deal with the reality of the substantive debate between us. There is no disagreement on objectives.
    The economy is crucial to whether those objectives can be met. So much depends upon that. A wise former Chancellor of the Exchequer said that money is the root of all progress. Given how often the £40 billion is mentioned, we can see that that is undoubtedly the case.
    What is the Chancellor's forecast for the next three years? In 1999, it is 1 to 1.5 per cent., a year later it is 2.25 to 2.75 per cent. and a year after that, by a remarkable geometric progression, it is 2.75 to 3.25 per cent. Forecasting is very difficult. Let us make it clear that the Chancellor does not do the forecasts personally. It is very difficult for the statisticians who do the forecasts and, to be frank, they are more often wrong than right, both in the Treasury and almost everywhere else. I am sure that, on this occasion, the forecasts presented by the Chancellor—I do not know whether they were the forecasts given to him—are wrong. If that is so, there are difficulties ahead for a wide range of policies to which the Government are committed.
    I suspect that the Prime Minister is less certain than the Chancellor about the forecasts. The Prime Minister's speech at the Lord Mayor's banquet was very different in tone from the Chancellor's statement to the House. The difference was striking. The Chancellor was cocky, confident and certain of his forecasts and the Prime Minister was warning us of difficult times. I believe that the Prime Minister was wiser to be cautious than the Chancellor was to be confident.
    We are told regularly that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are two souls in the same political body. We are usually told that when they have just disagreed, when their spin doctors have just disagreed or when they have contradicted one another. We are told that they work together, and I am sure that they do so, if only to keep a close eye on what each other is doing.
    The Chancellor's forecasts are crucial, so let us consider them. I have made the point that forecasts may be wrong, but the increasing trend of view among businesses and others who have made later forecasts is that we shall not have growth of between 1 and 1.5 per cent. next year. Growth will be substantially below
    244
    1 per cent., perhaps at 0.5 per cent. or conceivably even lower, although I doubt that we shall go into recession, except perhaps technically and briefly.
    In the second year, the Chancellor forecasts growth of 2.25 to 2.75 per cent. I can only assume that, as part of the new deal's job creation programme, Mary Poppins has become a Treasury forecaster, and that, for year 3, she has been replaced by Hans Christian Andersen with the fairy-tale proposition that we shall have between 2.75 and 3.25 per cent. growth.
    The forecasts defy logic. The rest of the world is dipping, and growth is being cut. Growth is being cut in our markets at a time when, although it has dipped a little, sterling is still strong and presenting difficulties in export markets. Sterling is strong and our markets are diminishing, but, as the world cuts its growth forecasts, we, remarkably, will grow at an accelerating rate year upon year. What has the Chancellor of the Exchequer been taking? What hallucinatory forecasts drift past him as he prepares to come before the House?
    The truth about the economy is that it is slowing. The underlying economy is very strong. We must be in no doubt about that: we are not in deep difficulties. However, the economy is slowing for several reasons. Inflation is low, essentially because—although the Secretary of State will not wish to hear it—the previous Government took unpopular measures that the Government opposed when they were in opposition and that, for a time at least, have put inflation in repose. Inflation is never dead, but it is lying low for the time being. Interest rates will fall a little further, as they should because the economy is pretty slow and pretty flat. That is the good news.
    The rest of the news is perhaps less good. Borrowing will grow, or taxes will rise, or there will be a combination of laxer borrowing and higher taxation. Growth will continue to fall. How far it will fall, we cannot be certain, but it will be way below the Chancellor's forecasts. It will fall for two reasons. The first is beyond the Chancellor's control. There is a slowdown around the world, and we cannot insulate ourselves against that. When markets slow down, we slow down. We cannot blame the Chancellor for what is happening around the world. Like all his predecessors, he must deal with that problem, but it is not his fault, except to the extent that we have limited influence for collective action through the G7.
    However, there are also domestic mistakes. The Chancellor has made a series of mistakes, such as the 17 tax rises, many of which were mean-spirited. The tax rises on pensions, on investment and on savings were unwise from the point of view of the economy. Fiscally, they were good for the Treasury, but they were bad for the real economy of which the Secretary of State spoke earlier.
    There will be a price to pay for those tax rises. The best that the Chancellor can hope for is that the Government forecasts will be proved foolish over a long period. The worst that may face him is that there will be a shock somewhere else in the world. It may be China devaluing, or the yen sinking further, or—heaven forbid—another collapse of some sort in south-east Asia, or something unexpected of which none of us has thought. One more such item will mean a significant further slowing of the world economy, and the Chancellor cannot protect us

    245
    from that. Yet he left no leeway a few weeks ago in the confident forecasts of growth and expenditure that he led the House to expect.
    Yvette Cooper: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Government should have sustained the £28 billion deficit with which his Government left us, or should we have continued to pursue the fiscal policies of his Government, which broke the golden rule every year and doubled the national debt?
    Mr. Major: The hon. Lady is relatively new to the House, but I must say to her, "Come off it." Does she seriously think that the £20 billion that was boasted in the Queen's Speech to have come off the deficit suddenly and miraculously appeared on 2 May 1997? Was that the result of the delayed impact of corporation tax coming in as a result of policies put in place by the previous Government, and of the profits yielded by those policies? Of course it was the latter. There are lags in yield, and if the hon. Lady does not understand that, I hope that others do. It was ludicrous to claim credit in the Gracious Speech for £20 billion off the fiscal deficit in the first year.
    Yvette Cooper rose—
    Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
    Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman is an old hand who has been in Workington since before the flood. He knows that the hon. Lady is talking nonsense, and I know that he will talk nonsense, too, so I shall let him do so later and will get on with my speech now.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
    Mr. Major: Oh, all right then.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: It seems that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) disagrees with the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). On 10 November, he said:
    "Yes, we got it wrong in the early 1990s … Yes, we have apologised."—[0fficial Report, 10 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 148.]
    The right hon. Member for Wokingham is always dissociating himself from the policies of his former Prime Minister. How does the right hon. Member for Huntingdon feel about being disowned time and time again?
    Mr. Major: The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) was actually talking about the deficit over the previous year, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) does, indeed, often remind me of my mistakes.
    The Chancellor cannot run the economy on the slogan that he has used during the past few months. He says there will be an end to short-termism. Of course we want that, but it is odd that the Chancellor who wants to end short-termism should, in his very first Budget, have made an attack on investment with taxation. That is a very odd way to end short-termism. Perhaps it will surprise the Chancellor to hear that short-termism ended in the 1980s with the supply side changes that he opposed. It ended in
    246
    the 1990s with our painful efforts—which he by and large opposed—to get inflation down. Short-termism ended then when politically unpopular decisions were taken to put the economy on an even keel. Whenever he is cornered, the Chancellor recites a mantra. He says, "We will end boom and bust." It is at least half true—he is ending the boom. We must hope that he does not lead us into bust too soon.
    I want to touch on one glaring omission from the Queen's Speech. I do not mean the lack of an integrated transport policy, which has so embarrassed the Deputy Prime Minister, although I hope that the right hon. Gentleman enjoyed his lunch today when he had the privilege of presenting the parliamentarian of the year award to the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). It is not often that a corpse meets his assassin of the day before in order to present him with an award for the assassination. I hope that it was an enjoyable occasion, and I am very sorry that I missed it. I can see that the Secretary of State is very sorry that he missed it as well.
    Mr. Mandelson indicated assent.
    Mr. Major: It must have been a remarkable occasion.
    I do not want to talk about that omission from the Queen's Speech, or even about the freedom of information Bill, which has returned to the political womb, to re-emerge at some later stage. Instead, I refer to something that worries the Prime Minister as well as myself. The Prime Minister may be surprised to learn that we share a similar view, and that I am prepared to join him, but I judge him on what he has said recently rather than on his policies. Soon, we shall have a Scottish Assembly in Edinburgh, with tax-raising powers. The House knows that I think that that is a mistake, but that argument is past. We must deal with the reality that there will be an election next summer, followed by an Assembly.
    The House will have, at some stage, to deal with problems consequential on the setting up of that Assembly. The Queen's Speech contains a range of constitutional measures that will cause future problems, although, in the interests of brevity, I shall not list those problems. However, there was nothing to deal with one problem which, if it is honest with itself, the House knows to have been created by the establishment of the Scottish Assembly.
    The Scottish Parliament will put the Union at risk unless we are careful and skilful. When I warned of that some time ago, up to and during the election, I was much scoffed at by Labour Members and some members of Opposition parties, but the Prime Minister now accepts the danger, or there would be no reason for him to make speeches about our having a battle for Britain, oblivious though he may be to the fact that the only reason that we are having to fight that battle is the policy that he put in place and the nature of the Scottish Assembly that he has established.
    The Government were warned, and they scoffed and jeered at the warnings. The truth is now there to haunt them, but that is history. I shall not worry too much about the haunting of the Prime Minister and those on the Treasury Bench. What is more important is this: where is the action to deal with the problem and where are the

    247
    policies to encourage the newly established Scottish Assembly not to bid for independence and to realise that it would do better to stay joined at the hip as part of the United Kingdom in the Union that has served all of the United Kingdom so well for nearly 300 years?
    Where are the policies to cope with what every hon. Member knows in his or her heart is the manifest absurdity of Scottish Members with no control over health, education and transport in their constituencies voting down here on health, transport and education in Hartlepool, Huntingdon, Peckham and elsewhere? We know that that is a problem and that it will cause conflict. Since we realise that, why on earth, given the majority that the Government have, do they not consider that constitutional problem before it becomes a running sore between this House and the Edinburgh Assembly?
    The Secretary of State for Scotland has been saying for years that Scotland should have a Parliament. Now, he is saying in lectures that England should not have one. I am a Unionist and I agree with the Secretary of State that I do not want a separate English Parliament, although I observe the manifest absurdity of that right hon. Gentleman saying so. The difference between him and me is that I told the Scots of that problem before and during the general election, while he and his colleagues told them what was convenient for the Labour party during the election, with no concern for or understanding of the problem that would be created after it.
    This is the Government's mess and it will not go away. They have created it and they need to correct the imbalance that they have created—through, not an English Parliament, but an English dimension to a United Kingdom Parliament—before it is too late and it causes too much bitterness. That is urgent. They should begin to discuss with my right hon. Friends how we might deal with that problem. I do not want my party to stand to one side and scoff at and mock the troubles that the Government are facing, because there are bigger issues at stake the constitutional position of the United Kingdom.
    If Scotland were to break away—I do not expect that to be imminent, but it might do so in five or 10 years—will the Secretary of State say whether we would be stronger or weaker in Europe to stand up for our position there? He knows that we would be weaker. Would we be more or less likely to retain our seat on the Security Council? He knows that we would be less likely to do so. Would we be likely to retain our position in the Group of Seven, and would we have enhanced or lesser power if our country were seen to be breaking up? He knows that it would be lesser power.
    At this stage in this Parliament, this year, with the Government's majority and our support, they could have dealt with that constitutional issue, that problem, which exists now. Instead, they have introduced a range of constitutional tinkering, which will create fresh problems, which will emerge if they get their way on other constitutional issues in Parliament during the rest of this Session. I bitterly regret the fact that the Government have chosen not to examine and deal with that issue before a sore becomes an ailment that is not readily curable.
    Today, our main subjects are trade and industry and education and employment. We are offered a consultation document on teaching—another smack of firm
    248
    consultation—which may well be worth while, but sounds like a fig leaf. I hope that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will have more to say about that later. Given the way in which the question has been framed and the ballot arranged, we can look forward to what looks to be a vindictive, slow destruction of grammar schools without the Government having the courage to take direct abolition through the House. Yet again, part of the famous £40 billion will be reannounced—this time to repair schools, something that will be welcome if it turns out to be there and actually happens. Frankly, we have also had absurd policies for industry which will add to—
    Mr. Blunkett: I am sorry to intrude on what is undoubtedly an excellent speech, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman implied that the Government were lying by suggesting that we were investing the resources that have been announced today in capital over the next three years. Given the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, I should like him to clarify what he meant by that.
    Mr. Major: Of course I was not suggesting that the Government were lying. I meant that the £40 billion has been announced before, and that whether it will be there depends on the performance of the economy. I have spent much of my speech arguing that that performance may not be as good as the Government had supposed in their estimates, and that it may not yield the resources that they therefore expect. At that stage, the Government will have to cut expenditure, increase borrowing, raise taxes or do something else. My remark was made in that spirit. I was not suggesting that the Government were engaged in an outright deception—heaven forfend that such a thing should happen.
    The policies for industry are absurd. They will add to regulation and to costs and increase the powers of trade unions in a way which will make neither them nor the employers happy—a remarkable double whammy—
    Yvette Cooper rose—
    Mr. Major: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I shall not give way.
    The Government have been fortunate so far. They have had the longest honeymoon in recorded history. They inherited a strong economy and they are now weakening it; they inherited falling unemployment—sadly, I fear that that is soon to increase—and a growing economy. Partly, but only partly, as a result of their measures, the economy is beginning to slow down. Despite the brilliance of the hype—it has been brilliant hype—it is a miserable performance, and the easy time for the Government is coming to an end. They are about to begin to collide with reality. I see the look of shock crossing the face of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at the belief that reality might have the impertinence to come up and tap him on the shoulder. Given the way in which the world economy is going, it may not merely tap him—unless he is very lucky, it will grip him by the throat.
    The Government are about to come face to face with reality and, unless they are very fortunate or skilful, they will find that the promises that they have set out will not be easily met. I fear that they will find that many of those policies will not operate as they had hoped either

    249
    for them—something with which I do not much concern myself—or for the country as a whole, something with which I do concern myself. They need to look afresh both at their economic prospects as they frame policies, for no one wants promises that turn out to be impossible to meet, and, equally importantly, they must re-examine yet again and with care the option of removing—before it becomes too serious—the constitutional Scottish problem that will arise. In that, I hope that they will both seek and receive the assistance of the Opposition.
    5.58 pm
    Mr. Roger Berry: I want to deal with one proposal in the Queen's Speech that has not attracted much attention so far, but which will affect the lives of millions of citizens. Interestingly, it is a proposal that has already been supported by the other place several times, and one that has the support of the Leader of the Opposition, as I was surprised to discover yesterday. I am referring to the Government's proposal to legislate to set up a disability rights commission. Clearly that Bill will go a long way with support from the other place and the Leader of the Opposition, and it deserves to do so.
    The House should warmly welcome the proposal, which would go a long way to implement the Government's commitment to ensure comprehensive and enforceable civil rights for disabled people. It will certainly be warmly welcomed by the 8 million disabled people who face discrimination in this country—people who are denied their basic rights to work, to learn, to travel, and even to vote.
    It is no exaggeration, therefore, to say that yesterday was an historic day for disabled people, their organisations and their supporters. For the first time, disabled people are to have a statutory body to fight their corner. I am pleased that the Equal Opportunities Commission has been doing its work for many years, and we also have the Commission for Racial Equality. Northern Ireland has the Fair Employment Commission. But we in this country are yet to have a commission to ensure that disabled people are guaranteed their rights.
    The disability rights commission should be welcomed primarily because disabled people will have a statutory body to ensure that they have redress if they are treated unfairly or unreasonably in the eyes of the law, but it will also be of great assistance to those who are required to abide by the law. There will be detailed advice for employers and service providers on how to make any necessary changes so that they can benefit from the skills of disabled people and from their custom.
    The Government should also be warmly congratulated on the way they consulted before introducing the proposal to set up the disability rights commission. They have accepted the recommendations of the disability rights task force almost to the letter. This is one of those rare occasions on which a Government have consulted on a proposal and brought people together—in this case not only disabled people, but employers, local government, trade unions, the public sector and the private sector, under the aegis of the task force—to prepare a package based on consensus that they will then implement.
    In that context, I pay tribute to the Minister for Arts, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth), who, as Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, set up the task force and
    250
    produced the White Paper, which was published in July. His commitment to civil rights for disabled people—over many years and from both sides of the House—deserves our recognition.
    Let us not forget that disabled people and their organisations have campaigned for comprehensive civil rights for many years, and that hon. Members campaigned for many years in support of them. The first civil rights Bill, which was introduced as a private Member's Bill by my noble Friend Lord Ashley in 1983, provided for a commission. Since then, a commission has been considered an integral part of achieving civil rights by all hon. Members who have sought to legislate through a private Member's Bill, particularly my noble Friend Lord Morris and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). As secretary of the all-party disablement group, I also acknowledge that hon. Members of all political parties have been part of that campaign.
    I welcome the fact that the Conservative Opposition now support a disability rights commission. That was not always the case, of course; indeed, until four years ago, the then Conservative Government were totally opposed to legislation of any kind to secure equal rights for disabled people, and were prepared to go to extraordinary lengths to stop such legislation.
    That said, I am usually prepared to let bygones be bygones. In politics, there is not much mileage in bearing grudges, and I try not to do it. I would not have said anything else about the past if it had not been for the remarks in yesterday's debate by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the Leader of the Opposition.
    I had to check Hansard this morning, because I could not believe that I had heard the right hon. Gentleman say:
    "We will support the creation of a disability rights commission … I hope that the commission will ensure that the … disability rights legislation, which I took through the House, is properly enforced".—[Official Report, 24 November 1998; Vol. 321, c. 16–17.]
    I am occasionally surprised at comments made in this Chamber—we all are. Some of us are surprised most of the time, but when I heard those words, I could scarcely contain myself. I asked myself whether this could possibly be the same Member of Parliament who, as Minister for Social Security and Disabled People in the previous Administration, vehemently opposed a disability rights commission on every occasion. With regret, I have to inform the House that the right hon. Gentleman is that same gentleman.
    I spent an enjoyable couple of hours this morning going through the Official Report of the debates on Second Reading, in Standing Committee and on Report for the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. There is a mountain of quotations from the right hon. Gentleman fundamentally opposing the notion of a disability rights commission. I shall simply select one at random—there are so many, it is difficult to know where to begin.
    In Standing Committee, the right hon. Gentleman said:
    "The assumption that there has to be a commission to tackle the problems that we know exist is flawed."
    He went on:
    "The issue of a commission has become an article of faith, but I ask the Committee and people outside Parliament to understand that there is more than one way to approach the problem."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 23 February 1995; c. 389–390.]

    251
    The then Government's approach to the problem was to set up not a disability rights commission, but the National Disability Council, whose remit was to advise the Government.
    It was therefore particularly unfortunate for the previous Administration that the NDC annual report—which was produced after not two or three years of operation, but one—recommended that a disability rights commission be set up. It virtually said, "Please abolish us, and set up a commission."
    David Grayson, the admirable chair of that organisation, said in his foreword:
    "there should be a body with the specific capacity to help disabled people to enforce their rights".
    The NDC said that because it recognised after one year's work that there was not such a body, and that the NDC itself certainly was not a body of that sort. The NDC called on the Government to attach "an early priority" to legislating for comprehensive and enforceable civil rights.
    I warmly welcome the commitment in the Queen's Speech to set up a disability rights commission. The White Paper published in July made a number of points; I shall not take up the House's time by repeating them all, but I shall echo a few, which are absolutely essential to the efficient functioning of the disability rights commission.
    The commission's mission must be to work towards the elimination of discrimination against disabled people. That, above all, is its prime task. It should advise the Government on the legislation that is necessary to move from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to full, comprehensive and enforceable civil rights. In that sense, the disability rights commission will be an extremely important vehicle in assisting the Government to fulfil the final part of their commitment.
    The commission should encourage good practice by employers and by service providers, because this is not simply a matter of legislation and of threatening to take people to court.
    Everybody knows that the most effective anti-discrimination legislation is legislation that is rarely used in the sense of taking people to a tribunal or to court. If the legislation and the institutions that back it up are good enough, conciliation and advice can deal with the problems. Naturally, there must be a final right to prosecute if the law is broken, but it is extremely important that one of the key objectives of the disability rights commission should be to encourage good practice among employers and service providers, and to make arrangements for conciliation. It should also be able to assist individuals to enforce their rights not only under the Disability Discrimination Act but under the Human Rights Act 1998.
    All that requires adequate funding. I am not jumping on to my usual hobby horse. That is the recommendation of the National Disability Council, which points out that sufficient resources must exist if the commission is to do its job properly. It is a crucial issue. The Equal Opportunities Commission has a budget of some £7 million a year, and the Commission for Racial Equality has a budget of some £11 million a year. The disability rights commission will require more than the CRE's £11 million if it is to fulfil its responsibilities.
    252
    Let us not forget that, like the CRE, the commission will undertake awareness-raising activities, but those will include awareness of impairments, barriers to disabled people's participation and how to overcome them, and the provisions of relevant legislation. It will have to ensure full accessibility to information, of advocacy and support. It will have to advise on reasonable adjustment, as defined in the Disability Discrimination Act. It will also have to support individuals who take cases to court under the Human Rights Act. Those are substantial duties, and the new commission's funding must be adequate to reflect them.
    The establishment of the commission will be a major step towards comprehensive and enforceable civil rights. I hope that, at an early date, it will assist in achieving three other objectives that are part of that agenda: first, small firms should not be exempt from civil rights legislation; secondly, we should define disability to include all those who experience disability discrimination; and, thirdly, we should include transport and education within the framework of anti-discrimination legislation. We have none of those provisions at present.
    I am sure that the vast majority of hon. Members welcome the proposal. It is a significant step towards implementing the Government's commitment to securing comprehensive civil rights for disabled people. It should be welcomed with enthusiasm: it is long overdue.
    6.13 pm
    Mr. David Chidgey: I shall limit my remarks, because other hon. Members wish to speak.
    Governments are often criticised for making pronouncements that are long on rhetoric but short on content. The Queen's Speech is a departure from that norm—it is pretty short on rhetoric, but even shorter on policies that will be successful in tackling trade and industry problems. It makes it clear that the
    "Government will continue with economic policies designed to build stability for the long term",
    and that the Government's central economic objectives are
    "high and stable levels of economic growth and employment".
    Nobody would disagree with those laudable aims, but what and where are the policies designed to achieve them?
    The latest trade figures show that we are now running a trade deficit of £2.5 billion, the largest ever. Our trade gap with both our European Union partners and non-EU nations is widening, and it has little to do with the Asian crisis. Where are the proposals to support British industry and reduce bureaucracy in business? Where are the proposals to maintain inward investment? Although Britain has done incredibly well in attracting inward investment, it is important to continue to attract it.
    Most importantly, where are the proposals to provide investment in human capital? We have heard a great deal this afternoon, particularly from the Secretary of State, about the importance of a knowledge-based economy. I could not agree more, but where is the investment in human resources to provide for that? I find such proposals somewhat wanting.
    Our manufacturing industry is at its lowest ebb, yet the Secretary of State and the Chancellor complacently stick to the line that the economy is not heading for recession. Nobody said it was, but industry certainly is. Just seven

    253
    days ago, a Treasury survey of 44 independent economic forecasters predicted recession in the manufacturing industry next year. While the Chancellor continues to claim that manufacturing industry will avoid recession next year, the Treasury survey shows that an average drop of 1.1 per cent. in manufacturing output is expected. However, the Treasury still claims that growth in industry will be plus or minus 0.25 per cent.—in other words, zero.
    That variance between forecasters and the Treasury is unprecedented, and it is time that the Government faced up to the severe problems confronting industry—particularly the burden of high interest rates and of an unstable and uncompetitive exchange rate. Unless the Government act, as many as 400,000 manufacturing jobs could be lost in the next two years because of the recession in manufacturing industry.
    It simply not acceptable for the Government to wash their hands of the crisis in manufacturing and blame it on the collapse of Asian economies and the global market. For a start, that is simply not true. Today's trade figures reveal that exports to the European Union from this country are collapsing. That has nothing remotely to do with Asia. We trade more with the Netherlands than with the whole of south-east Asia, Latin America and Russia put together.
    The Government's pre-Budget report clearly showed that the UK's principal export markets are growing. Tables A2 and A5 in the report show growth of 7 per cent., yet UK exports sales to our key markets are growing by only 4 per cent. That has nothing to do with the collapse of the Asian economies or stresses and strains on the global market, but is entirely down to a lack of action by the Government to make UK industry more competitive.
    The Queen's Speech should have addressed two key issues: first, what will the Government do to ease the way for British business to compete in the global market; and, secondly, what will the Government do to ensure that our work force is equipped with the training and skills that are vital to a knowledge-based economy?
    The Government are still prevaricating on Britain's entry into European monetary union. It would take just one simple declaration of interest and an indicative programme to make interest rates immediately fall and exchange rates stabilise, and industry would be revitalised at a stroke. The Prime Minister knows that. Indeed, he is on record as praising the call by more than 100 leading business people for a firmer commitment to join the single currency. He has presumably read what the chairman of Unilever said:
    "Business does not want to see Britain relegated to the status of a quaint offshore trading post, steadily marginalised from its main market".
    That is how business thinks, but the Gracious Speech merely continues the line that we will join when it is in Britain's best interest. I asked the Secretary of State whether he could envisage a scenario in which joining would not be in Britain's best interest, and answer came there none.
    The Queen's Speech tells us that there will be measures on competition and on investment in improving skills. Why are the Government not taking a lead on competition by introducing proposals to give the Post Office greater commercial freedom? How long must we wait? Unless the Post Office is given the freedom to invest
    254
    internationally and to operate commercially, it will lose its place in the global market. Time is fast running out. The forecasters tell us that, within the next two years, there will be no place in the global market for the Post Office.
    If the Government intend to address competition, why have they increased taxes on business at twice the rate of the reductions that they so proudly proclaim? Why have they not made some effort to reduce regulations on business?
    On 10 November 1998, at column 201 of Hansard, the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry claimed that the previous Government had introduced 10,000 new regulations. There is a great danger of small and medium-sized enterprises being crippled by bureaucracy, yet the Government's vaunted deregulation unit attached to the Cabinet shows all the symptoms of becoming a farce. It was asked a few weeks ago how many deregulation measures have been introduced. The answer was, "We can't find any." It has been established for a year, and so far it cannot find any deregulation measures—not one.
    The Government not only have failed to reduce regulation on business, but are intent on adding Euro-bureaucracy to the burden. Britain enjoys some of the lowest employment costs in Europe, which are, on average, about a third of those of most of our competitors. That helps to offset the disadvantages of low productivity. However, that will all change if the party of European socialists has its way.
    Under the Government's presidency of the European Union last year, the document entitled "Economic Reform in the Framework of EMU"—commonly called the new European way—was drafted. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) made the interesting point that, if we follow the philosophy set out in that document, we will be on the road to tax harmonisation.
    Europe finds it anti-competitive that Britain has some of the lowest employment costs in the world. I cannot see the logic of following that philosophy, but, on Sunday, along with the other Finance Ministers of Europe, the Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed to that document—he may have signed it. Where does the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry stand if such a measure is at the heart of Government philosophy?
    The Queen's Speech should have contained measures for improving skills. It is appalling that there are 7 million people in this country with no formal qualifications. Investment in vocational training is failing to deliver. National vocational qualifications are a good idea, and I support them. They measure skills that people have, as well as the knowledge they are gaining. However, the recent disturbing results show that there is a 40 per cent. drop-out rate at NVQ level 2, which is the threshold to gaining the higher technical skills our economy lacks.
    The problem is that, although the Government recognise the distinction between investment and capital and revenue costs, they do not accept that expenditure on human resources and human capital is essential for a knowledge-based society. Instead, such expenditure is seen as a revenue cost, and is continually squeezed. We have inadequate resources for education and for training, yet that is the most important investment that this country can make. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) hopes to have the opportunity to deal with that issue.

    255
    The Queen's Speech does not contain the policies that manufacturing industry needs. It does not contain measures to free business from the strangulation of red tape. It does not do enough to provide investment to achieve the high skills we need for a knowledge-based society. We must go much further down that road before I can be convinced that the Queen's Speech addresses these issues.
    6.25 pm
    Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for being called to speak in the debate. I shall refer specifically to the Government's proposals on fairness at work. That should be no surprise, as I am a member of the Graphical, Paper and Media Union parliamentary group, and as a former senior lay official of the Fire Brigades Union, I would be expected to be interested in trade union law.
    There has been much speculation about what will be in and what will be omitted from the forthcoming Bill on fairness at work, which is expected to begin to redress the imbalance created by the legislation introduced by Conservative Governments between 1979 and 1997. It is generally accepted that they moved employment legislation beyond fairness to create a clear bias which could be used to advantage unscrupulous employers.
    The main thrust of our legislation will not present problems for reasonable companies that treat their staff with respect and dignity, but may cause difficulties for organisations that disregard their employees and do not consider that staff should be entitled to a view. Such organisations represent but a small minority of employers.
    It is important to say that this legislation is not about giving power back to union barons, but about creating a framework of fairness for people in the workplace. The Prime Minister has said:
    "even after the changes we propose, Britain will have the most lightly regulated labour market of any leading economy in the world."
    It is important to bear those words in mind when we consider the efforts that some employer organisations have made to dilute the proposals published in the White Paper, some of which had been agreed.
    The Bill will deal with individual employee rights. It is only right that the upper limit on awards for unfair dismissal should be abolished. Contrary to the view of the right hon. Member for Wokingham, I believe that reasonable compensation should be paid if an independent tribunal is persuaded that an individual has been deprived of his livelihood unfairly. The tribunal should decide how much compensation is appropriate. A £12,000 limit is potentially unreasonable and unfair. I am pleased that the Secretary of State nodded his agreement that such a provision will be in the Bill.
    To allow employers to pressurise new staff to sign waiver clauses on unfair dismissal and on redundancy protection is wrong and should be outlawed. Employees are usually in a weak position when applying for work, and they can easily be persuaded to sign away basic legal rights when pressed by unscrupulous employers.
    There seems to be general acceptance of the Government's proposals to reduce the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from two years to one. I believe that
    256
    there is a strong case for all qualifying periods to be abolished. Workers pay tax and insurance, and are contractually bound from day one of employment. They should also be entitled to full employment protection from day one.
    One aspect of the White Paper which did not attract enough attention was the promotion of family-friendly policies. It is a matter of some pride that our Government are proposing policies such as the extension of statutory maternity leave and the introduction of parental leave. Those changes will promote the family in a realistic and practical way. Those rights should be statutory, or we will disadvantage good employers who are keen to look after their staff.
    On automatic union recognition, we should be looking for a procedure that is simple and less likely to cause tensions in the workplace. Many complicated formulae have been suggested: 50 per cent. plus one, which is the most straightforward; 50 per cent. plus one, plus 12 months' employment; 50 per cent. plus one, plus 12 months' employment. plus a ballot; 50 per cent. plus one, plus 12 months' employment, plus a ballot, plus individually signed forms requesting collective representation. Surely, if 50 per cent. plus one member of a work force are members of trade unions, that should indicate that the majority of staff seek representation, and recognition should therefore be automatic. Any other formula will only give employers who do not want to recognise trade unions in the first place legal loopholes to exploit, to delay and thus to frustrate.
    Employers apparently accept that there should be a right to representation in disciplinary cases, but not in regard to grievances. That seems anomalous. The only reason would appear to be the fact that disciplinary action is initiated by the employer, whereas grievance proceedings are initiated by the employee. Extending trade union representation to grievance hearings is hardly radical, given that most workplaces surveyed recently had such procedures, while only a few did not allow individuals to be represented. Surely, if someone has a problem, the company involved will want it to be solved, and a trained trade union official is more likely to be able to assist in the process. Harassment at work—for example, bullying, racism or sexism—is a sensitive issue. Most employers want such matters to be dealt with through acknowledged procedures, by people who know what they are doing. Trained trade union representatives can help in such sensitive situations.
    The Government intend to exclude a quarter of the working population from union recognition because they work in firms employing fewer than 20 people. If those employees have no access to trade union advice and grievance representation, that will have a negative impact on them.
    As has been stated by Mr. John Monks, general secretary of the Trades Union Congress—I hope that we all share his view; certainly all Labour Members do—many of the proposed measures are designed to minimise disruption in the workplace. Fair, stable and orderly industrial relations are the goal, and the proposed fairness at work legislation will help to achieve it.
    6.32 pm
    Mrs. Teresa Gorman: The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made great play of his concern about, and even approval of, "honest failure"

    257
    in the workplace. Having considered the measures proposed in the Queen's Speech—as well as those that the Labour party has already said it intends to produce—I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that there will be much more failure in the business world because of the burdens that the Government are heaping on the business man and woman.
    Let us be clear about one thing: businesses do not exist to provide social services. Social services result from the decisions of politicians, and politicians should be prepared to administer them at their own expense—at the expense of the taxpayer—rather than expecting proprietors of firms, especially small firms, to take on an added burden of work.
    It should also be acknowledged that firms do not exist to promote happy families. A reasonable case could be made for the view that the Government have some interest in that, because of the social consequences that flow from unhappy families; nevertheless, it is not the purpose of a business man running a company, large or small. Businesses exist to make profits: only by doing so can they provide the jobs that we all want people to have, and pay their taxes. Ultimately, all the tax that Government receive comes from the profits of business and commerce. Firms can do what is required of them only by concentrating on running their business, rather than running Government social policies, family-friendly policies or trade union-friendly policies.
    Charlotte Atkins: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Gorman: No, I will not. I want to be brief, because others wish to speak.
    The purpose of a business is to make profits, and to run its own affairs. I find it chilling that so much of the legislation proposed in the Queen's Speech takes us back to the past, giving trade unions much more power and authority in the workplace and meaning that taxation must inevitably increase to cope with, for example, the working time directive, increased maternity leave and increased holiday time. All that will add to the cost of running a business, and, most important, will add to the paperwork and intervention that the business community will have to administer.
    For instance, Labour intends to introduce new family credit arrangements, which will mean much more administration for employers. Those arrangements will involve people earning about £39,000 a year—presumably, well over half the work force. Some large organisations may well cope, because they can put up more reserves from their profits.
    According to the managing director of Fiat in the United Kingdom, although larger corporations can probably cope with the legislation, smaller firms are in "a very difficult position". He says that they are
    "minnows compared to union professionals",
    who will be given much more power and authority in the workplace through the re-establishment of their right to form and operate trade unions, regardless of whether employers want that to happen.
    We lived through all this in the 1970s, when there was chaos in the workplace. There were strikes of monumental proportions almost every other week, which were
    258
    extremely destructive of our economy. Only the Conservative Government's action in bringing some sense into that chaos produced the tranquillity that we now enjoy in the workplace and take for granted, but which will end as a result of the Government's proposals.
    Two female Opposition Members found that quite amusing, but we currently live in a world in which we no longer experience major national strikes. Perhaps they do not recall those days, but I do. I ran a company then, and it was hell.
    Charlotte Atkins: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Gorman: I will, briefly.
    Charlotte Atkins: Surely what has replaced the alleged abuse by trade unions is fear in the workplace. Would the hon. Lady condone the actions of one of my local textile firms, which requires, at 24 hours' notice, all staff to be available from 6 am until 10 or 11 pm? Will that not completely destroy family life?
    Mrs. Gorman: The hon. Lady makes a point that I took up earlier. The concept of what families do with themselves is not one for which employers are primarily responsible. If people are losing their jobs, in the hon. Lady's constituency or anywhere else, they must thank the Government for the policies that they are operating—in particular, the policies involving more regulation, which are making our businesses less competitive. Even companies such as Marks and Spencer, which has a reputation for compassion, tell us that they cannot compete in the circumstances that the Government have created.
    The hon. Lady should ask her question of her own Front Benchers. The situation did not arise under the previous Government, for the simple reason that there was flexibility in the workplace. People could find jobs when an old industry died and new industries were established. That is the answer to unemployment, rather than trying to pressurise the employer to accept more responsibility.
    Of all the measures that the Government are proposing, many of which will be extremely damaging to industry, I shall refer to two. One is the working time directive, under which—allegedly—individuals cannot be asked to work for more than 48 hours a week. Many Labour Members may say, "Jolly good job, too; don't let employers grind the faces of the poor." The directive will cause great problems for the Royal Mail, for example, which employs thousands of people, because its staff often work more than 48 hours a week in order to process an irregular source of material. Apparently, the post does not arrive evenly over a seven-day period. A 48-hour maximum may sound wonderful on paper, but it will interfere with the natural working patterns of large as well as small firms, the health service and other major industries.
    The other item that should be mentioned in this debate is the Government proposal to remove the cap on compensation that is awarded in industrial tribunals. Such tribunals are one of the most discouraging elements of regulation with which small firms must cope. Not only do small business men have to take time off and pay for lawyers to put their case: they must find the compensation. In proposing to remove the cap, the Labour party could quite easily turn small firms into what the Secretary of State described as honest failures.

    259
    The cumulative effect of the new measures that the Government are proposing will add enormously to burdens on employers—not just small employers—and will inevitably contribute to an increase in unemployment. I am sure that Labour Members will do their very best to compensate people with higher welfare benefits, but that is not what people want. People want jobs in flourishing firms. If we are to encourage our small firms to grow and allow our large firms to survive in a competitive international market, we must stop imposing extra burdens on them.
    Not surprisingly, all Labour Members who have spoken have welcomed the increasing burdens—whether they be an extension of trade union rights, an increase in time off, an extension of public holidays or a rise in the amount of compensation or damages that can be awarded against a business. Every one of those changes will make jobs more difficult to come by.
    As for things such as the new deal, which Government Members trumpet whenever they get the opportunity, we all know that Government intervention—whether Conservative or Labour—in business activity invariably leads to a reduction in the amount of time, energy and money a firm is able to spend on producing a profit. Without that, without the creation of jobs and without encouraging small businesses and new entrepreneurs, jobs will be lost, which will not be replaced by artificial schemes that the Government concoct.
    I realise that the Opposition think that all the measures are socially desirable, and even likely to improve—
    Mr. David Jamieson (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): The hon. Lady is a member of the Opposition.
    Mrs. Gorman: I accept the hon. Gentleman's reprimand of my slight confusion. It is very difficult to believe that the sensible measures that we introduced will not be continued under this Administration.
    All the proposed measures will have a harmful effect in the workplace. People will not thank the Government for introducing regulations, which ostensibly will be sold to them as an improvement in protection, when they find that they no longer have jobs.
    6.45 pm
    Dr. Brian Iddon: A major delegation from the textile industry lobbied Parliament today. Hundreds of people joined us from all over the country, and members of the industry and employees made speeches. That is not the first time that they have lobbied this Parliament; several months ago, representatives from the regions came down to London. Such action shows the anxiety felt in Britain's textile industry. I welcomed the Secretary of State's statement that a meeting had taken place yesterday with the employers. I hope that some good will come from it.
    I did not, however, welcome the statement of the shadow Secretary of State, who seems, all of a sudden, to be pretending to show concern for the textile industry. Those of us who represent towns such as Bolton, where the textile industry is very strong and important to its economy, remember decline and decline during 18 years
    260
    of Tory government. Whenever Parliament was lobbied when the Tories were in power, all we ever heard was that they would not support lame ducks. When leading industries which are important to the economies of Italy, Germany, Japan and many other countries got themselves into temporary difficulty for whatever reason, why did their Governments deem it important to support them?
    We know that the textile industry has been in decline for a long time. I shall address issues concerning that in a moment. I remind Opposition Members that, in the north-west, where the textile industry is so strong, their policies have resulted in being able to count Conservative Members for the region on only one hand. When I go to the "NorthWestminster" regional television studios, I find it humorous that those working there wonder which of the four or five Conservative Members to invite on the programme the following week. They might even consider dressing them up in different uniforms so that they look different when they appear on television.
    Mr. Brady: I should like to put it on record that I am always happy to do that. Indeed, dressing up in different uniforms may even help the textile industry.
    Dr. Iddon: I look forward to seeing the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), opposite whom I always appear to sit on the programme, dressed up in another costume. I wonder who he will appear as.
    To be serious, the town of Bolton has a strong history in the textile movement. It was the cradle of the industrial revolution in textiles, where Crompton invented the mule, where Arkwright lived and worked for a while, and where the first mill to use the new industrial textile system—St. Helena—was built. I am pleased to say that it has been preserved, and still stands today.
    If one visits a town such as Bolton today, one will not be able to count so many smoking chimneys. In fact, my constituent, Fred Dibnah, said to me in his garden the other day, "Will you tell the Minister for the Environment that I've done more good for the environment than he'll ever do in the whole of his time in Westminster?" That is probably true. From the west Pennine moors overlooking Bolton, one can see scores of textile mills. Thankfully, many of them still manufacture textiles, although others have switched to alternative industries. Such textile mills are valuable to our town and to Britain.
    Let us look at the facts. Britain annually spends £25 billion on textiles. Although we export £8 billion of textiles, regrettably, we import £12 billion-worth. That £4 billion trade deficit could easily be balanced by demand in Britain. Those who lobbied the House today are asking, "Why on earth don't we start manufacturing the types of item that we import in huge volumes?" The question is very difficult to answer, whether we are talking about televisions, clothing, curtains, or anything else.
    The fact is that, in the north-west, 62,000 jobs—12 per cent. of its manufacturing employment—rely on textiles. Across Britain, 370,000 employees are involved in the industry. However, many of those people are currently either facing redundancy or working short time. Let us consider the situation of a textile worker who, month after month, works one week on and then one week off. What happens when that worker goes to see the Department of

    261
    Social Security? I assure the House that, because of that work pattern, it is very difficult for that worker to gain approval for his or her application for the jobseeker's allowance. Many workers end up living for two weeks on the wages that they earn in one week, as it is almost impossible for them to get benefits out of the DSS.
    Employees in the industry would be the first to admit that the strength of the pound has been a cause of their problems. However, they will also say—I have listened today to three major speeches by union leaders—that the strong pound has not been the primary problem. If that were so, why has the textile industry continued to decline over many years?
    Employees in the industry tell us that lack of investment and a subsequent productivity decline has been one of the major causes of problems in the textile industry—and in all British industry. Europe's production record in the textile industry is 30 per cent. better than ours. That gap, if analysed, speaks volumes.
    In 1964, when I left university, I considered going into the textile industry. I applied for a job, and was shown around a factory in Cheshire. I saw machinery that was built before the war. The people there admired the machinery and said, "Look what it's doing!" It was printing curtaining on both sides simultaneously, and producing an excellent product. However, even in 1964, the machine was not producing the product fast enough to stay ahead in the industry. Time and again, that has been the history of the United Kingdom textile industry. It has never thought about investing in state-of-the-art machinery, which is not only available but produced in the United Kingdom. We invent, produce and export such machinery, but we do not use it.
    Some British industries use state-of-the-art machinery, but not nearly enough; it is about time that they—especially the textile industry—did. It is much easier, however, for textile managers to uproot machinery, export it, employ cheaper labour, and export those textiles back to the United Kingdom. That is criminal, because it makes our people suffer, many of whom have been made unemployed. Once upon a time, far more than 370,000 people were employed in the UK textile industry.
    The condition of buildings is another factor in the industry's decline. We subsidise Japanese companies to come to various parts of the United Kingdom, and put them on green-field sites close to motorways to produce microchips. Why on earth do we allow our textile industry, which operates in a very competitive sector, to continue trying to produce in clapped-out mills which are often seven storeys high?
    I live next to one such example, Falcon mill, in the Halliwell part of Bolton. It is very costly to take goods up seven floors and then to bring them back down again. Moreover, I dare anyone to try to negotiate round very large transporters in the narrow streets of the old industrial parts of Bolton. It is about time that the textile industry not only invested in new machinery but got itself into modern productive plant, which one can find across Italy and in many parts of Germany.
    There has been little training and retraining in our textile industry, and I implore training and enterprise councils to pay more attention to that industry. If we are to invest in new plant and new machinery, we must have the new skills to operate the machinery, but TECs have
    262
    not paid sufficient attention to that problem. I welcome the establishment of the National Textiles Training Organisation, which has not yet received the recognition that it deserves.
    Finally, Mr. Mayor—Mr. Deputy Speaker; I apologise—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has forgotten where he is.
    Dr. Iddon: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I thought that I was in the council chamber in Bolton. I apologise.
    Britain can no longer produce bulk cotton or wool as raw materials. However—unlike other countries, at least so far—we are good at adding value to certain raw materials. We are very good at producing high-quality, high-value products that the rest of the world enjoys importing.
    I should give a brief plug for the Bolton Institute, which provides a superb training centre for those working in the textile industry and is very good at developing fire-retardant textiles. Around the world, disasters on mass transport, and in hotels, cinemas and nightclubs, have demonstrated the desperate need for textiles and other building materials to be flame-retardant. The Bolton Institute has a very fine research group that is leading the world in inventing new ways of stopping fabrics—including everyday clothing—catching fire.
    I compliment London Fashion Week, which has provided a showcase for British designers to show the world what they do. It is also helping London to catch on as one of the world's major fashion centres. Britain has some excellent schools for designers and for those working in all aspects of marketing. Sadly, however, many of our designers are still leaving Britain to live and work in France and Italy, among other places. We must not only train such skilled and innovative people but keep them here in Britain.
    I do not write off the textile industry. Some very skilled people work in the industry, and some very fine inventions are waiting to be marketed around the world. I hope that the Government will accept the challenge, run with it and put British textiles back at the top around the world.
    6.59 pm
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): I am grateful for the opportunity to speak—I hope briefly—in the debate on the Queen's Speech, which contains many measures that Plaid Cymru Members will want to support. Removal of the right of hereditary peers to vote in the other place is one such measure, and modernisation of local government is another.
    I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on saying that he supports elected mayors, at least for parts of England. We also very much welcome the proposal to legislate on the Disability Rights Commission. Of course, there will be measures that we will want to scrutinise very carefully, especially those on welfare reform in so far as they impact on the disabled, the long-term sick and the frail elderly. We want to ensure that they are not penalised in any way.
    The Queen's Speech heralded one of the major constitutional changes that this House has debated for generations, and probably this century. I listened with

    263
    some care to the words of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), who passionately believes that those constitutional changes are wrong. Obviously, I approach the topic from a different point of view.
    I know that the right hon. Gentleman holds his belief passionately, but I passionately believe that it is right that the people of Wales, of Scotland and of Northern Ireland should be allowed the responsibility—as in the referendum—to consider ways to promote their own affairs within their own territories. If people vote for such a change, the House should encourage them to ensure that it is not only implemented, but actually works.
    That is one reason why I want to mention a couple of facts that I believe will assist the Welsh Assembly to ensure that when it is established in six months time it will work well. All of us, whatever side of the debate we were on during the referendum in Wales, now want the Assembly to work. The primary responsibility of everyone elected to the body is to ensure that it works. Once the constitutional framework is in place, it must be allowed the flexibility to deal with various issues. For example, it needs the flexibility to develop innovative, practical and deliverable policies across all the policy areas that are devolved to it.
    My great disappointment is that the Queen's Speech did not deal with those specific issues. I shall give two brief examples; the first is training. As hon. Members from both sides of the House have said, one major problem is the multiplicity of organisations that deal with training. They may not be responsible for training in the strategic sense, but are responsible for its delivery. There is a great deal of confusion in the minds of employers, trade unions, young people, those who wish to return to work, those who are in work and those who need to be upskilled about the appropriate organisation to approach.
    One of the difficulties in Wales is that the training and enterprise councils have a patchy record. Some have done some good work, but others have fallen far short of the standards we expect. If the Assembly, not having legislative powers, is to deal with the problem, it needs the power to abolish TECs, if it so chooses, and to investigate other ways in which training can be delivered. Plaid Cymru wants the House to recognise that that flexibility is necessary. It is why we wanted the Queen's Speech to include a short Bill to allow the Welsh Assembly that freedom.
    As tonight's debate covers training-related issues, I want the House to consider a number of ways in which we could improve training throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. First, we should establish a new type of audit of skill needs and training outcomes. We need to broaden the existing skill needs research and ensure that it is done consistently. We should also audit the sort of training people receive and its relevance to current market needs. One of the problems is that many young people feel either that the training is inappropriate for them or that it is not suitable for the needs of the market in which they must work and live.
    Secondly, we must make full use of the enhanced Welsh Development Agency's market intelligence to forecast emerging skill needs. One problem with our existing training provision is that it often tries to deal with
    264
    current problems—with people currently out of work—rather than anticipating the skill needs of the new millennium.
    Mr. Hayes: I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's flow, as he is making an extremely considered case. He referred to training for redundant or outdated skills. Does he agree that we need to build into the system training for adaptability—the ability to anticipate and accept change and then deal with it? That is certainly what employers say to me, and it is what I have found from my business experience. We need young people to be flexible and adaptable, and the sort of training that the hon. Gentleman wants can be built into the system.
    Mr. Jones: I would not disagree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. However, it is not only employers who believe that that is necessary—although I accept that they do—but many trade unionists. Indeed, many young people believe that that is necessary, as do many of those currently involved in the delivery of inflexible training.
    My final point is that training should be reintegrated into mainstream education, while allowing scope for specialist training, especially in niche markets or cutting-edge technology. There will be a need for specialist training provision. In what is becoming a very competitive area, it is necessary to integrate education and training rather better than we do at present. It is essential that we develop proposals and have a continuing programme of upskilling as part of the lifelong learning project.
    Another area where the Assembly would need greater flexibility—although it is not the subject of tonight's debate—is health, which I wish to mention briefly. I declare an interest, as I am a member of the Royal College of Nursing parliamentary panel. The Assembly should be given the opportunity to be much more flexible in the way that it approaches health provision. I served on the Standing Committee of the Bill that set up NHS trusts in 1989. I have always believed that they were unnecessary, and a wasteful way of using national health resources, and that they created unnecessary bureaucracy and duplication of management.
    The Bill that will result from the Queen's Speech needs—on the premise that it will begin to dismantle the internal market in health—to go substantially further. I want the Assembly to be given the power, if it so wishes, to dismantle and abolish NHS trusts. All that is proposed for the Assembly is the power, if it so wishes, to reconfigure trusts. Frankly, that is simply tinkering with the problem, and we need to go substantially further. The Assembly should have the flexibility to look at the whole of the health area, rather than being restricted by legislative difficulties.
    When we examine the proposal to dismantle general practitioner fundholding and put local health groups in its place, we must ensure that that does not simply compound the problem through duplication of management. We should ensure that the reform does not create another tier of bureaucracy, one which does not enable us to deliver better health care in the long term. I am not saying that I am opposed to the idea, but I want to see how it is to be put into practice before giving it our firm backing.

    265
    Finally, I have two more brief points relating to health. First, I want more development of community hospitals, so that we have better integration between community hospitals, GP practices and community services. I believe that we can enhance the provision of health care in rural areas in particular, many of which are far away from district general hospitals. The provision of a more comprehensive community hospital service could bring immediate and substantial benefits.
    My second and final point on health is that we are facing a massive problem with the recruitment of nurses and doctors. Time after time, under the previous Administration, we heard about an explosion in the number of managers in the health services and a reduction in the number of front-line nurses and doctors. The Royal College of Nursing has carried out an important survey, which shows that many of our hospitals are suffering recruitment problems. For example, Wales urgently needs at least 500 more nurses and 200 more midwives. Acute hospital trusts have vacancies that they cannot fill, not because they lack the resources, but because of insufficient nurses to fill the posts.
    I ask the Government to give the National Assembly for Wales the flexibility to address the important matters of training and health. In so doing, they would give the Assembly a head start and ensure that, when it is established, it can do a proper job of work.
    7.12 pm
    Ann Keen: I welcome all the Queen's Speech, but I shall focus my remarks on the fairness at work White Paper and legislation. I am vice-chair of the parliamentary trade union group and secretary to my own union group here—the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union, or GMB. The House would therefore expect me to take an interest in trade union and employment issues.
    In recent discussions with Paul Kenny, London regional secretary to the GMB, we talked about whether any changes had occurred since the White Paper was issued in July. He replied that it was obvious that companies now wanted to talk, having realised that legislation was coming through. They were asking the GMB what benefits it could bring to their company, and what sort of relationship they could expect with the unions if talks started. That marks a different approach by the trade unions than the one described by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), who is no longer in the Chamber. It is about co-operation, partnership and talking; it has already started and it is accelerating.
    If that relationship is absent, and if open discussion does not occur, the result is the situation that we are on the eve of changing. An example can be seen in a company that I have mentioned in previous debates—Noons, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra), in which constituents of mine are employed.
    For a year up to the publication of the White Paper, the company had been engaged in a bitter battle with its work force. More than 500 people work in the company, which prepares Asian food for large supermarkets. The bitterness was entrenched and there was no talking—an old-style approach. The company had challenged the union representatives, there was intimidation and an extremely stressful environment. Now—tomorrow, I believe—an
    266
    agreement is to be signed. The parties are talking, and a positive future beckons for that company. Congratulations should go to both sides, because it is only when both sides agree to talks that good results can be achieved.
    However, some of my other constituents, whom I met recently, are not so lucky. They work in the London casinos, which are not usually perceived as a bedrock of trade unionism. The casinos wage a war of words, and there are constant legal challenges, conflicts and recourse to industrial tribunals. The whole approach emphasises the differences. I want my Government to include in their fairness at work legislation a small and simple procedure to ensure that bad bosses have no room for manoeuvre—no room to use expensive delaying tactics and legal challenges when a ballot has taken place and democratic procedures followed. I hope that the Government will address that problem in the Bill.
    I am sorry that the hon. Member for Billericay is not here to hear my comments on family-friendly policies, because such policies are crucial to the future stability of the work force. If employers do not take care of the work force, how can they expect the loyalty and commitment from their employees on which many small businesses rely?
    Like the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), I want to talk about the health service from an employment perspective. I am a member of the Select Committee on Health, which is examining recruitment and retention of staff. We know that part of the problem with retention of staff relates to employment practices in the national health service.
    The NHS is the largest employer in Europe. I hope that we now have a Government who will look at employment practices within the NHS, and that all staff, across the spectrum, will be entitled to family-friendly policies. That is not only a slogan. My profession is nursing, and I know of many occasions when part-time work has been asked for, but not given. The attitude encountered is that of the old school: "I work full time, I started my shift at 7.30 am, I did not have child care, so you can do it too." The problem is that staff are not doing it, and they are not staying. At last we have a Government who are working in partnership with the health service and saying that, if staff are to stay in a difficult job, they must be cared for.
    When the chief executive of my local hospital, John de Braux of the West Middlesex University Hospital NHS trust, was asked recently about problems with the millennium bug, he said that, until the Labour Government were elected in 1997, there had been no investment in his hospital for more than 25 years, so he was happy with the equipment being up to date and able to cope with the millennium bug; however, he remained extremely concerned about staffing levels. The staff who were on duty that night or that week were not his sole concern; he also had to take into account their domestic circumstances.
    Many nurses are married to ambulance workers, and ambulance workers sometimes marry fire officers. That can lead to complex problems of the type facing Mr. de Braux—who is to look after the children and so enable his staff to come on duty? I had not previously considered such problems, and I am telling as many of my colleagues as possible that it is something that they should examine in the context of their local area. Family-friendly policies are crucial.

    267
    Trade unions are now encouraged to work in partnership. The Government are right to promote such an approach, and they should be congratulated on doing so. However, we need to consider how to protect vulnerable people at work—people working in small units, subject to bad bosses who still look for loopholes that will enable them to avoid trade union recognition, and having to ensure that working conditions are adequate. So I urge the Government to look at the Bill to see whether procedures can operate in that way. It is the only way in which everyone can work together. Working together with the trade union movement is a positive approach to the next century.
    7.20 pm
    Mr. Howard Flight: I should like to talk about trade, industry and employment from the point of view of someone responsible for a company employing some 450 people around the world. In the private sector, survival is about covering one's costs with a margin. Government action and legislation that add to those costs directly affect employees.
    The Government's objectives, as expressed in the Queen's Speech, are to achieve high and stable levels of growth and employment and to improve productivity through measures addressing competition, investment and entrepreneurship. We all share those objectives. Governments will always engage in propaganda and are entitled to do so, but I am concerned that the present Government believe that the policies that they have been pursuing and advocating will achieve their objectives. That is not the perception of those of us who live in the real world.
    I shall concentrate on small business. In his Budget speech, the Chancellor had much to say about the Government's support for and encouragement of small business and entrepreneurs, although I have found no such references in the Queen's Speech. I perceive that the Government are doing grave damage to small business. They are listening to the chairmen in big business, who lead easy lives, rather than paying attention to the problems that their measures are causing small business. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) has already made some of the points: I shall highlight one issue in particular.
    During the summer—I think it was 10 September—a national insurance regulation was slipped through that imposes a massive tax on small business: the very business that the Chancellor said he was trying to encourage. When small companies are set up, entrepreneurs have shares in them. Now, if those businesses start to succeed and, under typical buy-out ratchets, the shares convert from one class to another, they face a substantial tax. Next year they will pay 12.2 per cent. in national insurance. Typically, 30 per cent. of the equity of a company may be affected. Although no one will have realised any money, some businesses will be hit by a massive tax of some 5 per cent. of their market value.
    Still to come is a similar tax. When a business is floated to raise money, and the options that entrepreneurs may own need to be sold as part of the issue, there will be a tax of 12.2 per cent. on their value. How on earth can the Government say that such measures are supportive of entrepreneurs and small businesses?
    268
    I could cite other measures that will be equally damaging to small businesses. The working families tax credit, to which others have referred, will place a massive burden on under-resourced small businesses. Trade union negotiations represent yet another burden on businesses with 20 employees, as will the costs of extended maternity leave. Those and other very nice measures are desirable in principle, but will not keep a small business afloat. Small businesses cannot have people disappearing all the time.
    In the financial services sector, quite unfairly in some cases, two measures will drive small independent financial intermediaries out of business. Many consider that a desirable objective. It will no longer be possible for many small businesses to compete and to comply adequately with rising regulation and bureaucracy.
    First, I should like to know why the Queen's Speech contained no reference to the assertions by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Was it all just hot air? Secondly, I should like the Government to do what the Chancellor claims they are doing, and not to damage small business.
    The Government promise to improve levels of growth and employment. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), who asked whether the Government were aware of what is going on. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which is a conservative organisation that does not support any one political party, has warned that the United Kingdom will be lucky to achieve 0.8 per cent. growth next year and 1.5 per cent. growth in 2000. It warns that unemployment here will rise by 500,000 during 1999–2000, and that Government debt will be £36 billion over what has been forecast.
    The Confederation of British Industry—a great friend of the Labour Government and not exactly an organ of the Opposition—has found the lowest level of business confidence in the United Kingdom since 1980. It predicts a sharp downturn, with considerable risk of outright recession. Consumer confidence is declining, and the level of consumer spending on credit cards is at its lowest since records began in 1993. New orders are at their lowest since 1991, and exports are at their weakest since records first began in 1977. Ours is hardly an economy that will achieve nice growth and in which employment will increase; it is likely to decrease substantially.
    Others have referred to the economic background. The Government have introduced £40 billion-worth of extra costs and taxes on businesses, and plan to spend an extra £37 billion on social security. The extra taxes and regulatory costs on businesses are equivalent to £1,500 per job.
    It is interesting to step back and look at continental Europe and America over the past 25 years. The US economy, which does not have overdone employment laws but an open labour market, has created some 40 million new jobs in the past 25 years. Continental Europe, which has restrictions and regulations—all in a good cause—towards which our Government are now moving with increasing enthusiasm, has lost 15 million jobs in the past 30 years. That is a pretty clear demonstration that increased employment costs that make it more difficult for small businesses price people out of work.
    Mr. Chris Pond: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, over the period to which he refers,

    269
    although net employment growth in the United Kingdom was 3 per cent.—it subsequently declined—it was 11 per cent. in Germany, 18 per cent. in Italy and 6 per cent. in France? On the whole, continental Europe did rather better than the United Kingdom, despite the deregulation policies that he supports.
    Mr. Flight: With the greatest respect, I dispute the hon. Gentleman's figures. The other day, I saw with some astonishment that the number of people employed in Germany was 29 million out of a population of 80 million, whereas the number of people employed in this country was 27 million out of a population of nearly 60 million. I do not know from what base the hon. Gentleman calculates the growth rate in Germany, but more people are out of work in Germany than has been the case since before the second world war, whereas this country has the lowest unemployment rate of any economy in Europe.
    I do not think that anyone in the business world is taken in by the fairness at work agenda. Fairness at work—a silly euphemism—is about settling the account with the trade unions and moving in line with European employment regulations, or, rather, job-destroying regulations. In horticulture, for example, which employs 30,000 people, the directive on part-time workers will destroy many jobs; the industry cannot afford to provide all those who, under prior arrangements, work fewer than 20 hours a week, with the contracts, terms and benefits of full-time employment. The directive will mean that large numbers of employees, especially females who want part-time employment, will lose their jobs.
    The fairness at work Bill will enforce trade union recognition. As the CBI has pointed out, good employee relations should be built on trust, which is not best fostered when trade unions have imposed collective bargaining on an employer. On smaller industries, the CBI has said that the removal of the cap on unfair dismissal compensation will drive many people out of business. I know from direct experience of employers' concerns about the liabilities that may arise when someone is not suitable for a job. It can be two years before one knows whether an employee will fit in, especially in a highly skilled job, and there is now a major deterrent to employing anyone in such a post.
    The Government have undergone a sudden conversion to the McKinsey report, although they do not refer to its main points on lower productivity. The fact that the many people in this country who have been employed in lower-paid jobs would be unemployed in continental Europe must be put into the equation if the productivity figures are to be comparable.
    As my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon said, the state of the economy is partly the Government's fault and partly a result of what is happening in the rest of the world, but the Government's actions will lead to declining levels of growth and to 500,000 fewer people in employment. The third way—guff, as far as I can see—is a reversion to Labour's bad old ways. It is about higher taxes and higher Government spending, especially on social security. The Government are restoring the economically damaging trade union process that was shown not to work in the 1970s—the laws were often impossible to enforce.
    Entrepreneurs are becoming demoralised, and are once again leaving the country in droves. The future will not be successful unless small companies and new businesses
    270
    prosper, as the American experience over the past 10 years has shown. I know from my own business that the only tangible result of the working time directive is the need for additional clerical staff to keep records of the hours that everyone works. What a waste of time. People who work in business are keen for their businesses to succeed, and are more than happy to work whatever hours are necessary, but they have to carry out unnecessary bureaucratic tasks to comply with yet more Government regulations.
    I see nothing in the Queen's Speech that is positive for trade, industry or employment; indeed, I see a great deal that is negative. In the current global climate, much more should have been positive.
    7.35 pm
    Mr. Chris Pond: Like other hon. Members, I want to speak about the fairness at work agenda and family-friendly employment policies, to which the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) referred. I want particularly to deal with parental or family leave, which I believe will have a significant impact on a large section of the population. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who made a powerful speech based on her long commitment to these issues—I am pleased to support much of what she said.
    Family-friendly policies were the subject of light-hearted criticism from the hon. Members for Arundel and South Downs and for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). The hon. Lady said that business did not exist to create happy families, but does she believe that people exist to create a healthy balance sheet in business? I suggest to her—I am sorry that she is no longer in the Chamber—that there should be a partnership between families and business; the most effective and prosperous businesses are those that invest heavily in, and regard as their most important asset, the people who work for them.
    Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Pond: I want to make a little progress, but I shall give way later.
    An extension of parental—as opposed to maternity or paternity—leave would have a significant impact. One in five people are parents of a child under five; indeed, I understand that one in eight hon. Members are parents of a child under five. None of us can pretend that the Palace of Westminster leads the way in promoting family-friendly policies. Any institution that begins its main business an hour before schools close and continues until an hour at which even the most recalcitrant child should be fast asleep in bed cannot describe itself as family-friendly.
    I do not complain about that. I have a five-year-old child but, like so many other hon. Members with young children, I find that the Whips are flexible and accommodating when it is necessary to put home before work. Attitudes in the House have changed to some extent. In 1979, the then Member of Parliament for Leicester, West promoted a private Member's Bill to introduce seven days' paternity leave. It was described by Conservative Members as grotesque, absurd and an incitement to a population explosion.

    271
    I had thought that those attitudes had changed, until I heard the shadow Secretary of State describe such proposals as economic illiteracy. Indeed, I must correct the hon. Member for Billericay. She said that the working families tax credit could be paid to people with salaries of up to £38,000 a year and so would cover up to half the population. That example applies only to those families with five children under the age of 11, and I do not think that even the hon. Lady believes that such families constitute half the population.
    I was fortunate that, when my child was born, I worked for an organisation—the Low Pay Unit—which took family-friendly policies seriously. The weeks that I was able to spend with my daughter at the beginning of her life formed a bond between us which will be long-term, enduring and sustainable. In thinking about reforming the Child Support Agency, perhaps we need to think also about ways in which we could encourage that commitment by fathers to their children at an early stage—which may make institutions such as the CSA less necessary.
    It is sad that many relationships between adults break down and end in separation or divorce, but the relationship between a parent and a child should never end, under any circumstances. The policies proposed by the Government to promote family or parental leave will assist in the process, and I fully support the Government.
    The measure will not just assist fathers. In Europe and America, 55 to 60 per cent. of working women supply half or more of the family's household income—those figures are from the International Labour Organisation. In just over 10 years' time, the ILO tells us, 80 per cent. of all women in industrialised countries will be working outside the home throughout their child-bearing years. The Government's welfare-to-work strategy is intended to promote further opportunities for people to work if they wish to do so—even when they are parents.
    If the employment responsibilities within the household are to be more equally shared, so too should the parenting responsibilities. That is why the policies are so important. At present, many fathers find it difficult to be actively involved in their children's lives. The average working week for fathers is 20 hours longer than for working mothers, and four hours longer than for other employed men. More seriously, men's working hours tend to increase when a new child comes into the family. At the very time when it might be argued that a father's role is so important, many feel that they have no choice but to work longer hours to meet the additional costs of that new mouth to feed. That is bad for children and for their families.
    The Family Policies Study Centre tells us that the culture of long working hours may pose a threat to the stability of family life, and a major survey has shown that one in four fathers work more than 50 hours a week and that their absence had a detrimental effect on joint family activities.
    The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs may be sceptical about the working time directive, but I wonder what he would say to the person who, not so long ago, wrote to the Low Pay Unit to say that she was expected to work 112 hours a week, night work,
    272
    for £150 before tax. That is not a matter of choice. Very often, it is a matter of someone saying, "Either you work these hours or you have no job."
    The current situation is bad for children and families, but it is also bad for the economy and society. A MORI survey, commissioned by the Daycare Trust, found that three quarters of employers believed that there was a business case for family friendly employment policies.
    Mr. Brady: The hon. Gentleman has helpfully come back to the point on which I first wished to intervene—the argument that there is a business case for the measures. I am sympathetic to that argument, and many business men would agree that one can run a more effective and productive work force by being generous and accommodating to employees. Surely that is an argument against legislating in those areas. If productivity can be improved and businesses can improve their performance, one does not need to legislate to force such proposals on them.
    Mr. Pond: The hon. Gentleman's point underlines something that I was about to say. The chairman and chief executive officer of Xerox agrees with both of us that family-friendly working practices are a "powerful business tool." That was what he told a conference in September, and he added that, as a result,
    "workers are more efficient, productive and satisfied in the job."
    The difficulty is that, if such matters are left solely to voluntary arrangements—as the Federation of Small Businesses has pointed out—firms will be at a disadvantage in terms of the recruitment and retention of staff. The large firms which can afford to get the competitive advantage of looking after their staff well will do so, and there will be a further squeezing out of the small firms sector.
    Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Pond: No, I wish to make a little more progress. I am sure that I will return to the point in a few moments, and I may allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene again.
    The current situation is bad for society as a whole, and inadequate fathering has an impact on a child's social development—as reflected in juvenile crime, marital break-up and stress. The House should take seriously the wish of 80 per cent. of eight to 15-year-old children who want to spend more time with their fathers. I am pleased that, as a result of the proposals, they will be able to do that.
    To be effective and equitable, parental leave should be paid—as is the case in most other EU countries. I am pleased that the Government are considering the introduction of paid paternity leave, as confirmed by a written answer in Hansard on 11 June.
    I believe that the principle should be extended to family or parental leave generally. Many employees have a contractual entitlement to such leave. Even when no payment exists, higher-paid employees may well decide—and often do—that they need to take time off around the birth of their child. For low-paid employees, that is not an option—unless parental or family leave is paid. Half of families with children under five say that they are only just making ends meet. They cannot afford to take time off, even though that may be the right thing for their

    273
    children at the time. For that reason, the arrival of a child may result in those fathers working longer hours, rather than fewer.
    As my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham asked, what is a responsible parent to do in those circumstances? When a new child comes into a household, most would say that it is the role of both parents to be involved. However, a responsible parent on a low wage without paid parental leave may decide that the most responsible thing to do is to work even longer hours—even if that means that they are not available—to supplement the family income at a time when that is necessary.
    The small firms sector has made it clear that it does not find difficulties with the proposals, despite what Opposition Members have suggested. At the launch of the parental leave campaign organised by New Ways to Work, the Federation of Small Businesses said that payment for parental leave would not be a difficulty for small firms, assuming that it was reimbursed easily to overcome possible cash-flow problems.
    Parental leave is a feasible policy that will certainly benefit families and children, and society as a whole. I believe also that it makes good business sense. I warmly welcome the proposals in the Queen's Speech, and I look forward to seeing them brought into legislation.
    7.48 pm
    Mr. Graham Brady: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond), as it gives me an opportunity to point out a profound illogicality in his remarks. He said that there was a business case for the proposals, and seemed to suggest that there was a business case only for large companies which would gain a competitive advantage. However, he went on to say that small businesses would be disadvantaged. If there is an advantage for a business—large or small—surely small business will embrace the proposal as well, and will not suffer a competitive disadvantage.
    The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) may not always remember where he is, but he always remembers what he believes. There is no doubt about his passion for representing the interests of Bolton and the north-west. Sadly, he invariably reaches the wrong conclusions about how the best interests of that city and our region can be pressed forward most effectively. The great prosperity of Manchester and the area that he and I are privileged to represent was built through free markets: it was built through enterprise, not through the socialist regulation that the Government have foreshadowed in the Queen's Speech.
    It is a great and refreshing thing, though, to hear a Labour Member setting out an honest set of beliefs, in stark contrast with what we hear from Ministers, who get themselves tied up in trying to justify some of their proposals in a rather illogical fashion. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry may have betrayed the reasons for that, as well as the low regard that he has for many of his Cabinet colleagues, when he described the Government as half-intelligent—although that may have been flattery.
    The fatal flaw in the Government's economic and business policy is that they are making it progressively more costly to produce goods in this country as compared
    274
    with competitor countries throughout the world. It is bizarre to hear Ministers repeatedly talking about their belief in greater labour market flexibility, precisely when they are decreasing that flexibility. That will cause a progressively worse problem for British business at a time when world and domestic economic trends suggest it is likely to be least able to cope with added burdens.
    It never fails to amaze me how the Government use a word to mean the exact opposite of what the rest of us understand by it. That appears to be the case with the word "flexibility". The game was given away to me when I went to Brussels with the Employment Committee and we had a meeting with Padraig Flynn, the Social Affairs Commissioner, who, just after the Prime Minister had come back from the so-called jobs summit, said to me, "Oh, no. We are not talking about flexibility but about positive flexibility." I apologise to hon. Members for my poor impersonation, and perhaps I should apologise to the Commissioner, too.
    Mr. Flynn said that the agenda of the European Union, with which he believed the Government were entirely in accord, was not about creating greater flexibility, as any normal commentator or outside observer would understand it, but about something entirely different, called positive flexibility, which in fact meant the opposite. When I asked the Social Affairs Commissioner which country he thought had the most flexible labour market at the moment, he said Denmark, not the United Kingdom.
    A few days ago, I put the same question to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who gave an even more remarkable reply, saying that the United Kingdom had the most flexible labour market. It is odd that the right hon. Gentleman seeks to take credit for that, when the whole thrust of his policy will make our labour market less flexible.
    The Government would be wise to consider the great Conservative achievement of the past 20 years in freeing up the British economy, making it more flexible and competitive, and allowing a more responsive employment market to develop. Those things can be destroyed overnight, but they are very difficult and time-consuming to put in place.
    That was brought home to me last week when I had the privilege of addressing a seminar in Bonn, where the British Council's hospitality was adequate, but not exotic. One of the other speakers, a German economist from the Kiel institute for world economics, presented some very interesting findings, in particular a comparison between the UK and west German employment markets. He was careful to remove the effect of reunification from the comparative figures.
    That economist's graphs showed that the decline in manufacturing employment in both the United Kingdom and west Germany had followed a broadly similar trend, but that in the former that had not led to a constant trend increase of unemployment as it had in the latter. The inescapable conclusion is that the more flexible, freer labour market, and the more dynamic economy built up in this country by Conservative Governments, can deliver higher levels of employment and is the fundamental reason why our unemployment is at only half the level that prevails in Germany.
    It is a great cause for concern that the direction of European Union policy may make things much worse. The Social Affairs Commissioner clearly has an agenda

    275
    of raising social and employment costs, and members of the Government, along with their socialist colleagues in Europe, have signed up to increased labour costs and reduced flexibility. The programme has serious potential consequences for the UK economy.
    In line with frequent comments from the German Government, the head of customs and revenue in the European Union stressed in the Evening Standard today that the single currency will be the engine driving taxation issues. It is becoming increasingly plain to everyone outside the Government that achieving and maintaining convergence in a single currency area will have numerous implications, with harmonised social, employment and taxation regulations and law. It is time that the Government recognised that and stopped risking leaving the British public to make decisions in the dark.
    We do not yet know what will be proposed in detail, after a protracted debate in the national newspapers between the left wing of the Labour party and the trade unions on the one hand, and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Confederation of British Industry on the other. He appears to be trying to please both the unions and the CBI.
    We do not know exactly what the final fairness at work proposals will be, but it is certain that they will increase costs on businesses and make it less efficient to run them in the United Kingdom, with a damaging effect on employment. That was perhaps recognised by the Secretary of State in his opening remarks, when his only proposal to help enterprise was to remove the stigma of business failure. Perhaps he was quietly recognising that his one achievement on enterprise and business will be to oversee the closure of far more businesses, with far more people put out of work.
    Today, we have read that we had the highest ever trade deficit this month: £2.5 billion. That will be made worse as the cost of producing goods here increases relative to the cost elsewhere. The new deal programme is vastly expensive and has only one distinction: that it has completely arrested the decline in unemployment in the target groups, and possibly even turned it around.
    It is a remarkable fact that, in April to July 1997, 27,000 18 to 24-year-olds who had been unemployed for six months or more came out of unemployment, whereas, in January to April 1998, unemployment in that age group increased by 1,226, and in April to July 1998—the first quarter when the new deal was effective—only 2,500 came out of unemployment.
    The figures showing whether employability is being enhanced are perhaps more damning still. The likelihood of 18 to 24-year-olds remaining unemployed for nine months if they have already been unemployed for six months is increasing. In July 1997, the likelihood of still being unemployed after nine months was 60 per cent: in July this year the figure had risen to 64 per cent.
    The Government promised to put young unemployed people back into work, but they have failed. The Government said that their new deal programme would increase employability. That is difficult to define, and therefore to judge, but the figures are beginning to make it clear that the Government are also failing at that.
    The new deal programme will not even compensate for the massive increased costs to business that the Government have created. It will not compensate for
    276
    the cost of the minimum wage or of the working time directive. Perhaps more important—I made my point about the Engineering Employers Federation's submission earlier in an intervention in the speech by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—the new deal programme will not compensate for the enormous burden of regulation and record-keeping that the Government's proposals will force on to business.
    I turn to the Government's achievements, or rather failures, in education. Education is vital for the well-being and development of our children, as well as for our economic success. I am sure all hon. Members would agree that this country has not had the strongest educational record, and that has been true for some time.
    Ms Candy Atherton: For 18 years.
    Mr. Brady: It is longer than that since this country had the best performance in education, which we would all like to see. The hon. Lady and her party would be wise to seek to improve what is failing, rather than to break down what is succeeding. I represent an area with some of the best schools in the country, certainly in Greater Manchester, where we have a selective education system, with good grammar schools and good secondary modern schools. I am concerned that one of the Government's priorities was to introduce a programme to destroy good schools rather than to improve bad ones. That is also the case in the foolish and wilful destruction of the grant-maintained schools, which have achieved so much already and could have achieved so much more in raising standards in education.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and I both had the pleasure of serving in Committee on the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, as did the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), who cannot say so, even from a sedentary position. I am happy to give him credit for the many hours that we enjoyed in Committee.
    Mr. Don Foster: Ahem!
    Mr. Brady: How could I forget the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster)?
    In the debates on class sizes in Committee, we raised several concerns that what started as a laudable objective could go horribly wrong for schools and for the Government. I take no pleasure in the fact that many of those concerns have already started to come back to us in constituency mail. Some schools are concerned that their budgets will be hit; others fear that they will lose members of staff because their rolls are falling; yet others think that they will lose teaching assistants as a result of the Government's policy. The Government's record to date is woeful, and suggests that they will reduce educational attainment rather than improve it. The Queen's Speech contained no proposal of any consequence to address those problems or to try to raise the standard of the Government's performance in education.
    The Queen's Speech foreshadowed increased costs for business. Its proposals will put more people out of work, make it harder for Britain to compete in the world and fail to provide any new hope to children for a better standard of education to improve our performance in the future.
    8.4 pm
    Ms Candy Atherton: My speech welcoming the Queen's Speech was going to be much longer, but the speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) have allowed me to shorten my contribution. Both spoke about children and the effect of work on the family.
    As a member of the Select Committee on Education and Employment, I have an especial interest in our plans to develop the new deal, and it is appropriate to talk about that, given the speech by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). I also wish to talk about employability and fairness at work. I pay tribute to the members of the employment service in Cornwall, who have worked hard to become a beacon as pathfinders for the new deal for 18 to 24-year-olds and as pilots for the 25-plus group. I welcome today's publication of the new deal document for the under-25s, which illustrates the innovation that the Government and the employment service are putting into developing the new deal.
    Cornwall especially will build innovatively on existing programmes. For example, one project will enable older workers with experience in declining industries to use their experience in growth industries. Another project has been successful in helping workers to transfer into woodland management and timber processing. In a part of the country such as Cornwall, which has lost tin mines, where farming has been in decline and fishing has had its problems, new opportunities through the new deal are to be welcomed.
    I was privileged to serve on the Committee that considered the National Minimum Wage Bill. When I am a lot older than I am now, one of my favourite memories of Parliament will be the faces of Conservative Members as they realised that they faced all-night sittings of the Committee because Labour Members were determined to force through the national minimum wage. The Conservatives realised that they were going to be there all night and into the afternoon, because we were committed to our manifesto commitment to get rid of poverty wages. I was proud to be part of introducing that historic measure to provide fair wages for a fair day's work. Let me warn the Conservatives that we shall not let them get away with holding up our Bills in this Session, either.
    I look forward to the fairness at work legislation. As a Cornish Member, I am glad that it will address various issues. Take South West Water—actually, somebody: please take South West Water. It has the highest bills and the lowest performance indicators in the country, not to mention some diabolical plans that it has implemented or intends to implement in my constituency. On top of everything, South West Water has de-recognised Unison. Despite the support of the overwhelming majority of workers for the union, the company refused point blank to recognise it.
    The fairness at work legislation will remedy that situation. It cannot be right, when the majority of workers wish to be members of a union, that a large employer, such as South West Water, can refuse to recognise it. That unfairness needs to be addressed.
    I hope that we shall also see an end to the blacklisting of union members. Hon. Members will not need reminding of the appalling treatment that many people
    278
    have suffered at the hands of the Economic League and others. The end of that situation will be welcomed throughout the country.
    Much in the Queen's Speech will be welcomed by women. My right hon. and hon. Friends have discussed parental leave, which will give mothers and fathers individual rights, not transferable between them. I can think of few more family-friendly policies than that. Parents will be able to use their leave to attend school events, provide child care, or simply bond with their child. I hope that Opposition Members will reflect and support that proposal. Conservative Members talk of the cost to industry, but imagine the savings to industry if fewer family breakdowns occurred. Policies that support parents in raising their children should be supported even by some of the ayatollahs on the Conservative Benches.
    As a Cornish Member, I welcome the news that there will be reform of structural funds. We in Cornwall look forward to the new year, when final areas are to be announced. With the lowest gross domestic product in the country, we look forward to some good news in 1999.
    I very much support the Queen's Speech. Apart from the obvious big battles that stretch before us, such as reform of the House of Lords—something that I particularly welcome—it is clear that Bills that focus on fairness at work, for example, will improve the lives of men and women throughout the country. That will build a stronger partnership between workers and employers, provide necessary protection and lead to new ways of working.
    8.11 pm
    Mr. Don Foster: We have had a fascinating debate so far, and one enlivened with some powerful speeches. I refer particularly to the contribution of the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond). I wish to place it on record how much I agree with every one of his remarks. It is appropriate also to refer to the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), who spent a large part of his speech praising others who have worked hard on disability rights. It would be inappropriate for the debate to conclude without reference to the significant effort that he has put into forcing through disability rights. I put on record, from the Liberal Democrat Benches, our support for the work that the hon. Gentleman has done.
    Predominantly, the debate has been about trade and industry matters. However, it is billed as a debate that is intended also to cover education and employment. I hope that the House will not object if I use the few minutes that are available to me to pick up one or two issues relating to those subjects.
    I am sure that the House will be aware that I would have liked many education and employment issues to be set out in the Gracious Speech. For example, I would have liked to see a Bill relating to lifelong learning. The Government have made some good progress in that direction, but they have so far failed to acknowledge the vital importance of a strategic planning framework for lifelong learning. A Bill would be very important.
    I would have liked to see a Bill taking forward further developments in early-years education. We know that the Government have committed themselves—the Labour party did so in its manifesto—to developing high-quality early years education for three-year-olds as well as for four-year-olds. However, unfortunately, despite the

    279
    questions submitted to the Department, we still have not received from it a commitment on when the extension will take place. Legislation to bring forward that extension, while at the same time adding to the Government's proposals for early-years education, would be important.
    I would like to see an agreement on both sides of the House that there is a need to have a specific key stage for the early years, perhaps to be called a foundation key stage. It seems odd that, while both sides of the House have recognised that the early years in education are the most important, and although we have key stages 1, 2, 3 and 4, we do not have a specific key stage for that phase.
    I would have liked to see other proposed pieces of education and employment legislation in the Queen's Speech, perhaps those covering all aspects of employment. I would have liked also to see proposals for age discrimination legislation going further than the Government's current plans to have a non-statutory, non-binding code of practice. I would have been pleased to see specific statutory legislation proposed in that regard.
    It seems from the Queen's Speech that there is to be no new legislation for education. In a sense, I am expressing disappointment, because I have said that I would like to see references to certain pieces of proposed legislation. In another sense, I confess to some relief. I have been in the House since 1992 and, during every year since then, I have served on Committees considering one, and more often two, major pieces of education legislation. That is my personal relief, and no doubt the Secretary of State shares it. We are delighted to see the right hon. Gentleman in his place this evening. I know that he has a busy schedule. He may have had to make some difficult changes so as to be with us this evening. I suspect that he may not be pleased about that, but that he is pleased that there is not to be specific new education legislation.
    I suggest to the Secretary of State and to the House that there is an additional benefit in there being no new education legislation. There has been a tendency on the Government's part to be rather quick to grab the headlines with some good, innovative and exciting education measures, many of which that we support, without having necessarily worked out all the details.
    The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) referred to legislation on class sizes, which is a good example. Most hon. Members would support the Government's intention to reduce class sizes. Indeed, many of us would like them to go further and reduce class sizes for key stage 2 as well, and in due course reduce class sizes, at least for the practical subjects, in secondary schools. However, there is no doubt that previous legislation has been rushed through and that many of the details were not sorted out in time.
    Bits of sticking plaster have been placed on top of sticking plaster. The sums of money that were originally intended to be sufficient to cover the costs of reducing class sizes were demonstrated clearly to be inadequate, and more money has had to be found.
    There is also the problem—there are many other examples—of admission policy. Despite the new admission guidance brought out recently by the Department, many parents still believe that it is important
    280
    for them to get their child into the reception class of a school even though they do not want their child to go to it—perhaps because it is an overcrowded reception class—merely to guarantee a place at the statutory school starting age. To solve this problem, the Government have offered what I believe to be the ludicrous proposition that reception classes can leave a place open. Under the current local management of schools formulae, that will not work. What school would leave a place open and lose the money associated with it?
    The House will know that my party did not support the introduction of student tuition fees. There were problems in the early days involving gap-year students. Later on, and very recently, there have been problems associated with the analysis of parental income of non-United Kingdom European Union students.
    I have given some examples of where details have not been worked out. I suggest to the Government, and particularly to the Secretary of State, three specific areas where they could use the year ahead of us to get some of the details right. I choose the areas of target setting, the bidding process and issues relating to the new deal.
    There is no doubt that the Government are right to believe that target setting can be a key tool in levering up standards. We support them in that. However, the issue is whether the targets that are being set are the right ones. I suggest that the Government, by rushing through their proposals, have not arrived at the right target. I refer to the literacy and numeracy targets for key stage 2. The Secretary of State has expressed himself as deeply concerned about literacy and numeracy standards, and rightly so. The right hon. Gentleman has therefore set what he claims to be tough targets. They are so tough that, if 80 per cent. of pupils do not reach level 4 in key stage 2 in literacy, and 75 per cent. do not reach it in numeracy by 2002, he will resign. Those, he claims, are tough targets.
    I truly believe that there is no question but that those targets will be met, not only in time but, I suspect, a year ahead of time. In my view, they are not tough targets. Instead, they are politically expedient targets. More important, there is a fallacy within this target-setting agenda, for the simple reason that the Government have rightly expressed their desire to remove social exclusion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer promised at the Labour party conference that the Government would abolish social exclusion as we understand it. Yet, if targets are set so that 80 per cent. of children have to reach a particular level while the other 20 per cent. have no target, there is no incentive for teachers to work to ensure that the children at the bottom end of the ability range, who have no chance of hitting the target, will have their standards raised. That is a real problem. It almost takes us back to the horrid days of the old 11-plus exam.
    There is an urgent need for a rethink of target-setting procedures so that there are targets for those at the bottom end of the ability range. The latest evidence from the Department's own figures shows that the results of children at the bottom end of the ability range simply are not moving upward, although the results of the remainder are moving pleasingly. There is a growing gap between the successful and the unsuccessful. That is evidence of growing social exclusion, not of its removal.
    My second point relates to the bidding process. The Government have made additional money available for education, and we have said that we are pleased by that.

    281
    We have campaigned for it for a long time. My concern is the mechanism that is being used to ensure that the money gets to the right place. Often the additional money must be bid for. Since the Government came to office, more than 16,000 bids have been produced by local education authorities. A lot of detailed work and effort has gone into those bids, but more than 10,000 have failed. Roughly speaking, there is a two-thirds chance that a bid will fail despite all the effort. That does not result in high-quality education for all, as the Prime Minister promised. It provides high-quality education for some.
    Mr. Blunkett: I shall endeavour to answer the hon. Gentleman's other points in my winding-up speech, but I want to make it clear that the resources allocated today make it highly likely that work done on drawing up plans and putting together proposals and prioritisations will be successful. Those who have plans to replace rooms and boilers, to make window frames tight and to ensure that there is an environment in which to teach will receive the resources to fulfil the plans. Without prioritisation, it would be impossible for a school, a local authority or the church authorities to be able to order work sensibly.
    Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that. However, a large number of bids are still outstanding. The Secretary of State has announced additional money for repair and maintenance of school buildings, but the success rate of bids to date in that area has been just 25 per cent., with 75 per cent. of bids failing. There are also huge variations across the country. In Oxfordshire, only 10 per cent. of bids have been successful. The London borough of Ealing is even worse, with only 8 per cent. of bids succeeding. I hope that the bidding process can be re-examined.
    Finally, the new deal is another area in which the Government need to do much more detailed work. The Government appear not even to have done their homework on making arrangements to collect the information necessary if we are to judge the new deal. Other hon. Members have already said that we do not know whether the new deal is improving employability, a factor that is clearly crucial. In recent weeks, I have asked the Government for information about the new deal, but they were unable to tell me how many subsidised vacancies there were, the size of the companies taking on new deal trainees, the courses that people were taking on the full-time education and training option, or the providers of those courses. Nor could they tell me anything about the progress of ex-offenders, other than the number who joined the scheme early.
    Perhaps my biggest concern is that the new deal seems not to provide information even on where people are going. The latest figures show that the destination of 9,500 individuals on the new deal is totally unknown. The Government are failing even to collect data, never mind getting all the detail right. The fact that we have no education legislation this year gives the Government a real opportunity to get the details right. I hope that they will take the opportunity to move education and employment forward in a way that the country desperately needs. If the Government are prepared to do that, the Liberal Democrats are more than willing to offer them support.
    8.25 pm
    Mr. David Crausby: Before I came to the House last year, I spent 30 years in the engineering industry. I started work at 16 as an apprentice, and I joined hundreds of workers in walking to work in the early hours each morning. That was a real world. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) is no longer in his place, but he talked about the real world. Well, that was a real world, and I valued it.
    Unfortunately, that world was devastated in the early 1980s by the monetarists in the Conservative party. It has become a disappearing world. If I walked to work early these days, treading the same streets I trod then, all I would see would be the milkman, and even he is becoming increasingly rare. The industrial world that I knew and loved has declined massively, and Britain is a much poorer place for it. The decline has been not just economic, but social and cultural. Generations of industrial and engineering workers and employers provided not only manufactured goods, but employment and wealth for whole communities.
    For 28 of my years in industry, I was an elected trade union representative. I witnessed a decline in industrial relations, just as I watched our industrial base disappear down the plughole. It does not really matter what came first, or who was to blame for the decline of management-employee relationships. As in all wars, there were no winners, just casualties. Anyone who has a real understanding of, or a genuine concern for, good industrial relations should understand that collective interests involve everyone. That must include the interests of both employers and employees. Responsible trade unionists with any experience soon recognise that the best wages and conditions in the world are pretty pointless if the company went out of business last week. Good shop stewards are well trained shop stewards.
    Too often, the problem is that employers do not discuss their problems with their employees. When they do, they often exaggerate, or they do not reveal the full picture. Good employer-employee relationships, like good marriages, should be based on mutual trust and honesty. That is why partnership is so important if we are to succeed as any sort of industrial nation.
    The "Fairness at Work" White Paper is a good and encouraging example of how trade unions and business can work together to deliver a document that represents almost all points of view. It has clearly walked a difficult tightrope, and we are bound to hear criticism of it from all sides. If that were not the case, it would probably have failed to strike an honourable balance. The proposals in the White Paper should remain undiluted, as they are balanced proposals that should succeed.
    We will still have the most lightly regulated labour market of any leading industrial economy, but what is wrong with that if we get our regulation right?
    As for the working time directive—an over-hyped problem—during all the 28 years that I represented employees in industry, not one individual complained to me about the amount of overtime that he or she was being forced to do by an employer. Employees often argued about how much overtime their employers were delivering. The truth is that most employees want to work, and they want to work lots of hours. If employers cannot organise that sensibly with their employees, they are bound to fail in business.

    283
    What is important is that the proposals offer the biggest advance in employee rights for a generation, which is not surprising, because the previous Government took us so far in the other direction and built up so much animosity among workers that we almost tore our industrial economy apart in the end. As a result of that legislation, we ended up where we are today. It was not a Labour Government who decimated industry, but a Conservative Government, who so regulated the trade unions that they drove us to a complete lack of co-operation.
    Much fuss has been made about the recognition proposals contained in the White Paper "Fairness at Work". Some old-fashioned and misguided employers have attempted to weaken the proposals to the point where they become almost sterile. Progressive employers do not need legislation, and that is a fact. They see the absolute value of recognition.
    Therefore, we must resist the industrial dinosaurs, because all that is proposed is recognition, which in any civilised society is just good manners. If we do not recognise each other's existence, how can we communicate at all? Recognition alone does not deliver anything, that is the truth of the matter. Only through sensible negotiations and good relationships can we make real progress. To do so, we must recognise each other. To develop any relationship in any walk of life, we must at least recognise each other. If we cannot do so, we are surely doomed as a modern, progressive economy.
    Much in the White Paper disappoints me. I do not intend to go into the list, as it has been dealt with, but I am thinking particularly of the one-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal protection. If a dismissal is unfair, why should it matter when it happens?
    In my early trade union days, the majority of those in the trade union movement did not want unfair dismissal tribunals. They preferred to deal with such dismissals through industrial action. They argued that the courts should be kept out of the trade union scene. That seems a pretty old-fashioned view now. At every opportunity, we should be seeking ways to deliver rights to individual workers, rather than cause disruption. I cannot understand those people who oppose not only the trade union movement but the rights of individuals to take a dismissal to a tribunal. That seems contradictory.
    On the other hand, the White Paper suggests some progressive changes—particularly the requirement to hand over to employers the names of those who will be taking part in a strike ballot, and allowing dismissed strikers to claim for unfair dismissal. In this modern world, anything less smacks of intimidation.
    Of course, there has to be much more negotiation, and a great deal more has to be said by each side. That is the nature of the trade unions and those negotiating on the employer's side. However, it must not become a question of victory for either side, as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) suggested. It is not a question of victory, or of whose side the Government are on. They are on the side of the interests of the British people. We should not make the mistake that the previous Government made, because they took us into more conflict and dissatisfaction. That is why I urge the Government to stay with the White Paper as it stands.
    8.35 pm
    Mr. John Hayes: I have waited to make my contribution to this debate mindful of the diminishing number of my colleagues. I do not know whether they have been deterred from attending by my impending oratory, or perhaps by the demagoguery of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) or even the contribution of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). Notwithstanding that fact, I intend to concentrate on two aspects of the Gracious Speech—disabilities and education—partly because they are two subjects that I know something about. I learned before coming to this place that it is best in life—and certainly in Westminster—not to speak about matters of which one knows little.
    Would that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had learned that lesson. Those of us who have made our living in information technology and who have worked in the field for some years were astounded by some of his pontificating on that subject—for example, speaking of electronic commerce as something of a revolution around the corner, when many companies, including mine, have been engaged in it for some considerable time—even some time before I came to the House.
    The notion that business is not already being done by means of the internet and other forms of technology is at best naive. The idea of a digital envoy, speeding his way around the country spreading good news, and presumably good will, everywhere is little more than a gimmick. Good practice in information systems and high technology exists in all parts of the country. We do not need some envoy to tell us exactly how to spread such good practice. So I urge the Secretary of State not simply to parrot words on matters of which he seems to have little comprehension.
    On a more positive note, I turn to the comments of the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry). The hon. Member for Bath anticipated my remarks to some extent, by paying tribute to the good work that the hon. Gentleman has done. I speak as the very junior new joint chairman of the all-party disablement group. The hon. Member for Kingswood speaks with altogether more authority as the well-respected and senior secretary.
    I listened carefully to what the hon. Member had to say on disablement. He will welcome the acceptance, welcome and support that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition gave the disability rights commission. The hon. Gentleman was a little churlish about my right hon. Friend, who was a well-respected Minister for the disabled. I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that my right hon. Friend was genuine in welcoming the commission yesterday.
    My right hon. Friend said that we need to examine the detail of the proposal, and I shall make two observations—not objections—about that detail. First, we must not ignore the most neglected disabled people. It is easy to think of the disabled as a generic group—easy, but misleading. The needs of people with different disabilities vary widely, and the chronically sick disabled are often the forgotten element within that group.
    That point has been made by Sense in respect of deaf-blind people, and it is also true of multiple sclerosis sufferers, who are often not heard because they are chronically sick. Some disabled people—perhaps those

    285
    with spinal injuries who have made good recoveries from accidents—are able to live good lives and to speak loudly, forcefully and persuasively in defence of disabled interests. They are usually the people we encounter representing the disabled. That is understandable, and I make no criticism of them, but the chronically sick disabled can easily be forgotten. We must ensure in the work of the commission that that is not the case in future.
    My second observation is that disabled people do not live by rights alone. I should declare an interest, as I have a disability. It is important that we do not tie the treatment of the disabled—especially the financial support for disabled people—wholly and solely to work. Careless statements from Ministers have caused considerable disquiet, some offence and a great deal of trepidation among disabled people, because there has been a suggestion that people can be full members of society only if they work.
    We must give every disabled person the opportunity to work, and we must pave their way to fulfilling that opportunity, but we must never forget that a significant number of disabled people—because of the nature of their disability, their age or other circumstances—do not work and never will. They must never be treated as second class, even within the family of disabled people. Having used the word "family" after saying that disabled people are not a generic group, I have perhaps contradicted myself a little, but I am sure that the House will forgive me for that.
    Those are my two observations on that subject, and I very much want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Kingswood.
    The most prominent feature of the Gracious Speech is not what is in it, but what is left out. That is especially true of education. The hon. Member for Bath said that that is good news—later, I shall deal with initiative fatigue, which is felt by most schools and teachers throughout the country—but it is not entirely good news, because it is indicative of lack of vision.
    There is little evidence in the Gracious Speech of any holistic view of social progress or of economic success, and there is certainly no clearly defined view of the national interest, or even of man in society. I can almost hear my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) saying, "Well, what do you expect? If there is no such thing philosophically as a single view or a big idea, why expect it to be in the Speech?" In my view, however, public policy, at this stage in a Government's progress, should have some sense of purpose, unity and symmetry about it. I see none of that in the Gracious Speech.
    The Prime Minister is fond of calling that joined-up government, but the only thing that was joined up in the words that we have heard from Ministers tonight was the suggestion that all these policies are linked by the common word "modernisation". The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry might have used the word "modernity". I have to tell him that the worship of modernity is not only divisive in itself, but not implicitly symptomatic of a coherent view of the present, let alone the future. It is not enough to say that, just because something is modern or new, it is therefore good, and that it hangs together with other measures in the national interest or for the common good.
    286
    That is true in a number of particular policy areas. In education, for example, there are many holes in the Gracious Speech. The absence of legislation relating to lifelong learning and early years has been mentioned, and yesterday my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition talked about the gap in respect of the expansion of popular schools and the sharing of good practice. Those are legitimate criticisms of the Government's approach to education.
    We have heard a little about the problems of the class size proposals, and how their implementation is leading to unanticipated difficulties for the Government. Perhaps it was for that reason that they were reluctant to introduce still more changes.
    Surely, though, there should have been in the Gracious Speech evidence of commitment to sharing good practice—from specialist schools and beacon schools, for example. These questions need to be asked: what responsibility do beacon schools have to export their excellence and innovation? Where are the targets, not only in terms of the school, but for the spreading—the fountaining down, to use a popular term, or, in more egalitarian vein, the fountaining out—of that good practice? I had hoped to see some mention of that.
    Where are the plans to allow the benefits of investment in special schools to be felt across the whole sector? I have some experience in that area, and know that there is little evidence that investment is benefiting neighbouring or feeder schools. Although there are some isolated examples of good practice in this respect, there is little suggestion that schools are benefiting universally as a result of that significant private and public sector investment.
    I should have thought that some improvement would also be made in respect of targets and measurement. The previous Government changed the education agenda by measuring output, not input. When I first became a member of a local education authority, most of the measurements were those of input, such as spending and pupil-teacher ratios. The current consensus is that we need to measure empirically what schools deliver. Given that the previous Government laid that foundation, one might have expected this Government to take up the baton and to refine and improve those means of measurement. One might have expected them to look more carefully at measuring value added.
    If schools are to be financially rewarded, and teachers' salaries are to be based on clearly defined targets and proper measurement, we must be sure what we are measuring. We need to identify excellent schools and teachers who out-perform their catchment area and do exceptionally well despite the fact that they start with few inherent advantages. Equally, we must carefully scrutinise the schools in leafy suburbs that under-perform.
    We can do that only through empirical measurement of value added. I commend to the House the work of Sheffield university and the work done in Scotland, some of which was started some seven years ago, so it is well established. There is a lot of evidence on how measurement of value added can be achieved. Some good local authorities, both Labour and Conservative, have already gone down that road, yet the Government seem reluctant to propose a consolidated national programme.
    The Government also seem unable to make proposals in respect of the best use of technology. We heard a great deal about the digital envoy and the impact on industry of

    287
    information technology and high technology, but we heard little about the effective use of the internet in schools or higher and further education. The effectiveness of all that is extremely patchy.
    The Government have spoken about training teachers in IT. The Minister twitches. Although positive steps have been taken, I assure him that the effective use of the internet and information technology in schools is extremely patchy. It needs to be pulled together urgently if a great deal of money is not to be wasted on inappropriate hardware and software.
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Brian Wilson): The hon. Gentleman draws attention to my twitching, so I might as well exercise it further. What he describes is an inheritance; it has not been created over the past 18 months. He need tell no one on the Government Benches that IT and computer provision in schools is highly patchy. Last year, I visited a school in my constituency which had one computer that was younger than the 16-year-olds using it. People voted for a Labour Government precisely because they wanted every school in the country to be equipped to the best standards.
    Mr. Hayes: The Minister misunderstands the problem. It is a question not of acquisition but of effective use. It is not a question of the number of computers on desks, but of how they impact on teaching and learning, how effectively they are integrated into delivery of the curriculum, and what impact they have on the relationship between the teacher and the taught. Some schools with few computers use them effectively, while others have invested heavily in hardware without matching it with training, software and support. Computers lie idle and have no impact on teaching.
    It is not as simple as saying that we must spread the jam around the whole country and hope for the best. I want the Government to take a lead in using that investment more effectively. All I am saying, hopefully in a reasoned and moderate way, is that, if we are to spend money on computers, we should ensure that they make a real difference to children. One had hoped for a little more from the Queen's Speech on that issue.
    Some of the initiatives that have been announced and implemented in the past year—I referred to initiative fatigue—were well intentioned but half baked. I do not want to debate the past—I would not be allowed to, anyway—but schools in my constituency were already doing much of what was in the literacy hour initiative. Whether that should have been universally applied—as it has been—is debatable.
    Many teachers understandably and legitimately resent the fact that their creativity, flair, imagination and ability to innovate is being restricted by an increasingly prescriptive Government, who define what they do, how they teach, how much time they should allocate for homework, and when they should stand at the blackboard and when they should not. We must allow our teachers the flexibility and scope to deliver an effective education using their flair and creativity.
    The absence of a thoughtful and considered programme is a cause more of sorrow than of anger. There is a lack of strategy, vision and long-term planning. We are told
    288
    that there will be consultation on teaching. We must be careful that that does not become another excuse and opportunity for knocking teachers. Although the Queen's Speech refers to raising teachers' status and profile, there is a real concern that they will not welcome further consultation that will do nothing for their status, and might diminish it still further.
    If education is the bridge to self-improvement and personal fulfilment, it deserves priority. Much is said about the priority that the Government have given it, but there are huge holes in the legislative programme in the Queen's Speech in respect of education. Those holes cannot be filled by this Government, but may be filled by a future Conservative Government.
    8.52 pm
    Ms Margaret Moran: I make no apology for returning to the subject of trade and industry. Having sat here throughout the contributions of Conservative Members, I have heard great lamentations and gnashing of teeth. In their view, the Queen's Speech lacks legislation for industry, enterprise or jobs. It is noteworthy that they have not proposed any alternative policies. They have also signally failed to address one of the crucial issues in the Queen's Speech—electronic commerce, which will be fundamental to the future prospects of our industry.
    The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) gave the impression that electronic commerce has already been achieved. His and his hon. Friends' references to it were extremely depressing because they showed that they do not understand its' importance to the future of our industry. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) showed that his party's contribution to the debate on electronic commerce is confused and contradictory. He berated the Government over their intention to introduce voluntary licences for encryption, and revealed that his party's policy is for mandatory arrangements. That is utter nonsense.
    Perhaps Conservative Members are embarrassed about the fact that, after all those years in government and despite the framework of telecommunications that they put in place, they never delivered the widespread access to innovation and advanced telecommunication services that they promised.
    What the Opposition failed to discuss tonight is an important element of the Queen's Speech, which has been welcomed by the Confederation of British Industry. The secure electronic commerce Bill will perform the crucial function of updating to encourage worldwide trading, and will improve competitiveness by enabling the United Kingdom to compete in the digital marketplace.
    The aim of the Bill is to overcome some of the key factors that have impeded confidence in electronic commerce. It will improve business confidence by establishing voluntary licensing arrangements for bodies offering electronic signature and confidentiality services to the public. The Bill will also introduce voluntary licensing arrangements for bodies offering electronic signatures to the public, to ensure that minimum standards of quality and service are met.
    Signatures meeting those standards will, for the first time, have legal status. The Bill will also sweep away the restrictions that insist on the use of paper transactions, and will tackle concerns about law enforcement powers in the face of increasing criminal and terrorist use of encryption.

    289
    Lest the Opposition think that measures creating an environment in which electronic commerce can develop are not important to the country's competitiveness—as they have implied this evening—I shall remind them of the scale of internet and electronic business in Britain.
    The United Kingdom has the fifth largest information technology industry, worth £45 billion, and it is estimated that, in commerce alone, it will be worth £500 billion within five years. Surely that is worthy of more scrutiny or debate than has been offered by Opposition Members today. The World Economic Forum certainly recognised its importance. Its survey found that 20 per cent. of firms believed that electronic commerce would fundamentally reshape the way in which they did business, and that a further 59 per cent. believed that it would lead to significant changes in their business.
    Electronic commerce has been growing for many years. It links companies to suppliers and financial institutions, and business to Government. The United Kingdom has an exceptionally strong base from which to develop electronic commerce as it becomes a significant proportion of global gross domestic product.
    As has been said in many debates, we are on the cusp of a quiet revolution, in which electronic commerce will play a significant role in a new commercial world; but harnessing the immense potential offered by electronic commerce to create wealth and jobs means that we must rapidly establish agreed ground rules giving buyers and sellers confidence and trust to use the new technology.
    Although the prime economic drive for electronic commerce may currently lie with business-to-business transactions, it is clear that consumers—whether ordering books via the internet or using it for home shopping—must also benefit. They, like business, must be able to take advantage of the potential ease and reduced cost of transactions that the Bill will deliver. Consumers must have confidence in the new system. The need to address concerns about security of transactions, privacy and consumer redress will be crucial to the development of electronic commerce.
    The Bill begins to tackle some of the issues by ensuring that messages can be signed electronically, so that a user can check who has signed a message and be confident that it has not been tampered with. Consumers will also have the assurance of confidentiality. For the first time, electronic signatures will have the force of law, and electronic transactions such as the pilot carried out in Luton recently by the National Westminster bank, offering intelligent forms for self-employed business people, will have legal standing.
    The creation of such a framework is welcome. I am especially pleased that the Government have recognised that electronic commerce is a key element of competitiveness for small and medium enterprises. Notwithstanding comments by Opposition Members, the Government believe in such enterprises. That is why we have the lowest-ever rate of corporation tax, and why we have introduced incentives for small businesses to invest. It is no use Opposition Members shaking their heads. The Budget increased incentives for small and medium enterprises and has radically enhanced their productivity and prospects.
    As I said in a recent Adjournment debate on competitiveness and small businesses, however, it is clear from my experience in my constituency that the
    290
    importance and opportunities of electronic commerce to the sector's competitiveness must be more widely known. I am aware of the information society initiative for businesses and its emphasis on small businesses, but not many small businesses that I visited in Luton seemed to know of it. That is borne out by research conducted by the Bedfordshire chamber of commerce, which found that Luton and Bedfordshire small businesses use IT equipment but feel that they are not making optimum use of it. It was depressing to be told on a recent visit to a company of 80 employees that its only technology was an ancient computer for the payroll, and that the director was proud of knowing nothing about new technology.
    We must make greater effort to get the message across to small and medium enterprises that the future is in electronic commerce. For small businesses, electronic commerce can overcome numerous barriers to competitiveness. Location and size can become irrelevant; all companies have the same global reach. Electronic commerce can also help suppliers to identify consumer needs more exactly. It will speed processes, giving a greater competitive edge, and cut out the middle man, thereby reducing the costs of small businesses and their clients.
    Our small businesses have much to learn from their counterparts in Canada, which I visited recently. There, electronic commerce is well developed and integrated into every aspect of business life, from the large to the micro, from systems to design to new production methods. We can learn from the Industry Canada strategy, which recognises that electronic commerce is but one vital element for creating a knowledge-based economy.
    Our strategy must therefore be to build trust in the digital economy, building business and consumer confidence. We must, as we will do in the Bill, clarify marketplace rules, remove barriers to the use of e-commerce and update our legal rules. We must strengthen our information infrastructure to support the growth of e-commerce, and, crucially, realise opportunities for jobs and growth by developing skills and leadership in new technologies, which we know is desperately needed.
    I recognise that many such issues can be tackled only on a global basis because electronic commerce introduces the borderless world. That is why I welcome the agreement reached recently by my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry on her visit to Ottawa and in discussions with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The agreement was particularly welcomed because it broke new ground and opened up opportunities to ensure that the benefits of electronic commerce are reaped by all—be they business, employees or consumers.
    The Bill is not just to be welcomed; it lays the foundations for UK primacy in electronic commerce. Crucially, the Bill signals our determination to harness the power of electronic commerce in order to create economic growth and jobs. For UK industry to be competitive, we must ensure that we create the best environment in which to trade electronically. That is just what we are doing. We must also ensure that we are building on an economy that is based on knowledge, creativity and skills. That is why many of the elements in the Queen's Speech refer to creating a knowledge-based society and economy. In order to ensure that we take maximum advantage of

    291
    the new opportunities that are offered by the information age, we need those joined-up policies and skills to develop our prominence in the world of e-commerce.
    I very much welcome today's statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, which will create a digital envoy to be the champion of the new information age. My right hon. Friend's action will ensure that the United Kingdom plays a leading role in the new world of electronic commerce and that the Government's commitment to modernising our trade and industry is fulfilled. Such action stands in sharp contrast to some of the prehistoric views on trade and industry matters held by Conservative Members.
    9.5 pm
    Mr. David Willetts: I welcome the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to the debate, and am grateful to him for changing his mind and attending it. I appreciate that he has done so at some personal inconvenience. Opposition Members will be very happy to hear his speech, not least because he has no education legislation in the Queen's Speech. Sadly, without substantial education legislation, we may not see quite so much of him in the House or have quite so many opportunities to debate with him.
    Tomorrow, we are all, of course, speaking at Harrogate, at the conference of the Association of Colleges. I do not know how the Secretary of State will—
    Mr. Blunkett: Need a lift?
    Mr. Willetts: That is very kind, but I have already been offered a lift by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). If the Secretary of State wants to join us, he will be very welcome. However, we are setting off at the end of the debate, as we are speaking rather earlier than he is.
    As I said, I am grateful to the Secretary of State for speaking in our debate, which takes place against the background of a very sober economic climate—although one would not think so after hearing the speech, at the beginning of this debate, by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, or yesterday's speech by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister seemed to be keener on waging class war against hereditary peers than he was on dealing with the economic difficulties facing the United Kingdom.
    For six years, unemployment has been on a downward trend. Sadly, the trend seems to be coming to an end. We have just had the unprecedented experience of both unemployment measures—the survey measure and the claimant count measure—beginning to rise. But the Government do not seem to realise that we face a looming problem of rising unemployment. Ministers seem to deny that there is any problem. Instead, we hear what my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor describes as "fantasy forecasts".
    Today, in a very fine speech, the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) very clearly made the point that the Treasury's growth forecasts are incredible. No serious outside forecaster believes the Treasury's predictions for economic growth. Months after the international financial crisis began, we have a Treasury economic forecast that,
    292
    by 2001–02, the British economy will be bigger and better than the Treasury predicted it would be before the international crisis.
    No other advanced western country lives in the fantasy world of expecting that its growth rate will be even better than before the crisis. The Treasury seems to be doing so by accepting that there will be some slowdown in the next 18 months, and simply adding back into the second 18 months any output lost in the past 18 months. It is not responsible and reputable forecasting, it is no basis on which the Government should take decisions on management of the economy, and it is no basis on which a responsible Government should be deciding their fiscal policies.
    The reasonable, responsible and realistic assessment came only a few days ago, in a report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The report stated that, on its definition, unemployment will increase from 6.5 per cent. to 8 per cent., which means that, in the next two years, unemployment will increase by 500,000 people. That is a serious challenge for the British economy, and something that Ministers should be taking seriously—but they are not.
    Today, all we have heard in speeches and interventions by Labour Members was a type of night out for old Labour—celebrating fairness at work proposals and increased power for trade unions, but saying absolutely nothing about what they think should be done to deal with the looming jobs crisis. We know what Ministers claim is the solution—the new deal, but that is a monumental irrelevance. It targets a very large amount of money on a very small proportion of unemployed people. The Government are biased entirely in favour of the young unemployed, and are doing nothing to help the long-term unemployed. There are twice as many long-term unemployed, yet they receive one fifth of the new deal budget that goes to the young unemployed, so they receive one tenth of the spend.
    Meanwhile, what do we know from the evaluations that are already coming through? The hon. Member for Bath referred to them briefly, but the evidence is pretty clear. Thirty per cent. of people who leave the new deal simply disappear; the Government have no knowledge what happens to them. Another 10 per cent. move on to another benefit, so 40 per cent. for a start do not seem to be gaining anything from the new deal.
    I asked the Library to calculate what had happened to young people who had been unemployed for six months in April 1997, and young people who had been unemployed for six months in April 1998. Three months later, what did we find? A higher percentage were still unemployed in July 1998 than in July 1997. That is a warning that the new deal will not deal with the jobs crisis.
    I hope that the Secretary of State, when he speaks about the new deal, as I hope he will, will agree that there is a simple and stark measure of success—one that might interest the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has, after all, claimed that the new deal will save money overall. Let us have figures for the total number of subsidised jobs that new dealers enter, the total number

    293
    of unsubsidised jobs that new dealers enter and the total spending on the new deal. What we will find is that, with the new deal, the cost per job—
    The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Mr. Andrew Smith): We have the figures.
    Mr. Willetts: I am pleased that the Minister has the figures. We also have the figures at the Centre for Policy Studies. Tomorrow morning, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) will publish something that has done the calculation. It shows that the new deal is infinitely more expensive than any other training scheme that has been introduced. Sadly, the returns for the young people that it is supposed help are very modest.
    It is not just young people who are losing; employers are increasingly frustrated, as we saw in the letter to Sir Peter Davis, chairman of the new deal task force, from the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, Chris Humphries. He said that its members'
    "concerns now arise because very few, or in some cases, no young people have been referred to them. Many companies report that they have also had little or no contact from the Employment Service, and so a severe lack of information is magnifying their confusion and leading to significant disillusionment."
    That is the experience that employers have of the new deal and it is dispiriting.
    What the Government should do is announce that they will suspend the implementation of the job-destroying regulations which will hit British businesses in the next 18 months. That would be a serious and considered response to the threat of rising unemployment, because those measures are extremely expensive.
    The double tragedy is that the cost of the working time directive, the working families tax credit and the Government's other regulations is not translated into a benefit that flows through to people who earn low pay. The cost is largely accounted for by the administrative costs that employers have to take on board to comply with the record-keeping requirements of all the different regulations. That money does not help anyone.
    Therefore, I hope that the Secretary of State will comment on the performance of the new deal, and perhaps explain to the vast majority of unemployed people who are not eligible for the new deal why, at the same time, his Department is closing job clubs and stripping training and enterprise councils of funds that they intended to use for projects to help, for example, with the retraining of people who have lost their jobs.
    Ms Atherton: May I issue an invitation to the hon. Gentleman to visit Employment Service offices in my constituency, in Penryn in Cornwall? There, he can see for himself the innovative and far-reaching implications of the new deal. Let him meet the young people who have got a job for the first time. Let him talk to the people and the companies who have told me that the new deal is the best thing that they have had from any Government in many years. Let him come to Curnow Shipping, which has taken on young people, trained them and given them permanent jobs within the company. I challenge him to come.
    Mr. Willetts: I am happy to visit all parts of the country to debate the new deal, but let me tell the hon.
    294
    Lady what is happening in the real world. Let me tell her about Hackney, where 1,877 young unemployed people have joined the new deal, and 12 have a job; or about Stockport, where 406 young unemployed people have joined the new deal, and nine have a job; or about West Lothian, where 277 young unemployed people have joined the new deal, and 10 have a job. That is the reality of the new deal throughout the country.
    From the unemployment crisis now facing this country, let me turn to the other aspect of the Secretary of State's responsibilities—the education system and our schools. When I visit schools around the country, the message from teachers and head teachers is the same. Only the other week, that message was vividly expressed to me by one head, who said, "The only way that I can possibly hope to meet the Secretary of State's agenda on standards is by ignoring most of the letters that I am sent by him and his Department. If I actually tried to comply with all the regulations, instructions and directives that I am sent by the Department for Education and Employment, it would be absolutely impossible to focus on raising standards in literacy and numeracy."
    It is literacy and numeracy that the Secretary of State says he really cares about, and I believe him; but he is in the absurd position of distracting teachers with his flow of initiatives from the very things that he cares most about. That is the abiding complaint one hears from teachers and head teachers around the country.
    I hope that the Secretary of State will consider stemming the flow of instructions, regulations and directives that he sends out from his Department. Only the other day, on television, I debated the subject with the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), whom I see in his place. He admitted that, in his view, the Department had been sending out too many pieces of paper to schools and local education authorities. I welcome that admission. Now that the Government have recognised that they have made a serious mistake, we look to them to do something about it. I hope that the Secretary of State will make an announcement in that respect this evening.
    The problem is not only paperwork. The hon. Member for Bath made a pertinent point in this respect, and we all saw the disturbing evidence in The Times Educational Supplement the other week. The problem is also the fragmentation of budgetary responsibility. If, instead of handing over an aggregate grant to an LEA and a total budget to a school and trusting the head teachers' and teachers' professional judgment, what is distributed is a large number of penny packets, each associated with some specific initiative which gets the Secretary of State on the "Today" programme and 24 hours-worth of headlines, all that does is make it more difficult for a head teacher sensibly to plan his own priorities in his own school.
    Mr. Blunkett: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell me whether the £48 million—£2,000 per school—for books is the sort of initiative of which he is thinking; or does he have in mind the new deal for schools, which now amounts, in grant and not in credit approval, to £1.5 billion?
    Mr. Jamieson: Tell us about that.
    Mr. Willetts: The hon. Gentleman says "Tell us about that," but we have been hearing about it since July last

    295
    year and it had another outing today. We are all familiar with it, because we have been hearing about it for 15 months.
    Mr. Blunkett: It is important that the shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment should be able to refer to a calendar or to events that have taken place, rather than to ones that he has made up. When, either in July last year or over the past 18 months, have we heard about £1.5 billion for the new deal, given that £500 million of that was announced only this morning?
    Mr. Willetts: I am referring to the statement in the House on 2 July 1997 in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave the figures for new deal expenditure on school capital. I am speaking from memory, but I recall that it was a £1.2 billion programme that sounded suspiciously like the capital under the new deal that the Secretary of State announced again today.
    I am happy to tackle the Secretary of State's direct question. Yes, if a head decides that perhaps the priority for his school is not to spend money on the loos, but to employ a maths teacher, who are we to stand in his way? Individual heads are best placed to decide the priorities of their schools. Instead of having a clear total budget that they can spend in the way they think best, head teachers are increasingly having to submit bid after bid for individual and often relatively small sums of money, each associated with some new initiative launched by the Secretary of State. Every time the right hon. Gentleman gets his 48 hours of headlines, he undermines the professional judgment and authority of individual head teachers. I should warn him that they are increasingly frustrated and irritated by that process.
    Head teachers are also irritated by the sheer distraction. Despite claims that the Government are interested in standards, not frameworks, many schools have to put so much effort into changing their status and their legal position in order to meet the requirements of the Secretary of State. Tragically, grant-maintained schools are losing some of the freedoms that we gave them and, most recently, grammar schools are being distracted by the Secretary of State's campaign against them.
    We agree with the statement:
    "The 160 grammar schools that there are, let them remain."
    Those are the words of the Prime Minister in an interview with ITV on 3 April 1997. We ask only that the Secretary of State endorses what his right hon. Friend has said. However, it is clear that, every time the Prime Minister makes such statements, the Secretary of State takes the opportunity of the detailed regulations on grammar school ballots, which nobody at No. 10 will be able to scrutinise, to smuggle in as much bias as he can to make life difficult for grammar schools.
    Mr. Bercow: As my right hon. Friend knows, grammar schools are of the highest importance. The Royal Latin grammar school is testimony to their success [Interruption.] Despite the sedentary chuntering and laughter on the Government Back Benches, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is extremely disturbing that schedule 4 of the regulations that the Secretary of State has commended to the House enable him to declare the
    296
    result of a ballot null and void if he considers that the content, tone or presentation of the arguments is not reasonable? Who is to determine what is reasonable in that context?
    Mr. Willetts: There was an intriguing story about that in the Financial Times. It looked like another desperate attempt by No.10 to haul back the policy—some briefing with the message, "Don't worry, we'll try to use some of these powers to stop grammar schools disappearing after all." My hon. Friend—the Back Bencher to watch as we must now call him after the Spectator parliamentarian awards—is absolutely right.
    We should look at the question that the Secretary of State will put into grammar school ballots. He is not going to ask a straightforward question such as, "Do you want to keep local grammar schools?", which goes straight to the nub of the issue. Instead, he wants to ask, "Are you in favour of a the introduction of a non-selective system of education in local schools?" We learn from an interesting experiment carried out by the Sunday Express last weekend that, if we ask the question in Government gobbledegook, we get a very different answer from the one to a straightforward question that makes it clear that people are voting on whether or not their grammar schools will survive.
    The real criticism of the Secretary of State throughout the world of education is that he believes that education should be run by him sitting in the Department sending out instructions to all the LEAs, which in turn send them out to more than 4,000 schools. They then all write the plans for which he is asking—at the last count there were 17—and submit them to the LEAs, which debate them with the schools, revise them and submit them to him. He sits like some old-fashioned industrialist running the nation's schools from Whitehall. No organisation believes that that is the way in which it can enter the 21st century—it is an attack on teachers' professional judgments and standards, and the Secretary of State will anyway find his task impossible.
    We should be relieved that there is no education legislation this year. I am sure that, if the right hon. Gentleman had secured any legislation, it would have been regressive, interventionist, heavy-handed and nannying. We hope that he will reflect on the contradiction between his apparent commitment to raising standards and his behaviour in office.
    9.26 pm
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): Dear me. It has been a long day for us all, and I do not intend to prolong it into the early hours of the morning. It behoves me first to congratulate a number of my hon. Friends on their contributions to today's debate.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) has campaigned for people's rights for as many years as I can remember. The appearance in the Queen's Speech of the proposals for the disability rights commission is a tribute to him and to all the people he listed who have made contributions over the years. Much still needs to be done; this is another brick in the wall rather than the construction of the building. However, we are well under way, which we would not be if the Leader of the Opposition had had his way—as has been pointed out, on 23 February 1995, he opposed the establishment of a disability rights commission.

    297
    I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and my hon. Friends the Members for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) and for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) for what they have said on the important subject of improving rights at work. They showed how positive policies by employers can transform not only individuals' life chances but their contributions to this country's economic well-being. I pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friend for her considerable work on the matter over the years.
    I believe that the tribute to campaigners lies in the new sure start programme, in the proposals on child care, in the doubling of nursery places for three-year-olds and in the fairness at work Bill, which together make it possible to provide for children and their parents in a positive, radical and modern way. The House has a great deal to be proud of in what has already been achieved in the past 18 months.
    I also thank my other hon. Friends for their contributions, including my hon. Friends the Members for Luton, South (Ms Moran), for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen), for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) and for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby).
    The debate has been of varying parts. The shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was not sure whether he was in favour of what the Conservatives had previously stood for, and he was totally unsure whether he was in favour of what they currently stand for. He rigorously denounced what he was against in past Conservative party policy but he could not say what he was in favour of in current Conservative party policy—no wonder, as the Conservatives do not have any policies and are ashamed of the bits that they think they have. There is a sort of trial by denial in the Conservative party, which is very difficult for Labour Members not to view with equanimity.
    The previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) has decently sent his apologies for not attending the wind-up. I do not know how many other Conservatives have sent their apologies but, given the nature of the debate, one would have thought that more than seven or eight would have turned up.
    Mr. John Healey: There are seven.
    Mr. Blunkett: There are seven—numeracy is alive and well. Seven have turned up, including, I think, four on the Back Benches. A number of them are clearly here in spirit, if not in person.
    The speech by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon made the Leader of the Opposition's speech look immature and feeble. The previous Prime Minister made it clear that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was going to spend most of his political life denying that he had anything to do with past policy. When the previous Prime Minister referred to mistakes, I thought that he was referring entirely to the placement of the right hon. Member for Wokingham in his Cabinet.
    Enough of levity mixed with sadness. This evening, we should take head-on some of the silliness that has emerged from Conservative Members. It is difficult to treat seriously anything that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) says in this House, although she sends me entertaining notes from time to time—normally written on the back of letters I have sent her. Her passing
    298
    references to the new deal—and everything else—as a sign that we do not want to make families happy seemed to me to be very sad. We in new Labour are totally in favour of happiness, and we will engage in it as often as we can.
    Mr. Willetts: Set a target.
    Mr. Blunkett: I thought of that, but I decided that it would be unwise to threaten to resign if we did not reach it. We have every intention not only of making people happy, but of making them productive, capable of taking a job and employable, and of ensuring that, in doing so, they can hold their families together.
    There was a time when the Conservative party was in favour of the family—when the party believed in supporting and reinforcing families, and in helping them stay together. Apparently, that is not the case any more if that involves family-friendly working practices, or us—that is, the community—helping each other in measures such as the sure start programme. Such measures are always condemned by Conservative Members as bureaucratic or interventionist, or for spending money that they would cut. We all know that, if they had the chance, the Conservatives would cut the £40 billion on education and health. They would cut out the new deal, which the shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment described tonight as monumentally irrelevant.
    The new deal is not monumentally irrelevant to the 160,000 young men and women who have entered it, nor to the 38,000 who have been placed in a job—70 per cent. of them in an unsubsidised job. That is the answer to the spurious nonsense that the new deal has nothing to do with employability or preparing young people for the world of work. It is certain that giving young people the opportunity to gain a qualification is a sight more preparation for employability than the 29 makeweight schemes that the previous Government invented during their 18 years in office.
    One only needs to talk to young people such as David Habachi, who said that, when the new deal was working, he was working. That is true. It is true for those who already have a job, for those who are on the full-time education option and for those on the environmental and voluntary service option. It is giving young people real hope for the first time in generations. To denigrate it is not only cynical—it is a disgrace.
    I welcome that small group of Conservative Members of Parliament who have joined us in trying to make the scheme a success, and who have contacted their local Employment Service and engaged with their jobcentres—as many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have done. The easiest thing in the world—as the right hon. Member for Wokingham displayed this afternoon—is to declare that one is against everything. That is what the Opposition are doing. They are not saying that there may be problems and they want to help to sort them out. They are not making contact with employers and then putting them in contact with us.
    Every employer who has contacted my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities or me has automatically been put in touch with the Employment Service, and we have sorted out their problems. W. H. Smith told me two weeks ago about the vacancies that it had. We immediately

    299
    connected the vacancies with the jobcentres. We are doing a first-rate job to ensure that many young people will have a job between now and Christmas, in order to have an income for Christmas.
    The answer to the silly survey by the Centre for Policy Studies is that it can pretend that the programme costs £11,000 a job only if it adds up all the sums that go in without adding all the earnings, the reduction in benefit, and the tax and national insurance that will be paid by those who get a job. Being prepared for getting a job and having a qualification to enable one to hold a job down is the whole point of the new deal.
    Mr. Willetts: Does the Secretary of State endorse the Chancellor's original proposition that the new deal will end up being self-financing?
    Mr. Blunkett: When young people have been in a job for a number of years and secured earnings, they will have refinanced the investment. That is the basis of investing in state education and of the whole existence of the Employment Service and the jobcentres throughout the country.
    Job clubs are supplied where unemployment requires such action, and as unemployment has dropped and employment has increased by 400,000 since the general election, we have been able, not to cut the Employment Service, but to reinvest: through the new deal, we have allocated £3.5 billion more to putting people into work and preparing them for jobs, which is what our policies are all about.
    Conservative Members have attacked the new deal and shown a cynical disregard for what it means for young people to have a job. This evening, we have heard sneering of the kind that the Leader of the Opposition indulged in yesterday. The shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry even expressed the belief—I think that I am quoting him correctly—that Members of the House of Lords are the voice of manufacturing industry. Well, there we have it.
    I shall think about that staggering revelation on my way to Harrogate. I would have taken up the kind offer to travel with the shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), but they will be travelling on the right side of the road and I want to travel on the left.
    Mr. Don Foster: Unfair.
    Mr. Blunkett: After that appeal from the hon. Gentleman, I withdraw the allegation against him, in the spirit of unity and—
    Mr. Foster: Co-operation.
    Mr. Blunkett: Of course. I was struggling to find the word.
    Like the hon. Member for Bath, I am totally committed to lifelong learning, and to act on that we need, not legislation, but positive proposals and investment. We are working to develop that. We hope to unite the funding agencies and the providers, so that the training and enterprise councils, the Higher Education Funding
    300
    Council and all those working in and providing resources for adult learning are co-operating to enable people to renew their education.
    Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for withdrawing his scurrilous accusation about where I would drive on the road. Does he agree that people are not working in partnership and that there is real competition in delivering important aspects of lifelong learning? For example, the TECs are competing with the further education colleges. We desperately need some form of clear strategic planning framework for lifelong learning. That cannot be given centrally. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to consider a regional planning framework.
    Mr. Blunkett: I accept that undue competition has been destructive to delivering education and getting people to work together. We will take steps to ensure that that is overcome and we already have, through the Further Education Funding Council, regional facilities that need to be adapted and expanded. We need to work with the regional development agencies to pull together lifelong learning and skills provision to meet the challenges.
    The Government's record in the past 18 months bears scrutiny. We now have the highest number of people in employment since records began. We have the lowest level of unemployment for 18 years. We have reduced by more than a quarter the number of young people out of work, and we have ensured that we have, for the first time in many years, a strategy for the development of skills under the task force chaired by Chris Humphries.
    We have a programme with the national training organisations—there are now more than 60—to get industry, commerce and services to work with trade unions, even though they might not have spoken to each other for years, with the training and enterprise councils and with the Government in a partnership approach.
    I know that "partnership" is a dirty word to the Conservatives, but partnership is the only way in which we will be able to progress to the future. The fairness at work legislation will be crucial to ensuring that people can use their energy and time to work in unison, to pick up a phrase from my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne, and to getting people to treat each other with decency.
    The enormous challenge of welfare to work has been lost in today's debate. Our proposals for welfare to work in this Session will develop the idea of the single gateway to work and the support that can be given by the new deal advisers, whose role has been imaginatively developed. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities, who has worked assiduously on this subject and who will have made a signal contribution to ensuring that single parents, men and women with a disability and those who have been long-term unemployed get support when they need it. My right hon. Friend will have helped to ensure that we have rigour as well as care and support, so that people know that they will get something for something, not something for nothing. We will do that in a positive way that renews hope.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham talked earlier of the example that needed to be set by mothers to show their young children that the world

    301
    of work existed. That is true of all parents. We need to ensure that no more children, when asked what they want to do when they grow up, give an answer about their benefit cheque. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) can confirm that that has happened.
    We must ensure that children understand that the world of work is open to them. That is why we are against education systems that deny people that opportunity. We are not beleaguering the education profession with initiatives that they do not want, but we are investing large sums of money for which the profession has cried out for years.
    We have announced today proposals to spend £5.4 billion, £2.5 billion of which is new money. Unfortunately, it is not new to the BBC, which has decided that any spending that was announced in July as £19 billion of additional resources over the next three years is no longer newsworthy because it is not new. That is an interesting response. If it had been applied to public expenditure survey proposals in the past, nobody would ever make new spending announcements because the details were all in the three-year public expenditure survey proposals. What a load of silly nonsense that is, as anyone with an ounce of sense knows.
    Those who really will know the difference when it comes to whether it is old money or new will be the thousands of schools that have had money invested in them. Six thousand schools already are in that position. I went to Parliament Hill girls school this morning, which has a new roof, a new science and domestic science block and the ability to do the job better.
    When we announce our proposals for reshaping the teaching profession, they will not be confined to rewarding the high performance of good teachers, important though that is. Our proposals will be about transforming the education service for the 21st century. That will mean an environment fit to teach in, support through teaching assistance and the sort of training that the Tories never gave to teachers. There was no initial teacher training curriculum until we came into government. There was no comprehensive programme for in-service training. There will be, and indeed, there is already under the Labour Government. We shall do the job properly.
    If it is thought that a literacy hour that places emphasis on phonics, grammar and spelling is an interference, those who take that view do not believe in giving every child in every school the chance that he or she deserves. I tempt the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), to his feet again to tell me whether he believes in phonics, grammar and spelling as intrinsic elements of teaching primary school children to be able to read and write. I shall be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Willetts: Of course the evidence is that phonics is a very effective way of teaching children to read. We believe also in a statement that we used to hear from the Secretary of State—something called intervention in inverse proportion to success. Teachers who are already teaching literacy very successfully are irritated that the literacy hour often has disoriented, distracted and changed their effective teaching methods when it should have been focused on the areas where there was a problem.
    Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman has done exactly the opposite. We listened to teachers, who at the
    302
    beginning of September were sceptical, and who are now converted. We listened to those who thought that they had done everything they could, but have discovered that there was something else that they could have done. There is added value. If teachers are gaining higher results, we do not say, "Completely transform your teaching methods." If 90, 95 or 100 per cent. of children at key stage 2 are reaching level 4, we are not saying to the teachers concerned, "Drop what you are doing." However, that is not happening. When we came into office, 40 per cent. of our young people were not achieving level 4. That is the problem.
    Across the country now—with the materials and with £60 million-worth of in-service training—children are beginning to reach that level. I want again and again, publicly as well as in the House, to ensure that Conservative Members are pinned down on whether they believe in teaching phonics. That is what the literacy hour is all about. Every time Conservative Members deny the literacy hour they deny, the best way of teaching, as developed by the national literacy centres which my predecessor established. The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) said that, if she had had the money, she would have spread the practice throughout the country. Well, we have put in the money and the resources, and we are putting in the teaching.
    I want to deal with one other calumny, and that is the obsession that some in the country have—leader writers, journalists and a great many people who send their children to private school—not with 7 million children and their education, not with 24,000 schools, but with the issue of grammar schools. I want to place on the record the nonsense that has been written over the past two weeks. I do not intend to keep raising the matter publicly because we have something better to do, which is to raise standards for all our children rather than be obsessed only with a few.
    I put it on the record again, for the umpteenth time since July 1995 when we published our proposals for parents to choose, that we are not abolishing any schools. We are not abolishing good schools. We are talking about allowing parents—the audacity, the sheer cheek—to decide whether they want to change the admissions policy for a particular school. We are setting a threshold before parents can have a ballot. Incidentally, the criticisms launched this evening about the way in which the Secretary of State can intervene if a ballot has been wrongly conducted are based entirely on the grant-maintained model introduced by the Conservatives.
    The Tories do not understand the ballot paper, which will say that parents of a registered pupil attending a school which sends children to a named grammar school are entitled to vote in a ballot held in accordance with the Education (Grammar School Ballot) Regulations 1998. The ballot will determine whether or not the grammar school continues to select pupils on entry through examination by academic achievement—for example, using an 11-plus exam—or whether admission arrangements should be introduced that will admit pupils of all abilities. It asks whether the parents are in favour of the school introducing arrangements that admit children of all abilities. That is all that the ballot paper will say.
    From reading The Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail and even The Sun, it would seem that we committed some dastardly act of secretly hiding matters from parents who obviously, according to those who attacked us, are not

    303
    intelligent enough to know that a grammar school that is called a grammar school is a grammar school, or who will not understand a ballot paper that asks them to decide whether they want the school to continue with an 11-plus examination. It is an insult to suggest that parents will not understand. Furthermore, the critics suggest that they should be forgiven for not wanting to change the admissions policies of those 160 schools, in perpetuity.
    Mr. Willetts rose—
    Mr. Blunkett: I shall give way, because we might as well have the matter out. It is a suitable time of night for dealing with it.
    Mr. Willetts: Perhaps those parents believed the Prime Minister when he said of the 160 grammar schools that there are, "Let them remain." Does the Secretary of State agree with that statement by the Prime Minister?
    Mr. Blunkett: It is important to make it clear, because I have heard both a parent and a head teacher suggesting otherwise on Radio 4's "Today" programme, that we do not propose to close the schools.
    Mr. Damian Green: Yes, you do.
    Mr. Blunkett: No, we do not. We are doing one simple thing. We are not ruling from Westminster on admissions policies. We are not asking local education authorities to rule. We are not asking the schools to determine matters. We are asking the people who have a direct interest in whether their child enters a school whether they want to keep the current admissions policy.
    Mr. Brady: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Blunkett: Of course. We might as well have an education lesson, even though we are perilously close to 10 o'clock.
    Mr. Brady: In the borough of Trafford, we need few lessons in education from the right hon. Gentleman or
    304
    his party. The borough achieves top 10 results for GCSEs, and last year it had the best A-level results in the country. That position was achieved by grammar schools and secondary modern schools in my constituency and in the rest of the borough.
    I want to pick up the Secretary of State on his clearly inaccurate statement that only parents with a direct personal interest would take part in a ballot. Let me tell him that parents in Stretford or Old Trafford have no interest in the future of a grammar school in Altrincham or Sale. They do not send their children there, and they have no direct interest.
    Mr. Blunkett: I may be wrong, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the fact that some people in Trafford borough send their children to comprehensive schools because they have no choice of a grammar school in the area because there is a straight 11-plus. I think that that is the hon. Gentleman's message.
    Mr. Brady: Can I make the message clear?
    Mr. Blunkett: No, I have to wind up.
    The truth is that the people who should decide are those who have an interest. Those people are parents within the area involved. Anyone who thought that we would allow a system of admissions to atrophy in perpetuity would have to be daft. No one in their right mind would ever do that.
    We have found a sensible system of dealing with a difficult problem and we will ensure that no grammar school has to fear anything. They do not have to fear letting children into a school. If anything was wrong with what happened when the 11-plus was abolished throughout the country, it was that we did not raise the standard of the old secondary schools to that of the grammar schools—it was not the children entering, but the change in policy. A school that fears a child entry because he or she does not appear at that moment to be bright enough or has a special need, cannot face with us the challenge of the 21st century. What we want is for every child, in every school, in every part of the country to get a decent education, and, above all, to know that they will get a job.
    Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Pope.]
    Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

    Arts (Liverpool)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]
    9.56 pm
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: Liverpool is a city of talent, and nowhere is that talent displayed more than in the arts. It is shown in Liverpool's fine theatres: the Everyman, the Playhouse, the Unity, the Royal Court, the Empire and the Neptune. It is shown in Liverpool's museums. Only a few months ago, Liverpool's conservation centre was declared the European museum of the year. It is shown in the city's unique Liverpool institute of performing arts, which trains the performers of tomorrow and which was opened by Sir Paul McCartney in 1996. It is shown in its orchestra—the world-renowned Royal Liverpool Philharmonic, which is a regional and national asset, nurturing talent for the whole community.
    The talent is shown in Liverpool's imaginative festivals, such as "Brouhaha", "Africa Oye", "Hope Street" and the FACT—Foundation for Arts and Creative Technology—video festival. It is shown in its first-class galleries—the Tate and the Bluecoat. Films made in Liverpool include, "In the Name of the Father", and "The Hunt for Red October". Liverpool is the headquarters of the North West Film Commission and, in Mersey TV, Liverpool shows what it can achieve in television production.
    Liverpool has produced a long—almost endless—list of excellent performers and writers. They include musicians from the Beatles and George Melly to Libor Pesek writers; such as Jimmy McGovern, Alan Bleasdale, Lynda la Plante and William Russell; and poets and artists such as Adrian Henri and Roger McGough. Actors who have performed in Liverpool at a critical time include Anthony Sher, Alison Steadman, Julie Walters and, of course, currently the Brookside cast.
    Arts do matter. They matter for enjoyment and enhancing sensibilities and they matter in generating jobs through the increasingly recognised creative industries. All that is being acted on by this Government and die European Commission. I congratulate the Government on allocating an additional £125 million to the arts, in contrast with the cuts of the previous Tory regime. I also congratulate the Government on producing this month the first national report on the creative industries—the industries and jobs associated with the arts. Those industries generate revenues of £60 billion per year nationally and provide 1.4 million jobs. In Merseyside, 17,000 people are employed because of the creative industries, producing revenues of more than £92.6 million a year. Indeed, 5 per cent, of Liverpool's work force are employed in those industries.
    The European Commission has recognised the economic importance of the arts, by funding arts-related activities through its objective 1 programme. Yet there is chronic insecurity in arts funding in Liverpool in two principal areas. That has come about because of the legacy of Tory cuts, together with the consequences of the abolition of Merseyside metropolitan county council in 1986.
    It being Ten o 'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]
    Mrs. Ellman: Merseyside county council took responsibility for the arts.
    The Royal Liverpool Philharmonic society has suffered budget cuts of more than £1.2 million in real terms over the past five years alone. I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Minister for Arts and the Arts Council for the support that they have given to the orchestra, but will they continue that support, including a possible bid to the lottery stabilisation fund? I note that the royal opera house recently received a lottery grant of more than £9 million from that source.
    The Playhouse in Liverpool has been closed since January. Talks are under way to secure the reopening of the Playhouse in part of a new major retail development in Williamson square. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister, North West Arts, the Arts Council and others to support the theatre. It could be linked with the Everyman to give both theatres a secure future.
    I seek a specific assurance that the survival of the Playhouse will not be at risk because of the commercial interests of the retail development in which it is to be housed, and I call on all those who gave commitments to ensure the future of the Playhouse to honour them.
    I asked a parliamentary question last year about funding for Liverpool theatres, and discovered great disparity and inequity. I was told that, for 1997–98, public funding in theatres in various locations was as follows: Liverpool Playhouse to receive £700,000; Liverpool Everyman to receive £300,000; Birmingham Rep to receive £3.2 million; and Manchester Royal Exchange to receive £18.5 million. I welcome the funding that has been given to all those ventures, but why is Liverpool apparently not getting a fair deal?
    Liverpool has displayed its excellence in theatres small and large, in music and in many other areas. In particular, it has shown the importance of the arts in local regeneration and community development, and in bringing opportunities to alienated young people, yet it appears that obstacles are still put in the way of enabling the best use to be made of available public funds.
    For example, Artskills in Dingle, Liverpool 8, has worked successfully with disadvantaged young people since 1996, and its "Great Teams" murals hung outside St. George's hall this summer. Under its single regeneration budget, Dingle wants to extend the project to the Granby area, but it is having difficulty bringing together new deal funding and European social fund moneys. I trust that those difficulties will be resolved so that we can have joined-up thinking and show once more how the arts can contribute to the local community and to the development of young people.
    The exciting Hope street project is seeking regeneration of the Hope street quarter—the area that houses the Everyman theatre, the cathedrals and the philharmonic hall. It wants to show how physical and cultural regeneration can go together, and I hope that the project can secure significant funding to enable its work to progress.
    We have a new focus for our region. The new north-west regional development agency is being set up, and more powers are to be delegated to the region through

    307
    a restructured North West Arts. The north-west regional development agency, together with the north-west chamber, will bring new opportunities for our region, provided that they, regional Government Departments and North West Arts work together to promote regional strengths. Sufficient funding must be available if devolved powers are to be meaningful in the local area.
    I welcome the new integrated regional dimension to our policy making, as the arts have much to gain from it. A strategic vision is needed. After all, planning for Liverpool's now world-famous maritime museum and Tate gallery took place at the time of the Merseyside county council, and I hope that the development of our regional perspective will restore strategic planning and vision to the arts in our area.
    Liverpool is buzzing with cultural activity and enterprise. The Merseyside Music Development Agency, with its "creative Liverpool" project, and ACME—the arts, culture and media enterprise—are both working to support the arts and to promote arts-related businesses as part of regeneration, building on local strengths. Liverpool must not be allowed to lose its artistic talents. We are all responsible for promoting opportunities in which artistic talent can flourish. We must provide the infrastructure that will make it possible and attractive for the many people in Liverpool with great artistic talent and aspirations to remain in Liverpool and deploy their talents effectively.
    Liverpool has now set its sights on becoming European city of culture in 2007. I hope that the Minister feels able to back that vision and recognise Liverpool as the cultural capital not just of the north-west but of the United Kingdom. Oscar Wilde commented after the first performance of Lady Windermere's Fan:
    "The play was a great success, but the audience was a total failure."
    Liverpool's play has been a long-running success story. The audience must now rise to the challenge.
    10.7 pm
    The Minister for Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) on securing tonight's Adjournment debate, for which she has chosen an important topic. She spoke with passion and enthusiasm about the role and achievement of the arts and the creative industries on Merseyside, and rightly so. Liverpool has been an astonishingly rich source of artistic activity for many years and more recently has been noted for the growth of its creative and media industries. As she said, Liverpool has been buzzing.
    The traditional industries—import and export, the docks, car manufacturing—are being supplemented by new, growing industries, which are giving rise to a healthy mix of creative industries and cultural tourism businesses in the region. I should like to explain some of the ways in which the Government are fostering those new sources of growth. First, we are doing so through direct support for the arts. As my hon. Friend knows, central Government funding for the arts in England is channelled through the Arts Council of England. The Arts Council funds some arts organisations directly. It also provides the
    308
    bulk of the funding for the regional arts boards, which in turn fund other artists and arts organisations within their regions.
    As my hon. Friend reminded the House, in the later years of the previous Government, funding for the arts stood still. The Arts Council was forced to freeze funding to most of the bodies that it supports, both the regional arts boards, which include North West Arts as the board responsible for Merseyside, and its client bodies, which include the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Society.
    However, even within that bleak overall situation for the arts nationally, bequeathed by the previous Government, it has been possible to focus some resources where they are most needed, including Merseyside. In the last full financial year, North West Arts allocated £2,592,246 to arts organisations and activities in Liverpool—some 27 per cent. of its total spending—and the Arts Council allocated £1,507,000.
    Liverpool has also benefited from the national lottery. To date, Liverpool has received £17.5 million for lottery projects financed by the Arts Council, including capital projects, the "arts for everyone" main scheme and the "arts for everyone" express scheme, as well as grants from the heritage lottery fund.
    My hon. Friend mentioned the difficulties faced by the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Society and the Everyman and Playhouse theatres in Liverpool. I understand and appreciate her concern about the problems faced by those organisations.
    The Government are putting right the neglect of the arts that we inherited. My Department will receive additional funding over the next three years of £290 million, of which no less than £124 million will go to the arts. That represents the largest-ever single increase in spending on the arts in England. It is good news for the arts, and good news for the arts on Merseyside.
    The good news is not just about money. The Government believe strongly in delegating responsibility and financial resources to the regions and to areas where decisions can best be taken in line with local interests and local needs. The new Arts Council, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State appointed earlier this year, shares that view. The Arts Council proposes that a substantial element of the extra resources for the arts that the Government are providing should be delegated to the regional arts boards.
    The Arts Council expects the RABs to receive average increases in funding of 19 per cent. next year, 11 per cent. the year after, and 4 per cent. the year after that. Those increases in funding reflect our desire to make funding more equitable, taking into account not only current average per capita funding, but factors such as deprivation, which is an important consideration on Merseyside and in my hon. Friend's constituency. That will be an enormous boost to the arts in the regions, and to local decision making. Detailed allocations are a matter for the Arts Council, and will be announced next month, but I am confident that North West Arts will benefit substantially from the overall increase in resources available.
    The Arts Council also proposes to enhance the status and flexibility of the regional arts boards by giving them more responsibility for direct funding of some of the companies and organisations presently directly funded by the Arts Council. The Royal Liverpool Philharmonic

    309
    Society is one of the organisations whose funding it is proposed to delegate to North West Arts. North West Arts will naturally be provided with the appropriate resources to provide funding for the bodies that it inherits.
    I am deeply aware of the concerns of my hon. Friend and others who have raised with me the problems faced by the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Society. I appreciate that these are difficult times for the society. I wish the society's chairman, Peter Johnson, chief executive, Antony Lewis-Crosby, and their colleagues every success in their continuing efforts to put the society on to a firmer financial footing for the future.
    The RLPS plays an important role in the music infrastructure of Merseyside, and it is one of our major regional orchestras. It has a well-established education and community access development unit, and has established strong links with local community groups, schools and other music organisations. Everyone with an interest in the arts wishes it well, but its future needs to be based on something more tangible than just wishes. It needs support from all concerned.
    The Arts Council, which funds the RLPS directly, certainly understands that need. In the last financial year, its grant in aid to the society was £1,482,800, or almost 30 per cent. of the society's income. The Arts Council and North West Arts, which is due to take over responsibility for direct funding, continue to monitor closely the situation in the RLPS, and I understand that they are keen to assist in whatever ways they reasonably can. The Arts Council has already assisted the society through a short-term difficulty by providing an advance of £0.5 million in this financial year.
    I should like to emphasise the importance of partnership in helping to sustain creativity in the arts, support education and social inclusion and promote regeneration and economic opportunity. Where such partnerships have been most successful, they are often built on contributions from many partners: artists, audiences and patrons, businesses, donors, central Government and local government. Central Government play their part, through our overall support for the creative industries and directly, via the Arts Council or regional arts boards; but local government also has an important role.
    Clearly, every local authority must be free to decide its own priorities in line with local needs, provided that it meets its statutory obligations. In the context of the arts, however, it is worth noting the economic, artistic and social benefits that the west midlands derives from the City of Birmingham symphony orchestra, which receives £1,058,000 from the city of Birmingham. Similarly, the city of Manchester provides £583,000 for the Hallé orchestra. Business, too, plays an important role in partnerships that support successful artistic ventures. I would like to encourage a spirit of partnership in support of the arts across the country, including Merseyside.
    My hon. Friend mentioned Liverpool's theatres. There, too, taxpayers' funding is decided by the regional arts board. North West Arts will make allocations for the next three years to all its funded bodies, including those on Merseyside, in December this year or shortly afterwards. I understand that a report on theatre in Merseyside is due to be delivered to the Merseyside consortium for the arts in early December. The report will no doubt help to inform North West Arts' decisions about funding,
    310
    drawing on research into the levels of funding given to comparable theatres in other major urban centres such as Leeds, Sheffield and Manchester.
    My hon. Friend will understand that it would be wrong for me to try to pre-empt the decision by North West Arts, but I am sure that, in reaching its decision, the regional arts board will want to take into account the strong views that she expressed. Nevertheless, let me again emphasise the importance of partnership. Support must come not just from Government, through the Arts Council and North West Arts, but from other parties.
    The importance of the arts to Merseyside extends far beyond just the performing arts. As my hon. Friend pointed out, in recent years there has been a tremendous growth in the creative industries in and around Liverpool. Earlier this month, my Department launched a report on those creative industries—industries such as music, publishing, design and the arts—which, as she observed, now generate £60 billion of revenue a year, and employ 1.4 million people nationally.
    As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said:
    "The creative industries are not a fringe benefit for Britain's economy, they are at the heart of it. We are one of the most creative nations on Earth".
    With a growth rate of 5 per cent., the creative industries are generating new jobs and new wealth for Britain more rapidly than any other part of the economy.
    For that reason, the Government are taking steps to encourage creative entrepreneurs. Policies are being introduced to stimulate inward investment, to deliver training opportunities and to help businesses to increase their productivity and competitiveness in order to achieve sustainable employment and economic growth in that highly important sector of my Department's remit.
    The arts and creative industries are also important in that they can counter social exclusion and draw communities together. My hon. Friend made that point powerfully. The arts can provide a real link between education, lifelong learning, community development and economic regeneration. Let me give some examples from Merseyside. Much important work is being done in Liverpool by the Merseyside ACME—arts, culture and media enterprise—which is a partnership between the five Merseyside local authorities and the north-west regional arts board.
    The partnership has attracted £2.97 million of European regional development funds through the Merseyside objective 1 programme to support the expansion of the creative industries and contribute to the economic regeneration of some of the most deprived areas of Merseyside up to the millennium. Let me express my admiration for a number of projects that ACME has supported through its access and participation programme, all of which are well known to my hon. Friend.
    ACME enabled the Greenhouse multicultural play and arts centre to run a project around the Windrush festival. The project involved children and teachers in schools in both Toxteth and Dingle who worked with elders from the Caribbean community. Their work helped to build better understanding between people with different cultural backgrounds and from different generations, and celebrated, through performing arts, the Caribbean contribution to British life over the past 50 years. The project resulted in performances of music and dance in all the participating schools, and at the opening of the Caribbean garden at the museum of Liverpool life.

    311
    Greenhouse has also been heavily involved in another ACME-funded project: L8 Children, Young People and Regeneration. Greenhouse has worked in schools in Toxteth and Dingle, using visual arts, dance, drama and poetry to enable participants to explore issues of regeneration that affect themselves and their communities. In that way, it is hoped that young people in Liverpool 8 will be able to have a voice in the decision making that affects their lives and futures.
    In Dingle, a project called Voices is aimed at giving young people a voice, enabling the expression of their lives and visions—in contrast to damaging media stereotypes about the area. Young people will take part in a range of art forms and develop new skills. The project will build young people's capacity to participate meaningfully in the regeneration partnership. Part of the project will be the design and installation of artwork depicting the history of Liverpool 8 in the new city council housing office in the area. I welcome what my hon. Friend said about the importance of those and other such community cultural projects benefiting from the range of programmes that the Government have introduced, and the need for co-ordination between regional cultural agencies and other agencies.
    The projects are excellent examples of local, conununity-based, community-led schemes. There are, of course, other larger and more prominent examples of how cultural development can take the lead in the economic and social regeneration of city centres and deprived areas. In my hon. Friend's constituency, as she mentioned, there is the excellent example of the Tate gallery, Liverpool, which was a catalyst for the development of the Albert dock complex—itself a symbol of Merseyside's renaissance after a period of economic decline.
    The success and reputation of the Tate gallery in Liverpool has attracted considerable private-sector support, including major businesses such as Granada Television, Unilever plc, Save and Prosper Group Ltd., Mobil Oil, English Estates and Littlewoods. The Tate gallery is committed to the development of Liverpool as
    312
    a city of learning. It will help to build the region's reputation as a centre of educational and training excellence and innovation, and as a provider of skilled arts professionals for the employment opportunities of tomorrow.
    I should also mention, as my hon. Friend did, the conservation centre, which earlier this year won the European museum of the year award for the national museums and galleries on Merseyside. The NMGM institutions are renowned for their innovative interpretation of museum collections for people of all ages. The eight national museums and galleries have won 17 national and international awards in the past 10 years for excellence in education, as well as awards for architecture, tourism and scholarship. They have also been awarded £24 million of lottery money—the biggest heritage lottery fund grant yet for developments across seven museums, although it went especially to the Walker art gallery and the Liverpool museum.
    The debate has covered a wide range of issues. The fact that we have covered so much is evidence, if that were needed, of the vitality and diversity of the arts and the creative industries on Merseyside. My hon. Friend spoke of her hope that Liverpool might be the European city of culture in 2007—indeed, she staked a claim for Liverpool as the cultural capital of the United Kingdom—and that would be wonderful. I know that she and many others in Liverpool will work toward it. They will certainly have my personal goodwill in their endeavour.
    The good news for the arts, not only on Merseyside but nationally, is that, thanks to the Government's commitment, they are once again at the heart of public policy. We are providing more funding for the arts and more support for the creative industries, and giving more scope for local and regional partnerships to make the most of this vital and thriving sector. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important topic, and for allowing me the opportunity to give the arts and creative industries on Merseyside due recognition.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Ten o'clock.

HEALTH

  Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements he proposes to ensure compliance with the renegotiated Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme; and if he will make a statement. [60984]

  Mr. Dobson
  The Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme has existed for over 40 years, and is designed to provide reasonable prices for the National Health Service and fair rates of return for the pharmaceutical companies who supply the NHS. The Government remain committed to these objectives, and are currently renegotiating the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme with representatives of the pharmaceutical industry.

  The Government regret that there is increasing non compliance by a limited number of companies with the current voluntary agreement. This is adding to the NHS drugs bill at the expense of other NHS treatment and care. In these circumstances the Government have concluded that to ensure full compliance with a new agreement it will be necessary to take reserve powers in the forthcoming NHS Bill. These will make it possible to secure the compliance of any companies who might in future choose not to abide by the voluntary agreement.

TREASURY

  Public Service Pensions
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to increase public service pensions from April 1999. [60987]

  Mr. Byers
  Legislation governing public service pensions requires them to be increased annually by the same percentage as State earnings-related pensions (additional pensions). My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced on 28 October 1998,Official Report, columns 339–42, that additional pensions will be increased by 3.2 per cent. in line with the annual increase in the Retail Prices Index up to September 1998. Public service pensions will therefore be increased by 3.2 per from 12 April 1999, except those which have been in payment for less than a year, which will receive a pro-rata increase.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Human Rights Act 1998
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to bring into force 2
  section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998; and in what form statements under that section on compatibility with the convention rights will be published. [60985]

  Mr. Straw
  I have made an order under the Human Rights Act bringing section 19 into force on 24 November.

  Statements under section 19 will appear as a note on the face of each Government Bill and in the explanatory notes for most Bills. This will enable anyone obtaining a copy of the Bill in paper or electronic form to see at once the statement.

  There may be occasions when a Bill which has been amended at a late stage in the House into which it was first introduced cannot be accompanied by a statement when it is first printed in the second House. In these situations, a statement will be appended to the Bill by the time of Second Reading and the circumstances will be explained in a Written Answer.

  The statements will be in the following form and will appear on the front page of each Bill:
  European Convention on Human Rights
  Mr. Secretary… has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998:
  In my view the provisions of the… Bill are compatible with the Convention rights.

  or
  Mr. Secretary… has made the following statement under section 19(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998:
  I am unable to make a statement that in my view the provisions of the… Bill are compatible with the Convention rights but the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the… Bill.

  In the explanatory notes the statement will be referred to as follows:
  European Convention on Human Rights
  Section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 requires the Minister in charge of a Bill in either House of Parliament to make a statement about the compatibility of the provisions of the Bill with the Convention rights (as defined by section 1 of that Act). On [date] the Secretary of State for… made the following statement before Second Reading of this Bill in the House of [Commons] [Lords]:
  In my view the provisions of the… Bill are compatible with the Convention rights.

  or
  I am unable to make a statement that in my view the provisions of the… Bill are compatible with the Convention rights but the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the… Bill.

  Young People (Sexual Abuse)
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what conclusions were reached by the interdepartmental working group on preventing unsuitable people from working with children and abuse of trust on the need to protect vulnerable 16 and 17 year olds from sexual advances by those in authority over them; and if he will make a statement. [61127]

  Mr. Boateng
  The working group were asked to prioritise their work on abuse of trust. We have today placed a copy of their interim report on this in the Library.
  3
  The working group recommend a limited criminal offence to protect boys and girls of 16 and 17 from sexual advances by those in authority over them in specific circumstances. The circumstances would include young persons compulsorily detained; looked after by the local authority (whether in foster care, residential care, or semi-independent accommodation); receiving health and/or social care in a residential setting (including hospital); and receiving full time education. We accept this recommendation. As announced on 24 November 1998, Official Report, column 6, we will bring forward this Session proposals to implement it at the same time as we give Parliament an opportunity to vote on equalising the age of consent for boys and girls.

  The working group also recommend a Government initiative to strengthen codes of conduct generally to protect young people from those in positions of authority over them. They are taking this forward as a matter of priority. The first step is a seminar involving outside organisations on 30 November, and work will continue on this throughout next year.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Leasehold Reform
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish proposals for leasehold reform. [60855]

  Ms Armstrong
  We shall be publishing a consultation paper on Thursday 26 November. Copies will be available in the Library.

  Waste Disposal
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for the implementation of a change to a tonnage based levy for statutory joint waste disposal authorities. [60857]

  Mr. Meale
  After announcing the proposed change from a council tax to a tonnage based system for the apportionment of Joint Waste Disposal Authorities levies, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), asked officials to work out methods for such a system and to discuss them with the local authority associations. A consultation document was issued on 9 July to those associations, the JWDAs and their constituent authorities with the intention of implementing the change in time for the 1999–2000 levy. This consultation prompted a large number of considered responses.

  As part of the development of a waste strategy for England and Wales, we are looking at the way in which all waste management functions are funded, both in areas where there are Joint Waste Disposal Authorities (JWDAs) and more widely. The proposal to change the levy arrangements to one based on the tonnage delivered for disposal, was part of this exercise.

  There are, however, obvious implications for the operation of the recycling credits scheme, a key element in the financing of local authority waste management. In response to the consultation paper "Less Waste: More
  4
  Value", on the waste strategy for England and Wales, views were expressed that aspects of the recycling credits scheme needed amendment. We have therefore decided to undertake a review of the recycling credits scheme. A decision on the levy basis for JWDAs has therefore been postponed pending the outcome of this review.

  Social Exclusion Action Teams
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if she will announce the membership of the 18 policy action teams referred to in the Social Exclusion Unit report, "Bringing Britain Together: a national strategy for neighbourhood renewal", published on 15 September. [60988]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Social Exclusion Unit's report "Bringing Britain Together: a national strategy for neighbourhood renewal" set out proposals for an intensive programme of policy development involving 18 crosscutting Policy Action Teams based around five themes: getting the people to work; getting the place to work; building a future for young people; access to services; and making the Government work better.

  The Programme of policy development work will be completed by December 1999, when we will put together the outcome of all the reports into a coherent strategy. I am overseeing the whole process, and each Team has a champion Minister assigned to it.

  I am announcing today the full membership of the Policy Action Teams. The Teams include members drawn from central and local government, the voluntary and private sectors as well as people living and working in poorer neighbourhoods. They will play an important part in achieving more joined-up Government policy and action on the ground. I have today placed the membership details in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Ship Passengers (Compensation Claims)
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action the Government are taking to ensure the availability of adequate compensation to meet claims arising from the death of, or injury to, passengers on board ships. [60989]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have signed an order today which will triple the minimum amount of compensation available for passenger claims. The order will affect ferry operators, travel agents and tour operators whose principal place of business is in the UK. The new limit of liability of 300,000 Special Drawing Rights—SDR—(about £250,000) per passenger takes effect on 1 January 1999.

  As soon as a suitable legislative opportunity presents itself, we wish to extend this protection more widely to include all passengers whose journey has a link with the UK. This would require the UK withdrawing from the 1974 Athens Convention. This Convention entitles foreign carriers to an outdated limit of liability of 46,666 SDR (about £38,000) per passenger. In the meantime, the UK will continue to press within the International Maritime Organisation for swift revision of the Athens Convention to provide for even higher compensation amounts, guaranteed by compulsory insurance cover.
  5
  I accept, and applaud, the fact that insurance and shipping companies have sometimes not bound themselves by the limits following accidents involving major loss of life. However, we must not be complacent. and this is why the Government intend to work towards better legal protection for all passengers.

  Ministerial Meeting
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the outcome of the meeting with Green Ministers. [61128]

  Mr. Meacher
  Green Ministers met on 18 November to discuss how to deliver the Greening Government Agenda. The meeting discussed action arising from the Government's response to the Environmental Audit Committee's Second Report on the Greening Government Initiative. We noted particularly that the Deputy Prime Minister had asked Green Ministers to consider and report to the Cabinet Committee on the Environment (ENV) on how far sustainable development can be incorporated into the remit of all existing Departments and their Non-Departmental Public Bodies. Each Green Minister confirmed that they were reviewing the position in their own Department, and would report back to the next Green Ministers' meeting early in 1999.

  Green Ministers went on to discuss progress in integrating the environment into policies and operations. We agreed to establish a working group to consider the scope and format of future Green Ministers' reports to ENV, and the first published report on the activities of Green Ministers, to be produced in summer 1999.

  Green Ministers' meetings normally consider one cross-cutting issue in some detail. On this occasion we discussed how to get the most from Green Transport Plans and the action that would be needed to meet the specific targets set out in the White Paper "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone".

  The meeting ended with a preliminary discussion of the consequences for the Green Ministers' network of devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Green Ministers decided to examine in more detail the membership implications of devolution and to propose future arrangements at the next meeting in February.

  Twelve Green Ministers attended the meeting on 18 November; other Departments were represented by officials.

  Countryside Agency
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what decision has been made about a name for the new agency to be created by the merger of the Countryside Commission and those parts of the Rural Development Commission not being transferred to the regional development agencies. [61129]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have accepted a recommendation made jointly by the two Commissions that the name for the new body should be the Countryside Agency. This name will be included in the order under section 35 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 which will effect the formation of the new body, and which will be laid before Parliament in the New Year.
  6
  The Commissions also propose that this name should be accompanied for day-to-day purposes by the strapline—working for people and places in rural England.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Disabled Football Supporters
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what response he has made to the Football Task Force report into improving facilities for disabled supporters. [60871]

  Mr. Banks
  I fully support the practical recommendations made in the Task Force's report to improve access and facilities at football grounds for supporters with disabilities. I have written today to the bodies identified in the report as having a role to play in implementing the relevant recommendations.

  There are several recommendations which are for Government to progress. These relate to amending the Approved Document (AD) for Part M of the Building Regulations to require all new stadia, new stands and extensions to existing facilities to provide wheelchair spaces in accordance with the Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds; to drawing up a sliding scale for the numbers of designated seats for people who are ambulant disabled or visually/hearing impaired within new stands or stadia, and amending Part M accordingly; and to extending the future role of the Football Trust to improve disabled facilities at grounds.

  Any changes to the Building Regulations require statutory consultation and will be based on the advice of the Building Regulations Advisory Committee. The British Standards Institution have begun a comprehensive review of BS 5810 Code of practice for access for the disabled to buildings, and it is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to use this standard and its supporting research, once it has been completed, as a basis for developing proposals through the Building Regulations Advisory Committee to revise the AD for Part M.

  In the interim, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions have taken the opportunity to include references to the Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds in the current revision to the Approved Document to extend Part M to new housing. This will draw the guidance to the attention of interested parties.

  The review of BS 5810 includes access for the ambulant disabled and when the Green Guide is next updated the standard will be taken on board.

  The Football Trust is an independent discretionary trust. Any decisions on its future role is a matter for the Trustees, in accordance with the Trust Deed.

  The recommendations made by the Task Force provide an excellent assessment of what has been achieved in the provision of facilities for disabled supporters and where improvements can still be made. The Government are determined to maintain the momentum of progress, by, for example, the continuing implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

  Government Indemnity Scheme
  Mr. Leslie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many indemnity undertakings were given by Departments under section 16 of the National Heritage Act 1980 for the six-month period ended 30 September; and what was the value of(a) any contingent liabilities in respect of such undertakings given at any time under that section which remain outstanding as at 30 September, (b) non-statutory Government indemnities in respect of loans handled by the Government Art Collection which remain outstanding as at 30 September and (c) non-statutory undertakings to Her Majesty in respect of loans from the Royal Collection which remain outstanding at 30 September. [60972]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The provision for the Government Indemnity Scheme is made by the National Heritage Act 1980. The scheme facilitates public access to loans of works of art and other objects of public display made to museums, galleries and other such institutions by private owners and non national institutions. It does this by indemnifying lenders against loss or damage to their loan. Loans covered by the scheme must be for public benefit. The scheme also covers loans of such objects for study purposes within borrowing institutions where this would contribute materially to the public's understanding or appreciation of the loan. Examples of this are enhancing interpretation or explanation to the public of objects or bringing into the public domain, the conclusions of any study.

  In the six-month period ended 30 September 1998, the following undertakings to indemnify were given under section 16 by the relevant Departments for objects on loan to national and non-national institutions:

  Department

  Numbers

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  516

  Scottish Office Education and Industry Department

  62

  Welsh Office Education Department

  44

  Department of Education for Northern Ireland

  14

  The value of contingent liabilities in respect of undertakings given at any time under section 16 and which remained outstanding as at 30 September 1998 is:

  Department

  £

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  1,557,374,160

  Scottish Office Education and Industry Department

  115,648,368

  Welsh Office Education Department

  39,302,926

  Department of Education for Northern Ireland

  5,627,210

  The value of non-statutory Government indemnities to cover loans handled by the Government Art Collection and which remained outstanding as at 30 September 1998 is £8,000,000.

  The value of non-statutory Undertakings given to Her Majesty in respect of loans from the Royal Collection and which remained outstanding as at 30 September 1998 is £107,200,583.

  EU Culture Council
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EU Culture Council on 17 November. [61130]

  Janet Anderson
  EU Ministers responsible for cultural and audiovisual issues met on 17 November 1998 in Brussels.

  Ministers agreed to extend the funding programmes for the arts, Kaleidoscope, and for literature, Ariane, to 1999. From January 2000, a new single framework programme for culture, entitled Culture 2000, will replace the existing programmes, such as Kaleidoscope and Ariane, as well as Raphael, which covers heritage issues, and a range of other cultural actions. Culture 2000 will enable not only co-operation within traditional sectors, but cross-sectoral co-operation to take place. Ministers agreed a Common Position, subject to final agreement by the Netherlands, which will now be considered by the European Parliament.

  Ministers also adopted a Resolution highlighting the important role of public service broadcasting in the digital era, and discussed other issues, including cross-border fixed book price agreements, statistics concerning the audiovisual and related sectors, and the convergence of the telecommunications, media and information technology sectors.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 23 and 24 November. [61131]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I represented the United Kingdom at a meeting of the EU Agriculture Council in Brussels on 23 and 24 November. My noble Friend Lord Sewel, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, was also present.

  The Council voted on a proposal made by the Commission for the lifting of the world-wide ban on the export of British beef in respect of meat from animals born after 1 August 1996. 10 Member States voted in favour of the measure; only one, Germany—for understandable domestic reasons—voted against. Spain, France, Austria and Luxembourg abstained. This vote represented a substantial move towards the Commission proposal by 5 Member States from the earlier vote in the Standing Veterinary Committee. Most important, the procedures under which the vote was taken in Council enable the Commission formally to adopt the Decision.

  I can now announce to the House that within the last 3 hours the Commission has adopted the proposal, which permits the export from the UK of boneless beef and beef products from animals slaughtered between 6 and 30 months of age and born after 1 August 1996. That is the date on which the Commission have verified that all contaminated feed was removed from the food chain. There are further conditions which aim to prevent the offspring of BSE cases from entering the export scheme;

  9
  a requirement for the slaughter of offspring of BSE cases; and strict rules on slaughtering and processing. The Government will shortly issue a consultation paper on our proposals for implementing these rules. I shall be laying before Parliament secondary legislation which will make the offspring cull, which has been operating since July on a voluntary basis, compulsory. The legislation will provide compensation at the market rate, to owners of animals slaughtered.

  This is an excellent outcome which I am sure the House will welcome. It has been achieved against a background of scepticism about the seriousness with which we have tackled BSE. We have now overcome these misconceptions and had our case judged objectively on its scientific merits and supported by independent Commission inspections, taking as our over-riding principle the absolute need to safeguard public health.

  Every Agriculture Minister who spoke in the Council, including those who did not vote in favour, had very positive things to say about the commitment shown by the new United Kingdom Government to tackling the problems presented by BSE. The outcome is also an affirmation of the value of this Government's close co-operation and dialogue with our partners in Europe and with the European Commission.

  The lifting of the ban comes hard on the heels of the support measures for the agriculture sector which I announced to the House on 16 November 1998, Official Report, columns 624–66. Both demonstrate the Government's commitment to securing a viable long term future for the sector.

  The Council also held a discussion of the Commission's proposals for CAP reform in the context of the Agenda 2000 measures. These proposals are essential for the future stability of European agriculture and in order to facilitate a successful enlargement of the Union to the east. The Council agreed a report to the Vienna European Council next month identifying the main outstanding issues and expressing its determination to reach conclusions on the package as a whole by next March. It is an important Government objective to secure an ambitious reform of the CAP which serves the national interest and I very much welcomed the commitment by the Council to take early decisions. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made similar points in the discussion in Ecofin on 23 November on the future financing of the European Union.

  This was a very important Council meeting for the United Kingdom. We have achieved a major objective of our policy towards Europe in the lifting of the beef export ban. Although it will take time for the British beef industry to win back markets which have been lost to them in the past two and a half years, I believe we have created the conditions in which they can now plan for the future, confident that their industry is operating to the
  10
  highest possible standards. Our immediate task is to work with the industry to ensure that the scheme which we have successfully negotiated in Europe works effectively to help regain recognition for the quality of British beef on world markets.

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress towards a Food Standards Agency. [61132]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The Government are fully committed to the establishment of the Food Standards Agency as set out in the White Paper published in January 1998. It is a matter of regret that, because of the government's heavy legislative programme in other areas, it has not been possible to secure a space in the forthcoming Parliamentary session. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health for Scotland, for Northern Ireland and for Wales and I are determined nevertheless to move action forward where we can, in the meantime, in ways which do not require legislation.

  Since the general election, this Government have made a number of improvements to the way in which food safety and standards issues are handled. Officials from MAFF and DH are now working together in a Joint Food Standards and Safety Group, which reports directly to both the Secretary of State for Health and myself. The Group also liaises closely with the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices. The safety of the consumer lies at the heart of our decision making.

  I am holding discussions with my right hon. Friends as to how we can, in practical terms, enhance these current joint working arrangements and lay further foundations for the Agency. As soon as we have completed these discussions, I will make a further announcement to the House. A draft Bill will be published in due course.

DEFENCE

  Army Training Areas
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the support and administration of the Army's training areas and ranges. [60856]

  Mr. Spellar
  As part of the Government's search for efficiencies, the Commander in Chief Land Command is shortly to initiate a competition to seek a long term strategic partner from the private sector to assist in the development of a future strategy to deliver better value for money from the large number of contracts currently in existence from the support and administration of the Army's training areas and ranges. Details will be advertised in the Official Journal of the European Communities (OJEC) and MOD Contracts Bulletin.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Bristol): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Donoughue will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Agriculture Council.

Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc.) Bill [H.L.]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to transfer from the Secretary of State to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or the Treasury certain functions relating to national insurance contributions, the National Insurance Fund, statutory sick pay, statutory maternity pay or pension schemes and certain associated functions relating to benefits; to make further provision, in connection with the functions transferred, as to the powers of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, the making of decisions and appeals; to provide that rebates payable in respect of members of money purchase contracted-out pension schemes are to be payable out of the National Insurance Fund; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.— (Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill [H.L.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision about the Commonwealth Development Corporation. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
Debate resumed on the Motion moved yesterday by Lord Clinton-Davis—namely, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
"Most gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament".
2.32 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, this afternoon we continue our extended debate on the gracious Speech. I am sure it will produce a thorough discussion of all the measures the Government have proposed. I am also sure that—as always in an important debate in your Lordships' House—there will be many authoritative and informed speakers. No doubt we will hear contributions from those with vast, personal experience of the subjects to be considered. We will also hear a number of distinguished maiden speakers. Today I look forward to hearing the maiden speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Butler of Brockwell and Lord Norton of Louth, and the noble Earl, Lord Dunmore.
I understand, of course, that for some Members of your Lordships' House there is only one issue of real interest: the Government's plans to reform the House itself. It would, clearly, be ridiculous to pretend that these proposals are not significant. They are matters of serious constitutional change and I shall return to them in detail, and in context, later in my speech. However, as legislators, we have a duty to look beyond our own affairs, beyond this Chamber and indeed beyond Westminster.
In this Session, the Government are proposing major new legislation on issues which are central to the cares and concerns of most people in Britain. I refer to Bills to reform our welfare system, to modernise the National Health Service and to cut crime; Bills to deliver better local authority services to local communities, and to give citizens better access to justice in our courts; Bills to make work pay for low-paid families, and to make employment fairer; and Bills to offer practical help to disabled people, and to help enterprise in our key financial services sector. These are the bedrock issues— rightly called the "heartland" issues—where change and reform will make a difference to every part of the country.
This year's programme builds on the achievements of the first legislative Session. It carries forward the Government's objectives of securing economic strength through stable management of the economy, accompanied by social justice and opportunity for all. Its key principles are fairness and enterprise. It is an ambitious programme; it is a radical programme. It is a measure of the importance of the programme that your Lordships have requested five days to debate it.

25
Before returning to this afternoon's consideration of constitutional and legal affairs, I wish to outline the major proposals to be addressed later. Tomorrow, we shall debate defence and foreign affairs. The gracious Speech sets out a number of challenges that will face us over the coming year on the world stage. Tomorrow will also be your Lordships' opportunity to discuss the Bill to convert the Commonwealth Development Corporation into a public/private partnership to increase investment in developing countries. This Bill has now been introduced into the House by my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
Next Monday's debate will focus on education, local government, the environment and agriculture. The Government have repeatedly made clear the absolute priority we attach to improving education in this country. The Government's commitment to lifelong learning was a major theme of last year's programme, with four education Acts. This year we shall bring forward proposals for continuing our drive to higher standards at all levels of education. We shall publish a Green Paper on improving the quality and status of the teaching profession. This will herald the biggest reform in teaching for half a century.
We shall continue our programme of reform of local and regional government. On Monday we shall also look at the Bill requiring local authorities to secure best value in the delivery of local services and to abolish the current arrangements for compulsory competitive tendering. Another Bill for initial debate on that day is to provide a fair basis for water charging in England and Wales—a Bill of real value to everyone.
On agriculture, the other subject for Monday's debate, the gracious Speech makes clear the Government's continued determination to see reform of the common agricultural policy. It also repeats our commitment to taking forward work on a food standards agency. Both initiatives follow our success this week in getting the beef ban lifted. That is a welcome step forward for everyone in Britain, especially, of course, our farmers. It was a step achieved only after a great deal of patient effort and delicate negotiation; a process which could only have been achieved by a government properly engaged in Europe. Over the past 18 months, this Government have been properly engaged and the positive results are starting to come through.
Tuesday's debate will concentrate on social, economic and industrial issues. It will focus on what the Government regard as the real centrepiece of the legislative programme: the far-reaching proposals for reform of the welfare state; that is, reform based on a firm principle of work for those who can and security for those who cannot. The Welfare Reform Bill will take forward the principles set out in the welfare reform Green Paper published last month. There are proposals for a single gateway to the benefit system for those of working age who are not in full-time work, and support for disabled people.
Welfare reform will also include a Bill to bring in the working families' tax credit, which will make work pay, especially for low-paid people, and a Bill to introduce
26
the disabled persons' tax credit, to offer help to disabled people getting back into work. Tuesday's debate will also include the Bill to combine the Contributions Agency and the Inland Revenue, the Bill introduced in your Lordships' House today by my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham.
The debate on that day will also cover the proposed financial services and markets Bill, which will establish a new statutory regulator for the financial services industry, and the Bill to promote electronic commerce, a vital new industry for the future. We shall consider, too, the Bill on fairness at work, which will introduce new policies for family-friendly employment, new rights for individual workers and a new employee relations settlement which will establish a forward-looking balance of rights and responsibilities for both employers and employees.
The last day of debate, next Wednesday, will concentrate on health and home affairs. This will underline our determination to reform the public services of this country. The gracious Speech includes a Bill to replace the National Health Service internal market with decentralised arrangements based on partnership, quality and efficiency. Doctors and nurses will take the lead in shaping local services for patients through primary care trusts. Collaboration and co-operation between service providers will replace the destructive competition of the recent past. New methods of raising and monitoring common high standards across the NHS will be introduced.
On crime, the Government's policies will be taken forward with a Bill to modernise the youth courts and to give more protection to vulnerable and intimidated witnesses. Home affairs legislation will also include a Bill to modernise the law on immigration and asylum, including reform of the appeals system and new support arrangements for asylum seekers.
I turn back now to the subject of today's debate: constitutional and legal affairs. I propose to say only a little about legal affairs. The access to justice Bill will among other things introduce measures to promote the establishment of a community legal service providing the widest possible access to high quality information and advice for everyone. It is the responsibility of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, and I shall leave him to deal with it in detail when he comes to speak at the end of today's debate. Suffice it for me to say that this important Bill, which again affects the day-to-day lives of many citizens, will start its parliamentary passage in your Lordships' House.
Health, welfare, crime, jobs, the economy and education: these are the centrepiece issues of the gracious Speech.
We will rightly concentrate on these key issues, but we will also proceed with further moves in the Government's constitutional reform programme. They are a major part of our proposals to modernise the institutions of this country. The key principles of the programme are clear: the decentralisation of power, real rights for citizens, openness—and modernising Parliament to improve its effectiveness. It is integral to our approach that we start from what is already there,

27
such as the existing administrative responsibilities of the Scottish and Welsh Offices or the European Convention on Human Rights. Our proposals are radical, but they are also firmly rooted in our existing arrangements.
The Opposition have been consistent on our programme of constitutional reform and, I have to say, consistently wrong. Every time, over every measure, their line is the same, "It shouldn't be done, and it can't be done". The problem for them, as has been demonstrated during the past year, is that the people of Britain feel differently—and so do the Government.
Last year, we made a significant start to our programme, with the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill; the Scotland Bill; the Government of Wales Bill; the Human Rights Bill; and, following the Belfast agreement, two Bills in relation to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Those Acts, as they now are, will transform the political landscape of this country.
The Human Rights Act will give UK citizens for the first time the ability to assert their convention rights directly in our own courts. It too will work with the constitutional settlement, not against it. Although the courts will be given more power, the sovereignty of Parliament will also be preserved. Its most important effect will be to change the way that public authorities in this country look at human rights issues, and to bring in a proper human rights culture.
That is a start in our determination to reform and renew British institutions. It is a good start. This year, the legislative programme contains fewer constitutional changes.
Apart from the Greater London Authority Bill, which my noble friend Lord Whitty will deal with next Monday, there is only one major constitutional measure in the programme: the Bill to begin the reform of your Lordships' House.
As the gracious Speech makes clear, there will be a Bill to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this House. That was promised in our manifesto—and it will be delivered by this Government.
The Bill will be a self-contained measure, not dependent on any further reform in the future. It means that the removal of the hereditary Peers is compatible with any option for further reform which might sensibly be proposed. It works as a reform in its own right, and it will work as a reform in conjunction with any further reform.
As I have said on several occasions in your Lordships' House—and I am happy to repeat it today: the Government are entirely determined on further reforms, properly considered. The gracious Speech underlines that that next stage will be speedily progressed.
In the previous Session of this Parliament, we had an illuminating two-day debate on the Government's manifesto proposals. The main message I received from those two days is that most noble Lords opposite, most noble Lords who oppose the manifesto provisions, are fully signed up members of what one could call "The St. Augustine school of Lords reform"—it is a good idea in principle, but not yet, not yet.
28
The problem with that approach, as those noble Lords know very well, is that "not yet" has, in the past, always become "never". Indeed, it is on those very grounds that they choose to attack the Government's step-by-step approach.
They claim that the removal of the hereditary Peers will remove an "independent" element of this House, and will therefore be a retrograde step, while the Government's incentive to further reform will have gone, along with the hereditary Peers.
Our view, on the contrary, is that the hereditary Peers are not independent and therefore their removal is essential before any further changes can be made.
The Government's position remains simple and unchanged. We acknowledge the contribution of individual hereditary Peers, but we reject the hereditary principle as a basis for membership of this House of Parliament.
We have heard much in the recent past about the value of that hereditary principle in providing an independent voice in legislation. Hereditary Peers, and indeed some public commentators, may believe they are independent but the record tells otherwise.
I hardly need to rehearse in your Lordships' House the simple facts that the Conservative Party in this House has an in-built majority of three to one over the Government; or that the block vote has been deployed to defeat the Labour Government more times in the previous Session than in any during the 18 years of Tory rule; or that the contentious issue of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill would have been carried in each and every Division if only life Peers had voted. These are the unassailable facts.
I accept that some Cross-Bench hereditary Peers are independent. For them, independence is real. It is prized. It is valued and the Government are committed to maintaining that genuinely independent voice.
But this House knows what the reality is for the majority. This House knows which Lobby they go through time after time after time. "Independent" they may call themselves; well, independent by name—but not independent by nature or behaviour.
One further point: many of the hereditary Peers who claim a reserved seat in your Lordships' House actually take no part in its proceedings, in its important work.
Nearly 200 hereditary Peers failed to attend the House at all in the 1996–97 Session—not counting those who had sought leave of absence. As we approach the 21st century it is simply a nonsense to pretend that every hereditary Peer can automatically expect the right to serve as a Member of Parliament.
The status quo is simply unacceptable. It must be changed. Only then will it be possible to engage in constructive debate on the role, functions and composition of a fully reformed second Chamber, taking proper account of the whole of our evolving constitutional settlement.
The gracious Speech repeats our commitment to establish a Royal Commission to look into the issues in depth. The Government wish to ensure that a full range

29
of options is examined and that everyone who wishes to contribute has the opportunity to do so. We hope to proceed further by consensus.
Perhaps I may stress to your Lordships that the Royal Commission is not a delaying tactic. It will work to a tough and tight timetable and its recommendations will be promptly considered.
I have heard it suggested that had we appointed a Royal Commission when we first came into office 18 months ago, we could have had the full reform package ready by now. That is simply unrealistic. The Royal Commission will have to undertake its deliberations in the light of the other constitutional changes I have already mentioned. The devolution process and the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights are significant and relevant changes.
If the Royal Commission had started its work 18 months ago, it could quite legitimately have said that it needed to see the final form of those changes before it could even begin to assess their implications for the House of Lords. Those changes are now on the statute book: their final form is clear. Now is the right time for the Royal Commission to start its work.
So I say again to your Lordships: the Government are as committed to the second part of their manifesto proposals on the House of Lords as they are to the first. We have reviewed the system for the appointment of life Peers in the future. The Prime Minister has made it clear that he is prepared to relinquish his sole power of patronage in this area. This will reform the systems by which in the Conservative Government of the 1980s and 1990s appointed twice as many Conservative as Opposition Peers. We will stand by our propositions that no political party should seek a majority in the House of Lords and that there should continue to be a significant independent element on the Cross-Benches.
We shall spell out in detail how we intend to fulfil those commitments in the context of this Session's Bill. Again the more we can achieve by consensus the better. I should also confirm that the Government will be re-introducing the European Elections Bill. 1 do not need to address the substance of that Bill—we are all well aware of it. How much of your Lordships' time it will occupy depends on the Opposition.
Perhaps I may simply observe that I have difficulty in following the principle, the logic, or indeed the political tactic, of opposition in this House to the elections Bill, which appear in some instances at least to be based on a perceived inexactitude in our general election manifesto, while opposition from the same quarters ignores the absolute precision of the manifesto commitment on the future of your Lordships' House. Perhaps someone in this afternoon's long list of speakers will be able to help me.
I am sure that we shall see challenge in this Session. The events of the last few weeks have left us on this side of the House in no doubt about that. But I believe, too, that we shall see change. And those on the other
30
side of the House should be in no doubt about that either. It is change that we expect to see reflected in reform across the country—not just in Parliament.
As I made clear, I understand the interest of this House in the one measure of reform. But I believe that the House for its part must understand the interest of the people of this country in the Government's whole package of measures. The Government's programme contains a range of far-reaching steps which will benefit everyone through modernising the welfare state, improving healthcare, tackling crime and strengthening the UK's competitiveness.
These may seem mundane issues to those seduced by dramatic headlines of "warfare" over parliamentary traditions, but they matter a great deal to a great many people whose lives are led far from the political hot house. Members of this House often speak properly of duty. I hope that in this coming Session your Lordships will recognise their duty not only to themselves, to their own interests, but to the country as a whole. I enthusiastically commend the Government's programme to the House.
2.53 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I think the whole House should be extremely grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating to us, and devoting such a high proportion of her remarks in doing so, what we had already heard yesterday. It was extraordinarily kind of her to remind your Lordships that there are matters at least as important as the reform of this House. I hope that my remarks will reflect that fact. Perhaps I may also say how much we are looking forward to the maiden speeches of three noble Lords: the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, the noble Earl, Lord Dunmore, and my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. I shall leave consideration of legal matters, which I acknowledge are an important element of the Government's programme, to my noble friend Lord Kingsland, who is eminently qualified to discuss them, when he winds up for the Opposition.
I for one was pleased to see the end of the previous Session. It was long—some say it was the longest Session since the 17th century, although in some quarters that is disputed. It certainly passed a great deal of legislation; the noble Baroness was right about that. However, I fear that much of that legislation was damaging in principle to the political and economic health of our country; it was based on policies that were almost universally ill-thought through and included innumerable provisions that were both illogical and inconsistent, as well as wrong. Furthermore, such is the control that the Government have established over another place—thanks to a combination of their vast majority and their determination to ride roughshod over the right of Parliament to hold them to account—that much of that legislation reached this House undiscussed by another place even for one split second at Committee or Report stages. Lest anyone dispute that, I pray in aid the example of the Welsh Bill as a classic case in point.
However, I wonder whether the Government are not more relieved to see the end of the Session than I am. In spite of their best efforts, the institution of

31
Parliament, helped by a free press, has begun to expose the shabbiness of the Government's approach. And, if I may say so, the role that this House has played in that exposure has been a glorious one. I know that "glory" is an unfashionable word in New Labour, but some of us are pleased with the history of our country and not ashamed of it. As always, this House has been at its most effective when speaking and voting across party lines and demonstrating that independence of thought and action that has been the despair of Chief Whips of both main parties in this place throughout our modern existence. It is an indication both of our effectiveness as a revising Chamber and of the state of the preparation of government Bills that during an admittedly long Session we passed 3,963 amendments in 228 sitting days, which consumed 1,605 long hours of debate. Another place admittedly sat for 11 more days, but is not yet in a position to tell us for how many hours.
During the past 18 months I have listened to many heated discussions among commentators about the Government's motives for inflicting their policies upon us. No one disputes that the Government are bent on ushering in a constitutional revolution unparalleled since Henry VIII. The noble Baroness gloried in it again today. The question that exercises a number of us is: do the Government have a coherent vision of what they want us to achieve? The noble Baroness asserted that they did, although during the course of her remarks produced precious little evidence to support that assertion. Do the Government know what they want the living constitutional landscape to look like?
As month has succeeded depressing month, and as one ill-thought out Bill has succeeded another and piled inconsistency on inconsistency, I fear that the answer to that question is becoming nightmarishly obvious. The Government are obsessed with living up to at least half of their name—the first half. They know that there are few votes any more in being called "Labour", but think that there will continue to be votes in being called "New". So they are wedded to pell-mell change at all costs, no matter how ill-considered are the provisions of the Bills they introduce. That is why the word "modernisation" occurs 11 times in the gracious Speech.
But what does modernisation under this Government really mean? It certainly means one thing, and again it is something of which the Government are immensely proud. It means an assault on tradition, a view that history began on 1st May 1997. They therefore repudiate a distinct national history and pave the way for the triumph of an integrated Europe based on the role of Napoleonic elites instead of electorates, on big government, high taxation and protectionism. It means fiddling with the constitution while the economy burns. The resulting effect on our constitutional landscape is an awful parody of what should be a happy analogy: the enthusiastic amateur landowner Squire Blair, desperate to introduce his modish improvements, aided and abetted by Incapability Brown and Alistair, rather than Colin Campbell. The result, of course, will be a Serpentine Gallery of politics in which all forms are broken, real meaning is obscured and meaning is only what the political cataloguers, the spin doctors, give it.
32
It could be exceeding wearisome to chronicle all the evidence for that assertion. However, it would be instructive to know what strategic vision dictated that four separate proportional representation systems should be used: first, for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly; secondly, for the Northern Ireland Assembly; thirdly, for the elections of London's mayor, and, fourthly, for the elections to the European Parliament. Of course, we already have a completely different system for elections to another place.
But if the Prime Minister were sufficiently to heal the splits in his own party to allow him to hold a referendum, on his usual rigged terms, on whether to change Westminster elections to another system, we would still be inflicting a fifth proportional system on our long-suffering electorate. Luckily for us, he risked splitting his party if he proceeded. Luckily for him, he has been able to kick that particular hot potato into touch with the active co-operation of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. I am distressed not to see him in his place today, but no doubt he has important matters of an academic nature to detain him. Otherwise, the Prime Minister might have been in some trouble over his adherence to his doctrine of the manifesto.
The loser is the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, who will have to wait for eight more long years before being able to fulfil his ambition and use us, the British electorate, as an open air laboratory for his pet scheme, unsullied as it is by previous use anywhere in the world.
It is clear that the constitutional measures the Government have introduced so far have not been thought through, either as to their major consequences or as to how they might work in detail. As far as their major consequences are concerned, there is no better example, I submit, than the Scotland Act. There can be no doubt that the people of Scotland want devolved government. However, we have always felt that devolution carried within it the danger that it would not end there, that Scotland would sleepwalk into complete independence, carried there on a wave of anti-English emotion and comforted by the delusion that Brussels money would compensate it for the potential loss of English taxpayers' subsidies.
It became clear a few weeks ago that suddenly the Government have woken up to the possibility that we might have been right all along. Scottish opinion polls began to show that the SNP was running neck and neck with, even sometimes ahead of, Labour. The Government, not surprisingly, embarked on a frenzy of prophylactic activity. That old-fashioned socialist, Mr. Gordon Brown himself, in panic, delivered a speech in defence of the Union that would have done credit to any Tory.
It is now evident that the Government have realised, so far as Scotland is concerned, what we had understood all along: that to chant the word "modernisation" like a mantra is no substitute for thinking through the consequences before legislating. We should note that in the Scotland Bill there were a number of other matters on which the Government seemed less than certain of their ground—matters of detail. The matter of the link between the number of members of the Scottish

33
Parliament and the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster is another case in point. I am told that the Scottish Office Ministers were desperate to give way on a point which made the Government look more than usually foolish. However, the Prime Minister— well-known for his defence of an existing position, however untenable—forbade them to give way at all.
The gracious Speech announced five other constitutional measures which make me wonder whether the Government, like the Bourbons, have learnt anything at all; and whether your Lordships will be forced yet again to draw the attention of another place and the public to the dangers of introducing legislation that is ill-prepared in both conception and execution.
It is true that there is one small glimmer of hope in that the Government have promised to introduce several Bills in draft, I hope to the delight of my noble friend Lord Renton. I greatly welcome that development, as I am sure he does. It can only improve the quality of legislation and increase public confidence in it. However, although the measures are certainly important and may in some instances be potentially useful, they certainly do not cover the Government's main programme. I fear that for important Bills we must resign ourselves to more of the same, in the light of bitter experience. There is absolutely no indication that they will use this admirable device to stem the tide of ill-considered legislation that is the curse of our age. After all, the only Bill which might be considered under this procedure, which might be thought to be part of the Government's principal programme of activity, is the freedom of information Bill. Since no other measure of a similar kind has been introduced under it, one cannot help wondering whether it is being used merely to kick a tricky question into touch—and not for the first time.
Nowhere is the Government's lack of forethought more evident than in the case of the Bill that in the current Session will most directly concern your Lordships' House: the first stage of the change in the composition of this place.
We have been discussing this question for some time—over 100 years. We discussed it again last month in the remarkable two-day debate in which I was privileged to take part. We will undoubtedly spend many delightful hours doing so again during our discussion of the Bill. I shall therefore not presume to weary your Lordships by once again embarking on a complete recapitulation of the arguments now, despite the noble Baroness's outstanding exercise in sourness this afternoon. Far be it from me to extend comparisons of the attendance of life Peers and hereditary Peers. I refer your Lordships to the records on the matter which the learned Clerks so helpfully keep. However, it must be a matter of extreme regret that the Government have insisted on tackling the question in the way they have.
The Government have tried to reassure us that they really do intend to proceed swiftly to a full stage two reform by promising us a White Paper and by undertaking to establish a Royal Commission. It would be useful to know when we can expect the White Paper and what it will cover. I welcome the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the first historic time to
34
the Front Bench rather than the Woolsack. I hope that when he comes to reply he could also tell us whether the White Paper will confine itself to the mechanics of the stage one House. Will it cover how Peers will be appointed from now on? Will it address itself in any way to the timing of stage two? Will it set out the terms of reference of the Royal Commission? Will it tell us who will sit on the Royal Commission? Will it set out the options for stage two which the Government wish the Royal Commission to consider? Will the Royal Commission consider the powers a stage two House might enjoy? Will the Royal Commission hold public hearings? Despite what the noble Baroness the Leader of the House told us this afternoon, I cannot but feel that none of that is as yet at all clear. The Government owe it not only to the House but more importantly to the public to enlighten us.
It would be even more useful if the Government could give us some guarantee that the Royal Commission's report will not gather dust in some Whitehall pigeon-hole, apart from the clear assurances that the noble Baroness gave us this afternoon. I have quite a long experience now, although not nearly so long as that of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, (drawing a bow at a venture) of such assurances from government Ministers. I have listened to them from Ministers of both political parties. The political history of this country is littered with undertakings of that kind which have been more honoured in the breach than in the fulfilment. A guarantee greater even than the one given us by the noble Baroness this afternoon would be extraordinarily useful.
After all, pigeon-holing has all too often been the fate of Royal Commission reports in the past. Since the noble Baroness is constantly assuring us that she regards stage one as a satisfactory stand-alone reform, we cannot help wondering on this side of the House whether the Government will kick stage two into the long grass with the same sense of relief as they have kicked the elegantly phrased report of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead.
In the absence of such a guarantee, I cannot help feeling that my noble friends will find it increasingly difficult, as I tried to indicate yesterday, to view the Bill with anything but the greatest of suspicion. Even at this late stage, I hope that the Government will be able to reconsider so that we can avoid a bruising contest in the weeks to come.
The noble Baroness rejected the idea that we could by now have had stage two had the Government proceeded as I originally suggested some 18 months ago. In spite of what she said I repeat that it could have been so very different if only the Government had done as we suggested. If they had set up the Royal Commission immediately after the last general election, we might by now have been considering its report.
As I have consistently undertaken, and the Government in their own interests have consistently disbelieved when I have said it, the official Opposition would have been entirely constructive in their response. There would have been no room for doubt that the Government intended to proceed to stage two. Above

35
all, there would have been an opportunity to build a public consensus for reform that would have encouraged another place to overcome its distaste for a more authoritative second Chamber and so enabled us to navigate around the rock upon which all attempts at thorough reform have so far foundered. I refer to another place, not your Lordships' House. After all, in 1968 we voted by four to one in favour of reform.
I am not alone in this. The public overwhelmingly think so too if a recent ICM finding endorsing an earlier MORI poll is correct. When asked, 68 per cent, of the public said that we should leave things as they are for the moment until all of the details of the reform have been decided, as opposed to a magnificent 25 per cent, who supported the Government's approach—almost as much as the present Tory opposition's standing in the polls itself. We are witnessing a great wasted opportunity, born of the fatal failure of this Government to think through the consequences of what they have begun to undertake. As I said yesterday, governments and politics being what they are, this Government in particular will be tempted to kick stage two into touch no matter what the Royal Commission recommends, in spite of what the noble Baroness has said today. In the absence of guaranteed progress to stage two, it will be extremely difficult for my noble friends and me to accept the Government's proposals.
Faced with the consequences of their fatal incoherence, the Government are being forced to take refuge in a number of devices that are designed to protect their position in the short term. Perhaps the most notorious and recent of these is the Government's refusal to implement the recommendations of the Neill Committee on the conduct of referendums—one of the most barefaced pieces of impudence even from this Government that I could have imagined. We know that they rigged both the Scottish and Welsh referendums with the result that Wales almost certainly got the result that it did not want. If the Government wish to maintain confidence in the integrity of our system of government, this is a curious way of showing it.
We are promised a number of further referendums, notably a new voting system for Westminster and on whether we should join the EMU. Do the Government want to rig those as well? If not, they should reassure us to the contrary now. If they introduce a Bill to give effect to the proper regulation of referendums, I assure the noble Baroness that we shall give it our enthusiastic support. These devices only serve to reinforce the impression that the Prime Minister's principal objective is to undermine the position of Parliament as the bedrock of the constitution.
Yesterday I sympathised with the Leader of the House in that any attempt to report great matters to Parliament was being blocked. We all know that in our country any government derive their authority from the electorate. However, they maintain that authority by submitting themselves to continuous scrutiny in Parliament. The Prime Minister's all-too-evident distaste for subjecting himself to that scrutiny confirms the impression on this side of the House that he would much prefer to govern without Parliament at all. Certainly, the Government's constitutional programme appears to have addressed
36
itself to everything piecemeal except the one matter with which they should have started their constitutional reforms: how to restore Parliament to the centre of our political life. For the only part of Parliament to which they have addressed themselves—the composition of your Lordships' House—they have made proposals that completely ignore the rest of Parliament altogether.
This is dangerous tinkering with the future of the constitution of our country. In the spirit of co-operation and friendship for which I am notorious, I suggest that for the Prime Minister himself it is short sighted. Paradoxically, were he to welcome greater parliamentary scrutiny and to think constructively about parliamentary reform as a whole, he would return from Parliament like Antaeus from each contact with the earth strengthened and with his authority enhanced. As it is, the Government must eventually collapse under the contradictions of the policies of which they claim to be most proud.
The kings of spin cannot fool us for ever as we begin to see that "devolution" means control of candidates from London; that "positive Europeanism" means the loss of national independence; that "directly elected mayors" means centrally vetted candidates: that "fair elections" for Europe means closed lists that give more power to the party apparat rather than the electorate; and that "a more democratic Lords" means a wholly nominated House. We are being sold snake oil by snake oil salesmen who want to perpetuate their hold on power only by rigging the system. They want nothing to do with genuine reform centred on a parliament that works better. As a House we should use the next Session to expose them ruthlessly.
3.15p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I am afraid that I am not sufficiently acquainted with the properties of snake oil to get the full measure of the noble Viscount's injunction. But there was a time when Members of Parliament of both Houses awaited the Queen's Speech with all the excitement of children eager to discover their Christmas presents. No longer. Almost all is now entirely predictable. For months Ministers—I do not mean merely the present Front Bench—go through the charade of pretending that they cannot anticipate the Speech while by winks and nods they indicate what it will contain. The press is given an even clearer indication of what to expect through Downing Street briefings. This year the prospect has been explicit. The Session will be dominated by a Bill to exclude the hereditary peerage from your Lordships' House. The only question appears to be how your Lordships will pass the time until the Bill arrives from the Commons some time before Easter.
When we debated in a very preliminary way the Queen's Speech yesterday the Leader of the House said that we would have a quiet time during December. We now know that after December, and before we get to the Government's legislative programme, we shall be dealing with a Bill that should have been allowed to pass a week ago in the closing days of the previous Session. No matter that Britain may be again poised on the edge of a conflict with Saddam Hussein, that Russia

37
is collapsing into chaos, that a recession may still engulf us or that peace in Northern Ireland remains a subject of concern, the second Chamber of the mother of Parliaments will be arguing the merits of open and closed lists and whose name should appear on the ballot paper. Let us repeat time and time again—this is the core of the matter—that in so doing a wholly unelected House will be challenging a wholly elected one about the nature of democracy. That is the issue, and nothing could be more topsy-turvy.
I suppose that we should have expected the hereditary Peers to go down fighting and made allowances for that fact. But most of all I am puzzled—my remarks are directed at the legislation we debated last week and will shortly see again but they may also apply to the debates we shall have on the reform of this House—by the judgment of many Conservative life Peers with experience of the other place who lent themselves to the war of attrition last week and before, and who did not know where to stop.
There were some notable absentees, for whatever reason, from last Wednesday's Division, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Hurd. Eighteen former Conservative Cabinet Ministers voted to kill the Bill. It is inconceivable that they would have tolerated any comparable action on a matter of this importance when they were in Cabinet. The noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, who voted last Wednesday, would have been incandescent. Surely, they cannot believe that across the nation, in clubs, pubs, supermarkets and bus queues, the sole object of discussion is the gallant fight of Conservative Peers to determine the contents of ballot papers which on the previous occasion almost two-thirds of voters did not even bother to complete. Indeed, the great majority of our hereditary colleagues who serve in this place have never at any time submitted their names on a ballot paper.
As regards the position of the noble Viscount, it is difficult to know whether to be angry at what happened last week or to feel sorry for him. Indeed, when I consider the noble Viscount I am sometimes reminded of a description by Miss Beatrice Webb of Hugh Dalton—Dr. Dalton, as he was known when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer; and Lord Dalton as he became briefly. Beatrice Webb said of Hugh Dalton that he was,
"a subtle, wily man with a certain peculiar charm".
The noble Viscount is a very different person, but I often think of that description applying to him, and not, I should say, in pejorative terms. But where were his subtlety and wiliness last week? Yes, the Government could have brought the Bill back a second time on Tuesday evening and have been prepared to sit through the night. But the noble Viscount was obliged to deal with the situation as it was on Wednesday. It may have been a lack of judgment, which I think is not in character. He was perhaps upstaged by his heir apparent, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. Alternatively, he could have been acting under instructions from his party leader, William Hague.
38
About his relations with Mr. Hague I have some sympathy. I am sure that although the noble Baroness would not admit it, she will be troubled from time to time by the Prime Minister believing that he knows better than she does about how to handle this House. To be fair, I must also admit to being provoked occasionally—very occasionally indeed—by a telephone call from another place. The truth is that those who have never served in this place generally have a very hazy idea of how it operates. I believe that, like the noble Viscount last week, the noble Baroness, and I from time to time, on future occasions will suffer from this lack of understanding of how we conduct our affairs.
I do not propose to rehearse today all the arguments made from these Benches and elsewhere in our two-day debate on 14th and 15th October about the future of this House, to which the noble Baroness referred. Our view from these Benches of what should be done has not changed even though we feel that the hereditary Peers were pushing their luck last week, and perhaps the Cross-Benches, too, in not following the lead of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, and the view of the Lords Spiritual on some essentially temporal matters about the relationship between this House and another.
I join with the noble Viscount in saying that we still know very little about how the Government intend to proceed on the first stage of the House of Lords reform. We do not know precisely when the Bill will be published. We do not know when the White Paper will appear. We do not know what will be the terms of reference for the Royal Commission. We are presented again with a great deal of vagueness about a timetable which this House should know. We understand that the Lord Privy Seal is now in charge of these arrangements, and I hope that we shall see some acceleration of the process and greater clarity about what the Government intend.
It is important to make this point because again the noble Baroness said—I noted her words—that the Prime Minister made clear that the Government intend special arrangements to be made for the system of nomination of life Peers. That is stated in the Queen's Speech. But—it is the largest gap—we must not only have a better system of nomination. There must be a rational basis for the composition of this House when the hereditary Peers have gone. We still do not know what that will be. I hope that it is not too much to expect the Lord Chancellor at least to lean in the direction of giving us some hint this evening. It is not sufficient to leave matters as they are. This is the last outstanding issue which needs to be clarified irrespective of what the White Paper may seek.
I turn to some matters which are in the Queen's Speech, and some which are not. I leave to my noble friend Lord Goodhart the task of examining the Government's proposals on legal aid and whether they will extend access to justice. Later in our debates we shall examine what the Government have in mind on asylum and immigration. I say only this. Legal aid and law on immigration are among the issues that the Government want, in the words of the Queen's Speech, "to modernise" among others. But "to modernise" is

39
entirely value free. It means to change and to bring up to date. It does not even mean change for the better, never mind whose "better" that would be. It can be a euphemism for abandoning well tried and defensible policies because the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks they cost too much. And it can be a euphemism for restrictive policies that narrow rather than widen our freedoms. So let us not suppose that proposals to modernise are automatically matters upon which we can endorse what the Government have in mind.
There is the proposal to publish a draft freedom of information Bill on, I nearly said the spurious but perhaps 1 should say ingenious, ground of more open government. But we all know that there has been a row between Cabinet Ministers, and this is a way of marking time while, it is hoped, earning some Brownie points. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Goodhart will have something further to say on that.
Later in our debate we shall probe another proposal to modernise local government. Real modernisation would involve greater genuine financial independence for local government and the introduction of proportional representation. I should be surprised to find that in any Bill. There is a strong case for cross-party agreement on proportional representation for local government, whatever disagreements there may be elsewhere. None of us within this Chamber can believe that single party control by any party—because the turn of the Liberal Democrats will come—for a quarter of a century or more can be consistent with good, efficient, innovating and responsive local government. A heretic might even say that proportional representation for local government might once upon a time have claimed priority over PR for Westminster.
However, this is the first of five days of debate and I do not want to trespass unreasonably on what is still to come. But the constitutional and legal issues that we are discussing today come within the context of the Government's wider programme. Indeed, to legislate is only a small part of what any government do. Ministers are responsible for a whole myriad of decisions which affect people's lives; and they set the tone of much by their speeches and pronouncements.
Looking back on the first Session of a new government, and looking behind and beyond the Queen's Speech, let me make this wider comment. Taken as a whole, new Labour has had a successful baptism in office despite what the noble Viscount says, and there is no point in pretending otherwise. On constitutional matters—I do not know whether all my noble friends share my arithmetic—I would have to give it nine out of 10 for trying, and seven out of 10 for getting it right. History may well say—it is too soon to know—that in that respect its achievement is comparable, if different, from the great reforming governments of 1908 and 1945. Beyond that, I am inclined to give it five out of 10 at best.
The Queen's Speech makes many proposals to improve services, for example, in health and education. No doubt the Government would claim that modernising the welfare state also comes into such a category. We on these Benches shall not quarrel with that when the
40
intention is genuine, the will is clear and the resources are made available. But how will they deal with the prickly, awkward but inescapable questions which command few votes in middle England? One of those prickly questions with which this House in all quarters has shown concern is the prison population. At the time of the previous Queen's Speech in May 1997 there was a prison population of 60,421. Last Thursday it was 66,109. Under a Labour government, in 18 months 6,000 more men and women have been sent to prison. There is not much sign there of a new regime at the Home Office.
Constitutional change will not diminish poverty. "Welfare to work" is a fine slogan, but it does little for those who cannot work or who become victims of rising unemployment in a recession.
As I have said—and I know that not all noble Lords will agree—on the whole, the Government have made a good start. However, we must look further ahead at the reach and weight of their total programme. Here they are yet to be convincing on a central aspect of how best to create a society at peace with itself.
The Queen's Speech is strong on the need for economic growth. We all read our newspapers yesterday and know that elsewhere the Government have been trying to find criteria for measuring the quality of life. But this Government, a Labour government, should be concerned not only with the creation of wealth but with the spread of wealth; its distribution as well as its growth. If at the end of their period in office the rich are still growing richer while the poor are no better off they will have failed, however much we applaud their constitutional settlement.
3.32 p.m.
Lord Butler of Brockwell: My Lords, perhaps I may start by thanking your Lordships, not just conventionally, for the warmth of the welcome I have received in your Lordships' House. Perhaps I may also thank the officers and staff of the House for the help and advice they have given me. It has been necessary and invariably courteous.
From the moment I was introduced, I felt that most of my former life was in your Lordships' House. There are those in all three parties for whom I worked during their careers as Ministers. There are many on the Cross Benches who are my colleagues and my friends. For me, it is not so much a case of upstairs, downstairs as of downstairs, upstairs. I noticed that during the debate on the European Parliamentary Elections Bill last week, there was a good deal of talk about whether your Lordships would accept advice from one of your Lordship's valets or from the noble Lord himself. I do not know about valets, but here is a Butler who is very grateful for the welcome he has received in your Lordships' House.
I had planned to make my maiden speech on the report of the Select Committee on the public services chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley. Since one of the recommendations of that report was that your Lordships should give more time to debating the public services, I had intended to say that it was a pity time

41
had not been found for a debate on that most excellent and thoughtful report. I am delighted that since then a debate has been arranged for next week. In that respect, my fox has been shot and I shall reserve my remarks on the public services to that debate. Today, I shall comment briefly on a few aspects of the proposals on governance in the gracious Speech.
It was clear from the Labour Party's manifesto published before the general election that the proposals on governance would constitute an ambitious programme. It was also clear that it would be a hectic programme because of the Government's decision to process the Scottish, the Welsh and Northern Ireland legislation in the first Session. Clearly, there are differing views on the substance of that legislation and I shall not comment on it in a maiden speech. However, there should be no dispute that the processing of so many sensitive and difficult issues in the first Session of a parliament was a very considerable achievement. It was a tribute to the groundwork of the constitutional think tanks, to the industry and attention to detail of the Civil Service, and to the Cabinet committees, under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, which processed those issues. It was a working of the machinery of government of which a former head of the Civil Service could feel proud.
That brings me to the two points I wish to make on the programme for the coming Session. The first concerns a measure which is not in the programme; it is the freedom of information Bill. I welcome the fact that the Government are taking time to consider and to consult on that Bill. Some of your Lordships might be unkind enough to suspect that a former Cabinet Secretary would weep no bitter tears if the freedom of information Bill never saw the light of day. I want to assure your Lordships that that is not my motive. But it is important that the effect of that legislation should not be to prevent the frank thrashing out of policy issues within government.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, once described collective responsibility as being the right to change your mind in private. If a situation is created in which Ministers have to argue and civil servants have to advise for the record, because that advice and discussion is liable in very short order to be published, the candour and frankness of the discussion within government will be damaged. The greatest mistakes which I saw within government took place when the freedom to discuss issues freely, to bring to bear all the expertise and experience which was available within government, was for one reason or another interfered with.
The second point I wish to make relates to the reformation of your Lordships' House. That is territory on which it is not safe to trespass far in a maiden and, I hope, non-controversial speech. The other day, I was reading Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Your Lordships may think it appropriate that now I have become an academic I should be devoting myself to such works. I came across a passage which your Lordships might think had some relevance
42
to the position in your Lordships' House. Gibbon was writing about the reforms of the Emperor Augustus of the Roman Senate. He wrote of Augustus:
"In concert with his faithful Agrippa, he examined the list of senators, expelled a few whose vices or whose obstinacy required a public example, persuaded near 200 to prevent the shame of expulsion by a voluntary retreat, raised the qualification of a senator to about £10,000 and created a sufficient number of patrician families… But, while he then restored the dignity, he destroyed the independence of the Senate. The principles of a free constitution are irrevocably lost when the legislative power is nominated by the Executive".
The situation in your Lordships' House is not at all akin to that faced by Augustus in the Senate. But that last sentence should give us thought:
"The principles of a free constitution are irrevocably lost when the legislative power is nominated by the Executive".
Speaking as a nominated Peer, it is perhaps appropriate for me to say that I think it of the highest importance, in the absence of hereditary Peers, for the Royal Commission to find a way in which to select Members of your Lordships' House which does not depend solely on the patronage of the Executive.
3.40 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, I have the honour on behalf of your Lordships' House to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, on his maiden speech. It was a speech characterised by graciousness and salted with not a little wit. It is clear that 30 years of public service, not only in the Treasury but also at the centre of political life, will bring to your Lordships' House a wisdom and an overview of which we have had a glimpse this afternoon. We thank him for what he has already contributed and look forward to sharing in many other occasions in the future.
As a leasehold Member of your Lordships' House and a Bishop of the Church of England, the issue of reformation is life and breath to my life. But I recognise the unease in parts of your Lordships' House in relation to its proposed reform. That unease represents not only the shock it entails for the status quo but also uncertainty and legitimate concern about embarking on a journey for which the destination is not clear at the time of departure.
One declared stop along the way is the transitional arrangements for a House whose numbers may be made up by appointed Peers. We may well ask, as has already been asked, how that will be done. My friend, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, on 14th October in your Lordships' House suggested the model of the Crown Appointments Commission as a useful starting point. I hope that that will be kept in mind and become part of our deliberations.
For the rest of the journey, much will depend on the Royal Commission, not least on its membership and terms of reference, which we await with interest. There is an opportunity to contribute to an important process. It will clearly be important for the membership of the commission to be sufficiently broadly based to consider effectively all aspects of that complex matter, including the future of faith community representation in your Lordships' House.

43
The reform of your Lordships' House, as indicated in the gracious Speech, is concerned with democracy and representation. We need to ask what is the purpose of the reform. If it is not for the good government of this country, questions must indeed be raised. Good government must be for all the people and must include as many as possible in the life of our community. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, referred to that passionately and eloquently in her speech yesterday.
I wish to underline the issue of representation. The Church of England is happy to see a broadening of that representation, but the key question concerns the framework in which that representation is set. At present, Bishops not only strengthen the spiritual dimension of the work of your Lordships' House—at least, I trust they do that although I heard the rebuke of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, as to whether we should be involved in certain aspects—they also contribute to its regional diversity. The fact is that the Bishops in your Lordships' House represent diverse parts of the country in a manner unmatched, perhaps, by any other element in your Lordships' House. Bishops are related to parishes, local communities and dioceses and they have local knowledge and points of reference which enrich debate and inform the legislative review.
Her Majesty's Government have indicated that devolution is one context in which Lords reform will be set. There is clearly value in placing reform of the House in the framework of the broader constitutional arrangements being developed for the United Kingdom. But for that undertaking to be useful in the reform of the House, the issue of English devolution will have to be considered as well as devolution for Scotland and Wales.
So far, the process is in its infancy, with the regional development agency initiative. Bishops and dioceses already actively engage in that process and we need to report to your Lordships' House that our experience is extremely patchy. In some parts of the country it is welcomed, but in others there is a great deal to fight for to enable the faith community's voice to be heard. That suggests that it will be necessary for the Government to indicate their intentions regarding English devolution in order to set the reform of your Lordships' House effectively in a desired context.
The Bishops and the Church of England, because of their parochial and diocesan system, are able and willing to contribute to that important aspect of debate on the future of your Lordships' House. We commit ourselves to ensuring, to the best of our ability, that the reform will be such that it will be for the sake of good government of the whole nation, for all its people, so that they may participate fully in the life of our country.
3.46 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, having spent more than 20 years studying and writing about Parliament, perhaps I may say what a delight it is to be a Member of your Lordships' House. The attitude that I have adopted towards Parliament is one that I should describe as critical affection. Now that I am a Member of your Lordships' House, I should claim that the critical
44
aspect has been directed at the other place and the affection retained for your Lordships' House. This is a maiden speech. I must confess that it is not the first time I have given it but it is the first time that I have given it to an audience and out loud.
We are debating the future of this House. We are doing so under the rubric of constitutional affairs and I should like to take that rubric as the basis for my comments. I wish to place one proposition before your Lordships and to develop two points which derive from that proposition. The proposition is simple. It is that we must have greater intellectual rigour in our debates on constitutional affairs, not least in discussing the future of your Lordships' House. That is not some pedantic, academic point—although there is nothing wrong with academic quotations—but it is crucial to the quality of our debates and the decisions which will flow from those debates.
The first point that derives from that proposition is that we must have greater rigour and clarity in defining the principles and concepts which underpin our discussions on constitutional affairs. All too often terms are bandied about as though their meaning is clear and uncontested. In debates about the future of your Lordships' House, it is quite common to refer to representation or, at a more fundamental level, to democracy but without those terms being defined in any proper sense and, indeed, quite often without their being defined at all.
Those terms mean different things to different people. There is an important literature that identifies those different meanings. If we are to avoid talking at cross-purposes with one another, it is essential that we clarify and express clearly and unambiguously what we mean by the very terms that we employ.
The second point derives from the first and is fundamental to the debate about constitutional affairs; that is, that we must learn to talk about the constitution as a constitution. We must learn to develop a language which reflects an understanding of constitutional norms and relationships. We must learn, or perhaps re-learn, to engage in what might be termed a constitutional discourse. The history of this country demonstrates that we have that capacity. But we rather lost the habit of it in the quarter century after the Second World War. Our constitutional arrangements were largely taken for granted. They appeared to be delivering what was expected of them and were mentioned essentially for the purpose of praise and for recommending that they be emulated elsewhere.
The situation has clearly changed since. Over the past quarter century constitutional issues have come on to the agenda of political debate but without our really learning how to debate them in relation to the constitution as a whole and the relations that are at the heart of that constitution. It is essential that we do so. In debates about the future of this place, some argue that hereditary Peers are undemocratic; others that they provide a necessary degree of independence in a second Chamber. Those are legitimate points to advance. But we need to go beyond them to ask fundamental questions that derive from our understanding of what a constitution is.

45
We need to ask: what is the role of a second Chamber in our constitution? Indeed, we need to ask what shape the constitution should take. Those are the sorts of issues that we should be addressing. Once we know what form of constitution we want, then we know what shape the second Chamber should take and the composition that is appropriate to it.
That is important, especially—indeed, necessarily— given the Government's proposals for change. The proposal to reform your Lordships' House must be put alongside those constitutional changes that were enacted in the last Session and the proposals that may come forward in future Sessions. Taken together, they change the very framework of our constitution; they move us away from what I termed the "traditional" constitution. That is what distinguishes the Government's proposals from previous essentially singular changes that sought to modify or strengthen the existing framework but did not seek to replace the constitutional framework with another.
Thus, we face a new situation. That situation creates challenges both for those who want to defend the existing constitution and those who wish to change it. But those of us who wish to preserve the existing arrangements must identify the form, the coherence of our present constitutional arrangements and the benefits that derive therefrom. I variously attempted to do so, identifying in particular but not exclusively the accountability that is at the core of our present system.
As a complementary Chamber, this Chamber serves to facilitate the accountability of the elected Chamber. If we move away from the existing constitution, if it is changed as it is proposed to be changed, we will need to decide our response to that change—doing so on the basis of a principled perspective of what is the most appropriate constitution for this country. A wish to retain accountability as a fundamental feature of our constitutional arrangements will have clear implications for the form of the second Chamber and the method by which its Members are selected.
For those who wish to reform the constitution, the challenge is equally clear. They must identify and justify their alternative framework to the present constitution. They must identify where they wish to go. We know where they are coming from; we know that they are against specific aspects of the existing constitution. But where are they going? I am not altogether sure. If I may be permitted to be a bit mischievous in a maiden speech, I would say that it is akin to a young tearaway who has decided to leave home but has not yet decided where to go.
Where are we going? What will the constitution look like in five or 10 years' time? By that, I do not mean what changes will have been enacted; I mean what form the constitution will take. What are the principles underpinning it? What are the benefits that it will deliver to the people of this country? And in what way do they outweigh the substantial benefits of the existing system?
Those are the type of questions we should be asking and the type of debate in which we should be engaging. As I said, it is central to the quality of our debates and
46
the decisions that will flow from them. If there is a recommendation that flows from what I have said, it is that the proposed Royal Commission should have a fairly wide remit and not be restricted to a narrow focus. Instead, it should be allowed to look at the second Chamber from the perspective of the needs of the constitution rather than to allow proposals for the second Chamber to determine the shape of our constitution.
My conclusion—to return to my earlier analogy—is that before we leave home, we need to be sure where we are going; otherwise, what may beckon—I say only "may"—may be a constitutional wilderness.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, on behalf of the whole House for an exceptional maiden speech. It is fair to say that it was a controversial maiden speech, but it was a very good maiden speech. I have no doubt that the noble Lord will make an exceptional contribution to this House at stage two of the debate of the reform of the House of Lords.
I am particularly pleased that the Government are honouring their manifesto pledge to establish a community legal service which will widen access to legal services, particularly for the very poor and particularly in the areas of housing and welfare. It is wrong that the present legal system does not give that kind of access to the poorest people in our country. Therefore I welcome that proposal and I am pleased that the Lord Chancellor will be introducing those measures.
The main issue I want to address is the reform of this House. I want to speak not only as a member of the Labour Party, but also as a hereditary Peer. I wish too to send a message to one group within this House; that is, the hereditary Peers who take the Conservative Party Whip. My message is this: question your leadership. The Conservative leadership is sacrificing your interests by engineering a possible constitutional crisis in the coming year.
The gracious Speech confirmed what we all knew. The hereditary peerage is to end within this House and the European elections Bill will be reintroduced and, if necessary, the Parliament Act applied. I had not intended to dwell particularly on the issue of removing hereditary Peers. But it is worth bringing the House back down to earth and addressing some of the points raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and the noble Lord, Lord Norton.
There are 1,200 Members of this place. It is the largest second chamber in the world. Once all the hereditary Peers have gone, there will be 500 Members of your Lordships' House and it will still be the largest second chamber in the world. On top of that, the life Peers are the ones making the vast part of the contributions to the debates in your Lordships' House. I have undertaken a study with the help of the Library. Apparently, 70 per cent, of the contributions are made by life Peers. There cannot be any real doubt therefore that during the transition period this House will function very much as it has done in the past.

47
Another point worth making is that life Peers have been appointed by nine successive Prime Ministers. A Prime Minister would need to be in office an extremely long time to substantially change the political balance of life Peers. But the Prime Minister says that he does not wish to have a majority in this House. He has gone further; he says that he will set up a commission to appoint Cross-Bench Peers. No other Prime Minister has volunteered to reduce his influence in this House. On the contrary, as my noble friend pointed out in her speech, when the Opposition were in government, they increased their majority in this place.
There can be no doubt that the hereditary peerage will cease to exist within this House within this Parliament. The Government could not have been more plain about their intentions. The Bill has been announced and, on top of that, the Opposition Front Bench says it accepts that the Salisbury Convention applies to the measure. So hereditary Peers will lose their right to sit and vote.
In this context the European elections Bill is to be reintroduced this Session, and the Parliament Act may be applied. We have heard the arguments again and again on the merits of open lists versus closed lists. But whatever one's view, this cannot in any way be dressed up as one of the great constitutional issues of the last 50 years. No, it is a device, a ruse, engineered by the Conservative leadership to give it the potential to disrupt the Government's programme in the coming year. My plea, addressed to Tory hereditary Peers, is that they should play no part in this device as it undermines the traditions they have obeyed and under which they and their forebears have served in the House of Lords.
I wish to quote two noble Lords sitting on the Benches opposite. I hope they will agree that I am quoting them in context. The first quotation is from the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, who said last Wednesday after the Leader of the House announced that the European Parliamentary Elections Bill had been lost:
"We are aware of the limitations on the rights of this House … and I hope that we will behave accordingly when the Bill is reintroduced."—[Official Report, 18/11/98; col. 1361.]
That was, I believe, the instinctive reaction of the noble Viscount. It was the correct reaction. But now we are faced with potential behaviour from the Tory leadership which is very far from the traditions of this House. I wonder quite honestly how comfortable the noble Viscount is with this change in stance. The noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, commented in last month's debate on reform that as a hereditary Peer he volunteered to take the Conservative Party Whip. At the time I slightly teased him about that comment, but of course he was absolutely right because all hereditary peers who take the party Whip do so voluntarily, and I have to admit that the Conservative Peers I know jealously defend their independence within the Conservative Party.
So we have a Conservative hereditary peerage which instinctively understands the practical limitation of power in this House and which regards itself as volunteering its allegiance to the Conservative Party and overwhelmingly accepts that the end has come so far as their voting and speaking rights in this House are
48
concerned. Is it right therefore that the Conservative leadership should ask its hereditary Peers to act petulantly on a puffed-up point of principle? Is it right that they should be asked to throw away their tradition of respect for the limitations of power within this House? Is it right that when hereditary Peers finally leave this House they will be remembered for the trouble they have caused rather than for the service they have given?
No, the way for hereditary Peers to leave this House is by respecting the traditions under which they have served in this House, by respecting the will of the elected Chamber and, above all, by demonstrating an independence from the Conservative Party.
4.3 p.m.
The Earl of Dunmore: My Lords, I crave the indulgence of this House for my maiden speech. As the twelfth Earl of Dunmore, I stand with pride and humility in this great institution among distinguished and influential Members—proud to be part of what I so admire and humble because I come from so far away, Tasmania, the jewel of Australia, to take my place among you.
Australians at this time are endeavouring to come to terms with the proposed reform of their constitution: whether to stay with the constitution as it was designed, a constitutional Monarchy, with the Crown as its linchpin, or become a republic and try to patch and fill the present constitution, or to write a new constitution designed specifically for the purpose of becoming a republic.
Earlier this year a constitutional convention was held with elected delegates from both sides of the debate. It has become clear that the preparation of a draft republic constitution for presentation to the Australian people in a referendum will not be straightforward. The implications of a republic on the Statute of Westminster, the Australia Act, and the separate constitutions of the Australian states will take much consideration and deliberation. It is my belief that Australia becoming a republic is not inevitable. A referendum might remove the Queen and replace the Governor-General with a President. But I remind the House that Australia is a commonwealth of states, all of them with their own constitutions, and all of them would have to be in agreement.
In the gracious Speech there are proposals to reform your Lordships' House. The first stage in this process will be the removal of people like me. It is not my place, as the holder of an ancient title dating from 1686, to question this. I pray that the new-look second Chamber will not lose the rich tradition and heritage that have made it such a respected place and one which has made a great contribution over the centuries.
I suspect that this may prove to be my first and also my last speech in your Lordships' House. My first visit from my home in Australia to the United Kingdom has been the experience of a lifetime, and it is an honour to have had the opportunity to speak in your Lordships' House.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it is a singular privilege as an expatriate Scot to follow the noble Earl, Lord Dunmore, a fellow expatriate, whose family left Scotland about three generations ago, and to congratulate him on his maiden speech. It was a memorable speech and his interest in constitutional affairs is of particular value coming from the Cross-Benches at this time. I should have looked forward to hearing the noble Earl speaking in the future, but I understood him to say that he might not be doing so. I am sad to hear that. It would have been nice to have had the privilege of hearing him again, particularly on the subsequent stages of the abolition Bill, in which the position of the Cross-Benches is of crucial importance.
In her speech the Leader of the House made no reference to the functions of this House as the guardian of the constitution and as affecting the conduct of proceedings. My noble friend Lord Cranborne adverted to order of conduct of proceedings on the abolition Bill and to some of the problems arising, together with the failure of the Government to clarify their position—a point most cogently made, if I may say so, by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. The Government Front Bench listened to my noble friend Lord Cranborne with deaf ears. Their attitude is dangerous to the constitution of the country, as my noble friend said.
With respect to my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, I fear that my speech will be rather short on intellectual rigour, but I shall do my best to entertain a constitutional discourse such as my noble friend might approve. In particular, I take two of his points: one is that the terms of reference of the Royal Commission should extend to envisage a new type of constitutional settlement as to the powers and functions of both Houses as well as to the composition of a new second Chamber. He also made the point that one cannot get to grips with the question of the composition of a second Chamber before the respective powers and functions of each House have been decided.
The function of your Lordships' House, as sole guardian of the constitution, is somewhat loosely defined so as to provide some measure of constitutional protection and safeguard, always subject to the grant of Royal Assent for any Bill under the Parliament Acts, to impose the will of another place. But there is no constitutional court or any other body competent to declare any provision in a Bill as unconstitutional, and assuredly your Lordships' House has no such competence. So the exercise of this function may be advisory where there is not a Bill before the House or it may also be to delay a Bill, but in either event in deference to the state of public opinion, as was the case on closed lists. That could well be the case on the stand alone stage one Bill to abolish the hereditary entitlement and then to set up a wholly nominated Chamber.
The broad nature of this guardianship function and the flexibility of an evolutionary constitution, afford fertile fields for conflict if no accommodation between the two Houses may be found. The legality of the function to delay—one has to distinguish between that
50
and legitimacy—derives from the Parliament Acts. The legitimacy of the exercise of that function requires that it should afford time for the opinion of the nation to be expressed on a matter of fundamental constitutional consequence on which it is divided, or it should reflect the view of the vast majority of people, as already expressed. It was said yesterday on Radio 4 that the priority of this Government, this self-styled "people's party", was not the wishes of the people, but the priority of the party.
As regards the closed lists, it was legitimate to insist; but whether it was wise to do so, contrary to the conventions and the working relationships which had evolved between the two Houses, is a matter for the judgment of others. I simply say that the superb speech of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, all but persuaded me to abstain. In the opinion of the majority of your Lordships it was a wholly exceptional situation in which there was compelling justification for insistence. A basic tenet of the constitution, as expounded by Burke, was to be eroded to the point of deprivation at the behest of the Government with an overwhelming majority in another place. It was a deprivation which fostered resistance to what appeared to be the obdurate, overt, unconstitutional abuse of power at No. 10.
As a somewhat independent Conservative who does not always follow the Whip, I entered the Lobby to mark a personal protest against the abuse of power. There was no electoral advantage to my party in the MEP elections. That protest was echoed by an honourable Member of another place, the Member for Wrexham, who is also a somewhat independent Member.
When that Bill returns the view could well be taken that your Lordships' House had already sought to discharge its guardianship function to the best of its ability, but to no avail, and that further protest is sterile.
As to the stage one abolition Bill, the main principle of abolition is accepted. The speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and others, in dealing with that point, are wide of the mark. The principle of abolition is accepted save as to delayed enactment in accordance with the wishes of the people. An amendment which reflects such wishes shall either be tabled or supported. It would not be a wrecking amendment contrary to the Salisbury Convention. The question of rejection does not arise as the main purpose of the manifesto commitment and the main principle of the Bill are accepted.
An amendment will propose that before enactment the substance of the reform shall be known, the report of the Royal Commission on all the proposals for reform shall have been debated in both Houses and that options for reform shall have been put to the people in a properly conducted referendum. As my noble friend Lord Cranborne said, according to the poll released on 18th November, 68 per cent, favoured delayed enactment until all the details of reform had been decided. But what my noble friend did not point out was that, of that category, the largest section comprised first-time voters aged between 18 to 24 years. They

51
voted 73 per cent., which is about three to one, against the Government's proposals and whose priorities are not the wishes of the people. It is a dangerous situation.
In the MORI poll released on 2nd November there was a clear majority against a proposal to set up a wholly nominated Chamber. About 50 per cent, of those polled were in favour of some form of elected second Chamber. Again, those are the wishes of the people. As an octogenarian life Peer there will be no sustainable interest for me to declare in this affair as nominations will be subject to an age limit and to an appropriate degree of political correctness, which, in my particular instance, would inevitably be found wanting. Those nominated would have to be certified as fit to sit and vote in a Chamber subservient to party apparatchiks. The House of Lords would cease to exist.
But pending abolition, whenever that might be—it could take a little time for the details of reform to be decided and for the processes of your Lordships' House to be undertaken—the hope must be (it is assuredly my hope) that amity between the two Houses may be re-established; that the usual working relationships may be restored; that there may be some accommodation on the closed lists and on amendments to delay enactment of the abolition Bill for such time, and no more, as reflects the wishes of the people. The Bill will have the fundamental constitutional consequence of affecting the workings of Parliament.
The main questions are whether all options for reform will be referred to the Royal Commission or whether only those acceptable to the Government will be referred; whether the reference will be made before or after the abolition Bill, where there is a clear issue; how the ethos of independence will be preserved; what is to happen to the Cross Benches; will there be a referendum and, if so, will it be conducted under proper rules; how is it to be ensured that no party in your Lordships' House ever has a majority; who is to nominate and renominate; what are to be the criteria.
My noble friend Lord Cranborne referred to "this modernising". I think that the noble Baroness, the Leader of the House, used the word "legitimise" in some context the other day. The noble Baroness shakes her head. Perhaps it was a report in the paper of what she said. If she did not say it, I withdraw my remark. But, whether it is called "modernise" or "legitimise", one wants to know whether, in this process of curbing the powers and functions of the second Chamber, any provision for the guardianship of the constitution will be made.
It is not understood how, pending the enactment of the essence—in whatever form it may be cast—there should be interim disruption of the entitlements, not only of the hereditary Peers but of people like myself: life Peers who have a Patent. We have an expectation of receiving a Writ of Summons to attend for life and that, as I understand it, is to be removed. I accept with good grace that it should be removed at some time. I have accepted with good grace, I hope, that the hereditary peerage should be abolished. But what I will not accept, and will continue to fight, is that we should not know and approve of the substance of what is proposed by way of reform before we all go on our way.
52
The enactment of the proposed abolition Bill before all details of reform have been decided would lack the authority of broad electoral consent, an authority which is ever subservient to the pretended authority to govern by manifesto. There is widespread anxiety as to the prospects of resolution—let us not pretend that there is not—and as to orderly transition and the preservation of the ethos of independence. Would not imposition in such circumstances evince an order of hubris which could well displease the gods and augur ill omens of utter disaster?
4.24 p.m.
The Marquess of Bath: My Lords, I express my delight that the Government, by turning their attention to the formation of development agencies for the English regions, are about to create an identity for these English regions which will gradually bring them into direct comparison with the territories of Scotland and Wales. I regard this as a real start towards the conception of a "United Regions of Britain", which we might regard as a precursor to an eventual "United Regions of Europe", if not for the world as a whole.
I hope that the Government will be careful at this juncture to get the size of these regions appropriate to the broader purpose of defining the map of Britain, so that it serves as an inspiration to the rest of Europe concerning the workings of a truly democratic spirit within the Continent as a whole, for we should envisage that the ideal of one man, one vote, will follow along this path of political evolution to become one region, one vote, for which reason I must stress the importance of getting the boundaries of each region drawn from the very start so that territories of equal gravity are conceived. I am here speaking of an approximation of that equal size in terms of each regional population.
This is really a plea that the Government do not introduce the idea of these regions being too small for such purposes. To speak in terms of a single example, there is much danger that the concept of Wessex could be broken down into a series of smaller regions which certainly have an identity of their own but which would be too small to furnish the gravity for any future political development of a "United Regions of Europe". Despite the fact that western Wessex does not identify closely with eastern Wessex—let alone with northern Wessex—I am concerned that the boundaries of each of the regions should be drawn wider than one might initially conceive of them.
This is not to say that any portion of a region should be coerced into union with another portion. There are bound to be areas which look in two or more different directions concerning where their future cultural identity should lie. Far from advocating that any decisions in such matters should be taken behind their backs, I would ask that such matters be decided by holding local referenda, with local debate on the subject initiated as quickly as possible.
It is most important that the principle of consent should prevail in the creation of these regions. It would be on a point of principle that Cornwall should never be told that it has to join with Wessex, unless Cornishmen

53
proclaim that this is their wish. I think I can say that it would not be, unless the region as a whole were to be called "Wessex and Cornwall". I speak here as someone who is half-Cornish. I envisage that there would be much 11th-hour negotiation between neighbouring counties to determine where the boundaries were to be drawn between any of our English regions.
In order that the Government should not end up with a proliferation of regions that are too small to have appropriate significance for these purposes, I might suggest that they should start with a clear idea of where the regional heartlands might be situated, and then add to or subtract from these in accordance with the response from the territories concerned. I am hopeful that by this process the number of regions thus emerging on the new map of England might be just nine. I mentioned those regions in the debate on the gracious Speech at the start of the previous Session so I shall refrain from repeating myself today.
I am urging the Government to give the new development agencies as much gravity as they deem possible both in terms of their geographical size and in terms of the functions that they might perform. There could be encouragement, for example, that they liaise not only with the development agencies for the other English regions but also with their counterparts in Europe so that the regional approach to government might more easily come into focus.
One of the most important of all the functions for these agencies to perform might be in overseeing the touristic image of their region, inspiring the tourist boards that already exist to present their territory as somewhere most attractive to visit, while co-ordinating such activities to maximise the effect so that tourists find it easy to perceive the overall character of the region. Perhaps the boards should be amalgamated within any one region so that a conscious effort can be made for them to be promoting the same unified concept, with all the emotional appeal that this involves, thus engendering a desire in the hearts of their tourists to return there frequently. For it is through tourism that all regions will discover their identity—because of their efforts to promote it in co-operation with all other regions for reasons of pride as well as for financial gain.
I am hopeful that once the development agencies have been established here in England the Government will consider incorporating the delegates that are elected by them and by the county councils of their region as life Peers within your Lordships' House, perhaps to constitute 50 per cent, of the total of life Peers, for that would truly transform the whole nature of government in this country, and perhaps in Europe too, on regional lines, with the ultimate goal of a "United Regions of Europe" emerging not far down that road.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, when I first read the list of speakers, I imagined for one dreadful moment that the "M" against Bath stood for "maiden" and I contemplated having to say a good many polite things about the speech made by the noble Marquess. Well, I
54
am freed of that obligation, but I will say something polite about his speech. I think that he put over his case with considerable eloquence but I do not agree with him. I am against regional government simply because I believe it would be a move towards a federal Europe of the regions, which is something I fear. Perhaps I may be allowed to return to that point in a few moments.
The gracious Speech is unusual in that it harks back to last year's legislative programme and reminds us of next year's fall-out from it. I refer in particular to elections to the Scottish Parliament. What, of course, the speech does not mention is that those elections may herald the break-up of the United Kingdom. If the worst does not happen, which will be no thanks to the Government, we shall still see relations between the English and the Scots embittered, with the Scots blaming every badly run hospital on inadequate funds from London and the English railing at the unfairness of Scottish MPs interfering in English affairs when English MPs have no right to have their say about the affairs of Scotland.
Scottish devolution, whatever it does, means a diminished role for this Parliament. But I have to say that it is not just by legislation that the Prime Minister is contributing to a decline in the authority of Parliament. He is doing so by his reluctance to turn up in the other place, voting, for instance, only seven times in the first year of this government; by his resentment at being questioned and having to take part in what he insultingly refers to as a bun fight; by his habit of announcing government policy to the media rather than to the House; and by—this has been referred to already—the disdain and contempt with which he often treats his own Back-Benchers, imposing on them a grotesque discipline designed to prevent them from carrying out effectively their constitutional role as watchdogs for the public against an over-mighty Executive. Throughout, the Prime Minister presents himself indeed as someone who finds Parliament a bit of an irritating nuisance. Therefore, I found particularly surprising this afternoon the observation by the Leader of the House that the Government plan to modernise Parliament. Well, usually modernisers have an interest in the institutions which they wish to modernise, whereas this Prime Minister has shown scant interest in the important role that Parliament—the whole of Parliament—plays in our affairs.
For obvious reasons, the gracious Speech is silent about last week's debacle over the European Parliamentary Elections Bill. I say "for obvious reasons" because presumably the Speech had gone to the printers and those were last minute events. It is silent also about where the Government have got to in their rather tortuous negotiations with the Liberal Democrats regarding proportional representation for Westminster. But there can be little doubt in my mind that changes in the electoral system for England and Scotland and the planned changes for election to the European Parliament make far more real the threat of a change to proportional representation for the House of Commons, a change which would open the way to unstable coalitions and give the Liberal Democrat Party what it has coveted— power out of all proportion to its electoral strength,

55
power to the party with the least votes to decide which of the major parties should govern. A move to proportional representation would indeed be an act of constitutional vandalism. But the gracious Speech tells us nothing of the Government's intentions as to whether there is going to be a referendum, and, if so, when.
It is against this background that the proposals for further changes in our constitutional arrangements should be viewed, and we should constantly be reminding ourselves that for centuries now Britain, alone among the countries of Europe, has enjoyed stability and security and escaped tyranny; and we have enjoyed it not least because of the strength of our constitution—the institutions, laws and traditions which bind us together as a nation. In my submission, he who tampers with these institutions, which have stood us in such good stead, does so at his peril; and he should certainly tell the public plainly where he hopes he will finish up and where we will all finish up.
In the case of Scotland, Mr. Blair does not look like a man with a plan. He looks like a man in a panic. And when one comes to the European Union, about which I should now like to say a word, I think he does know what he is up to but has been very careful to conceal his ambitions from the public. I think—and here I come to what was said by the noble Marquess, Lord Bath—that a clue to his intentions can be found in his plans for regional government. I do not think anyone believes that the Regional Development Agencies Act does not pave the way for regional government.
The regions in the Regional Development Agencies Act are, of course, quite absurd. The north-west region, for instance, which lumps Carlisle in with Merseyside is not a political or economic entity or an area to which local people feel any loyalty at all. There is no community of interest whatsoever between the farmers on the banks of the Solway on the one hand and those who live in Merseyside on the other. These regions are artificial creations which make little sense except as pieces of the country large enough to make possible a system of proportional representation. However, it is an open secret that these areas would be the framework for a federal Europe of the regions if one were to come about. From the moment regional government is set up in this country, the authority of Parliament would be further grievously weakened as Brussels establishes direct links with the regions and the regions look directly to Brussels for subsidies.
But far more important than this issue when one is talking about the constitution is the issue of the single currency which has not yet been mentioned at all this afternoon. The gracious Speech is silent on the subject and, in my view, the Government have been busy spreading misinformation about this issue ever since they attained office. The Prime Minister vies with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the one trying to shout louder than the other, that whether we join the euro or not is purely an economic matter, a question of whether it is good for business, good for trade, good for our pockets. But that is stuff and nonsense. There is not a single independent democratic country in the world which does not have its own currency. Whether we join the euro—it may be right or it may be wrong and I
56
personally think it is wrong—will be one of the biggest political decisions we shall ever make. I am quite sure that Mr. Blair and Mr. Brown know that.
A few months ago—well before the Left's victory in Germany—a senior official in the Foreign Office, to whom I was complaining that the Foreign Office's obsession with Europe and the commitment of so much effort in that direction had gravely weakened our influence in the rest of the world, told me in all seriousness that with the arrival of the single currency the high water mark in moves towards a federal Europe would be reached. We had to sign up to the agenda or be left out in the cold, he said; but we need not worry, he continued, because the tide was nearly on the turn and there would be no more progress towards supra-nationality. In my experience the Foreign Office has not usually been right about the European Union and the intentions of our partners. The House will not be surprised to hear that back in April, not last month, the "mandarin" in question had scarcely finished his final sentence before almost every European leader was telling the world's press that the single currency was going to be a further massive step towards political union and must be followed by co-ordination of budgetary and economic policy.
In view of that it was not with amazement but weary resignation that I read over the weekend of how the Chancellor of the Exchequer, while telling the British people that he was wholly against tax harmonisation, had signed up to a document drafted by his own adviser, the aptly named Ed Balls, The New European Way, in which he and other socialist Finance Ministers pledged themselves to a greater role for the European Union in economic matters, including "closer tax co-ordination". If that is not tax harmonisation, I am a Dutchman. It is as sure as night follows day that the Chancellor's robust remarks—his expressed intention to fight tax harmonisation—will be followed by another abject surrender when the other member states follow their usual tactics and threaten to go ahead without us if we will not go along with them.
Many of the most disastrous decisions of recent years have been made after inane cries from the media, opinion formers and pundits that Britain once again risked being out of step with Europe, and that she could not afford not to sign up to whatever new initiative was being proposed, however inimical it might be to Britain's interest. She could not afford to be the odd man out. I see that the Guardian newspaper was at it again yesterday. It stated:
"Britain blocks tax harmonisation. Chancellor risks further isolation within Europe".
In one respect we really are out of step in the sense of being the only member of the European Union whose government affect not to be able to see what is staring everyone else in the face; namely, that tax harmonisation is an inevitable consequence of the single currency and the single currency is a milestone on the road to political union.
Against those terrible dangers and the threat to sovereignty posed by developments in Europe, the Government's threats to change the composition of this House look pretty small beer. However, it is an

57
important matter. It is another dangerous development and one that in my belief highlights some of the dictatorial tendencies of this Government.
After the defeat of the Government on the European elections Bill, Downing Street announced that what had happened made an overwhelming case for reform of the Lords, and that the hereditary Peers, without whose votes the Bill would not have been lost, were an affront to democracy. If the hereditary Peers do not have much to do with democracy, neither has the Bill we are discussing. It is not designed to make the House more democratic and representative, to quote the Labour manifesto. It is not a Bill to create a second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of an hereditary basis, to quote the preamble of the 1911 Act. It is a Bill to create a House no more democratic than the present one but rather more easily capable of being manipulated by the government of the day. The time that has elapsed since the 1911 Act, with its bold preamble, is proof enough that if the Bill abolishing the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote is enacted without any provision being added to implement the second part of Labour's manifesto commitment, there will never be proper reform and we shall be stuck with a nominated Chamber for the foreseeable future, if not for ever.
There may be some who think that a wholly nominated Chamber—free of the inhibitions this House has simply because of the hereditary element—will show considerable spirit and independence of mind. All I can say is that it is certainly not the Government's intention that that should happen, judging by their comments last week—repeated by the noble Baroness this afternoon—when they made great play of the fact that if the hereditary Peers had not voted they would not have lost the European elections Bill.
I stress that as it is virtually impossible to find anyone, except those sitting on the Liberal Benches, who thinks the Government were right on the issue of closed lists. What the Government are saying is that the life Peers—the undemocratic life Peers—would on their own, without the votes of the hereditary Peers, have ensured the passage of a bad and wholly undemocratic measure. There we have it. The Government expect to get a second Chamber which would not even delay a measure which is as manifestly wrong as the European elections Bill, and is seen to be manifestly wrong by almost every newspaper in this country and by every informed person. They intend to get rid of a House which, for all its obvious imperfections, can within the limits of the Parliament Act check the Government and to substitute for it a Chamber which they believe will not. That is really what we are talking about.
If I have got it wrong, if that is not what the Government want, why do they not bring forward proposals for long-term reform? What would be lost if a Bill were introduced after the Royal Commission had reported—a Bill which took away the rights of hereditary Peers as part of a comprehensive reform designed to make the House more democratic and representative? There can be only one explanation: the Government would prefer a wholly nominated House because it would be less likely to challenge their actions.
58
In the absence of a written constitution, amendable only by special procedures, there are few safeguards in Britain against a government supported by a hefty but perhaps very temporary majority in the House of Commons destroying our most precious institutions, including the Monarchy itself—institutions which have grown up over the centuries and which most people recognise are not the playthings of politicians to be tampered with at the whim of a temporary majority in the Commons, but are held in trust for our children and our children's children.
It is difficult to see how we can safeguard ourselves against the exercise of arbitrary power without a second Chamber genuinely independent of the government of the day—and it is surely our job to try to see that brought about.
The battle shortly to be joined will not, therefore, be a battle between the Lords on the one hand and the people on the other; it will be a battle between an arrogant Administration, which resents any check on its ambitions, and a growing number of people throughout the country who can see that a House of placemen would be a poor guardian of our freedoms.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, like others who have spoken, I believe that the Government are to be congratulated on the Queen's Speech. As my noble friend the Leader of the House said, it sets a challenging pace in the continued modernisation of the United Kingdom. I, for one, trust that the Government will never allow themselves to become defensive or apologetic about their constitutional commitments. These are not just institutional adjustments; they express the kind of society we aspire to be. In so far as those commitments affect this House, I hope that the Royal Commission will be able to go back to first principles and start by examining the case for a second Chamber amid all the other changes envisaged. If it concludes that there is, indeed, a case for one, I hope that it will then take a clean sheet of paper and set out what it believes is needed rather than limit itself to the concept of reform of the House of Lords as presently constituted.
There could be something paradoxical about a reforming government basing their plans for the future on the evolution of an institution rooted in what we are about to eliminate: the political power of the traditional peerage. There is a real opportunity to break free from the culture of privilege and social status. Terminology and style are important if that is to be achieved. At the same time it will, I suggest, be a missed opportunity if what emerges remains the preserve of the increasingly self-contained political community. It should make sense in terms of the real drive, flair and dynamism of the United Kingdom in the century ahead.
I hope that I will be forgiven if I take the opportunity of this strategic debate to reflect on some of the wider issues. The first reality of existence, let alone of politics, is the global interdependence of humanity. This is true of culture, finance, trade, environment, migration, climate change, global warming, drugs, crime, terrorism, security and much else besides. The overriding

59
responsibility of relevant political leadership is to recognise this and to make a success of it. In that context it may well be that the time has come to end the tradition of a separate foreign service and home service in our Civil Service. Those who resist the challenges of globalisation will be seen in history as having betrayed their children and grandchildren. If enlightenment is to prevail, we inevitably have to play our part constructively and co-operatively in developing and strengthening relevant international institutions. We protect the interests of the British people by putting those interests together with the interests of humanity as a whole.
This is already happening in, among other places, the European Union, the World Trade Organisation, G7, OECD, environmental conferences, NATO, OSCE, the World Bank, IMF and the UN itself. More and more key decisions and policies are being made and formulated in those spheres. What have not kept pace are our methods of scrutiny and accountability. As we reform our political institutions in the United Kingdom in the cause of a healthy democracy, this issue simply has to be addressed. How do we keep the international deliberations accountable—and felt to be accountable— to the people on whose behalf they are theoretically being undertaken? Perhaps whatever replaces our House as we know it could have a key part to play. As it is, significant changes may currently be happening with very little analysis in our representative political institutions.
Perhaps I may take just one example: in Bosnia, Kosovo and Iraq, what is the de facto constitutional transfer of political—not just operational—mandate from the United Nations to NATO and what are its long-term implications? International co-operation always involves some pooling of sovereignty. This has openly and consciously happened in our membership of the United Nations; but what is happening now? Are we now settling for pax Americana?
As the globalisation takes hold, there is for many an increasing sense of helplessness. To compensate, there is a search for identity which can take sinister forms: racism, religious militancy and nationalism. The frustration and uncertainty can become a fertile breeding ground for what have been described as the ethnic entrepreneurs. It therefore becomes essential to develop a political culture which does not deny identity, but which recognises it and leads on to self-confident co-operation based upon it. I hope that, as part of the millennium, we will give pride of place to the celebration of ethnic and cultural diversity within the United Kingdom and to the excitement of having become a multi-cultural society. For me, the joy of creation is precisely that diversity.
It is for those reasons that I believe what the Government are doing on Ireland, Scotland and Wales— indeed arguably on regionalism as well—is to be applauded. For those concerned with conflict prevention, proactive diplomacy and reconciliation, what the Government are introducing through devolution and decentralisation could well represent exactly the kind of policies the absence of which we
60
have lamented as we have faced the nightmares of the former Soviet Union, the former Yugoslavia and too many other parts of the world as well.
In our concern for democracy we must not be simplistic. It is about far more than institutional arrangements and processes alone. At its best, it is based upon a complex dynamic which involves strong leadership and muscular accountability. It requires representative institutions, but it also requires pluralism, which is not always the same thing. If thriving civil society is the best guarantee of democracy, part of that civil society will involve representational strength, but part will involve the quality of ideas and originality. Part, of course, will involve a mixture of the two. What it all involves is the self-confidence and strength to challenge: a self-confidence and strength which is found when people are able to come together and work on their own ideas and priorities against the background of their own engagement and experience. It is a positive, not passive, concept of society. Alternative centres of deliberation and checks and balances are indispensable to sustain democracy.
That must apply to our political parties themselves. That is, of course, the undeniable underlying agenda in our deliberations on proportional representation and open or closed lists. I think it is altogether sensible and honourable for a political party to say: these are our policies and these are the people we put to you as committed to their implementation. What matters in a democratic society is the open nature of the political parties themselves and the genuine arrangements for their members to play a full and positive part in determining the policies and deciding who should fight for them. It is to that that we should all give maximum priority.
Of course, for good, highly motivated people, democracy can be frustrating. They see the quagmires of self-indulgence and delay. They yearn for effectiveness, efficiency, expeditious decision-making. The trouble is that, without a system of meaningful accountability and positive engagement, people as a whole become diminished and the dangers of self-destruction in government abound. Perhaps the most disturbing trend of all in recent decades has been the tendency to confuse consumerism with citizenship—sometimes, I fear, a deliberate tendency. Pace Decartes, "I shop, therefore I am". Citizenship and its responsibilities is not a matter of consumer politics. Democracy is, surely, above all about empowerment, fulfilment and the dignity of all.
Before I conclude, there are three other matters which seem to me to be essential for thriving democracy. One is the quality of the information on which it operates. Open government and access to information are indeed essential. A freedom of information Act is not just an addition to the cause of revitalising democracy; it is central to it. Similarly the media provide the lifeblood of democracy and it is not enough to leave it to laissez faire competition alone. That, frankly, is in effect naive as the self-generating downward thrust in standards takes over. There has to be a positive approach to sustaining pluralism.

61
Another matter is law. If globalisation is the new reality, law is no exception. The international dimensions of law, not least on human rights and war crimes, become vital. But they must be accessible to all, not just to the wealthy and the powerful, be they individuals or nations. Universality and consistency of application will be the criteria by which history judges them.
Above all, there is education. We need to be certain that our educational system is about producing creative, inquiring, critical and confident citizens, able to come to terms with the world and age in which they live and able to take on the very considerable responsibilities of active citizenship in a highly complex democracy.
The Government are, I believe, to be commended for their refusal to take democracy for granted and for their determination to regenerate and nurture it. It seems to me that specific legislation will always be the better for being approached in the context of a wider vision of what democracy is all about.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, in preparing for this debate—and I am at that moment when I am completely certain that my preparation is hopelessly inadequate—I found myself considering our present situation in two metaphors. I hope that by the time I have finished I shall have neither mixed them nor fallen between them.
The first is to consider the British constitutional settlement as if it were a heavily laden goods wagon on a railway track but with no engine. Successive teams of men in the form of various governments have for a very long time been struggling to sweat that wagon across a very long plateau. Now at last, with a shout of triumph—if I understood the noise behind us as we listened to the gracious Speech yesterday—they have shoved the wagon over the brow of the hill and it is on the down slope, although, of course, that picture is already out of date. The wagon began to roll with the programme of constitutional change and the devolution Bills in the previous Session. It already has considerable momentum. The hill will extend much further than the Government either wish or expect, and the wagon has no brakes.
Into this flurry of piecemeal change that must affect the whole of Parliament and the way we work together, the Government have thrown a mouse. And in the name of democracy, an idea they appear to resist in many ways, they declare a victory for democracy, for changing the membership rules. Really, my Lords! In relation to all the problems we face, that is what they have come up with. I am sorry.
The British constitution and government practice have evolved over centuries. Two events are of major significance and relevance today. The first took place in 1715 when George I came to the throne. Because he spoke no English, he chose an eminent parliamentarian to be his Prime Minister and chief executive. That was Sir Robert Walpole, who then picked from among his friends in the House of Commons other Ministers. In that way we firmly ensconced the executive within the
62
legislature—only just after Montesquieu had propounded the ideal of separating the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. It is a strange coincidence.
The next event to which I wish to refer brings us rather closer to the present, by almost 200 years. At the end of the last century—unsurprisingly since we still have the problem—we were having difficulties with Ireland. But in those days there were Irish Members of Parliament in the other place. They decided that the issue of Irish independence was of such significance that they would disrupt the business of government—which they did, extremely successfully.
As a result, standing orders in the other place were changed to guarantee that the government could get their business through. Those two events have created what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, has called an "elective dictatorship". Patronage ensures that the system works to the advantage of political leaders. That applies equally to governments and opposition parties, and not necessarily any more to the advantage of the British people at large.
Parliamentary reform is part of constitutional reform and needs to be considered in the round, not piecemeal. I refer particularly to the Scotland Bill, passed in the previous Session, but also to the Northern Ireland Bill and the Wales Bill. All those Bills have created different classes of Member for the other place. But the Scotland Bill is unquestionably the most significant because for Scottish MPs 50 per cent, of their function will now be removed. So we have 78 Scottish MPs with half a job. Will they have half a salary? I do not suppose that it will be suggested. Alternatively, as I suspect is more likely, will they simply duplicate the work done by members of the Scottish Parliament in order to justify their existence down here?
Of course, there is discussion of reducing that number. Scotland, because of its geographic problems, is overweight, so to speak, in terms of constituency size and it has more MPs than might otherwise be justified. There is talk of reducing the number to 58 or 59 so that the Scottish constituencies match the English constituencies. But they will still only have half a job. Perhaps 30 would be a more reasonable number, but I have never heard anyone suggest that, at least no one in a position of some authority and responsibility. The whole question is being treated as a matter of party convenience, perhaps with electoral considerations in the background.
Whatever we might do to Members of the other place numerically in relation to their coming here, it is no answer in any event to the West Lothian question. Nor is any proposal for regionalism in England an answer to the West Lothian question. What happens if one makes the pessimistic assumption and the Government win the next general election but with a much reduced majority? The Government may become reliant on what may well be a rump of Scottish Members of the other place in order to pass English legislation. The English will wake up. The Secretary of State for Scotland cannot say, as he did in a lecture only a week ago, that an English parliament is a danger because it might raise feelings of

63
nationalism when he has just brought such a body into being in Scotland and done just that. There is a wonderful inconsistency there.
My second metaphor is that of a safari photographer. Many of us have done it; I certainly have. We go out to collect trophies for our album. In this case, the photographer has seen a particularly picturesque and attractive animal to put in his album, one that is absolutely safe so long as he does not get within kicking range—the zebra. In order to improve the picture, he steps away from the Landrover that has taken him out into the forest and forgets the possibility of the lion in the long grass behind him; he has come between the lion and its prey. It happens to be a horrible fact that almost every year someone's life is lost in that way.
The truth is that the whole of Parliament is ripe for reform. I follow the right Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol in saying that an English settlement is necessary. I take the view that it is necessary to have that in order to hold the United Kingdom together. In that situation a Royal Commission to consider the future of the House of Lords is hopelessly inadequate. It happens to be my view that a wholly appointed House is becoming completely unsustainable. It will be, and it will have to change rapidly. I also take the view that a partly appointed House and a partly elected House will equally be unsustainable in the long term. Whether we like it or not at this stage a wholly elected second chamber might perhaps be the bottom of the hill where we arrive at some point of stability once again. I do not accept the mantra so often proposed that the other place would never accept such a solution. The other place is itself ripe for reform and will become involved in a much more general and wider operation than has been considered until this time.
It is not a question of what Members of the other place want. In the end, it is a question of what the people of Britain at large want and will accept. I have tried to apply the intellectual rigour in my suggestions that the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, asked for. The lion is waking up and the Government need to be very wary lest they are caught.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, it is a wise lawyer who desists from criticising suggestions to be found in a written document until he sees the document itself. Very occasionally I have made mild, respectful and somewhat hesitant criticisms of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary. Both Ministers have stressed that they listen and, as a result of listening, learn and, as a result of learning, occasionally change tack. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor did so in regard to an amendment which I raised to the Human Rights Bill. I duly thanked him.
I do not therefore know whether the strong judicial criticisms, made in written responses to the paper by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, The Way ahead, will have had any effect when one sees whichever Bill will reflect what his views are. I do not
64
know whether the powerful speech by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, accusing him of a serious breach of the doctrine of the separation of powers—a copy of which is to be found in your Lordships' Library—will have had any effect. I therefore desist from addressing any criticisms on that subject until I see what is in the documents.
In the same way, I make no observation at this stage on what is proposed to be done about vulnerable witnesses until I see whether the Home Secretary has paid any regard to the observations made by the former Lord Chief Justice, my noble and learned friend Lord Lane, or my noble and learned friend the former Chief Justice of Northern Ireland Lord Lowry now sitting next to me, or what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice himself said in a case in which he expressed his view on the desirability of the judge and the judge alone dealing with the problems of the difficult defendant in person.
I do not know whether the Home Secretary will at last, after about 30 years, do something about the Butler Committee's suggestion of reviewable sentences so that the public may be protected from persons who would otherwise be released at the conclusion of a determinative period which they have served. I only hope that something will be done. I do not know whether my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will pay any attention to the very serious misgivings voiced by the Bar Council and in a recent speech by the Lord Chief Justice about the suggestion that legal aid should not be available in money claims and should be replaced by the conditional fee system.
In those circumstances I turn my attention to the constitutional issue. In regard to legislation, a great proportion of which will be highly controversial, it is important to place on record exactly what are the powers of Peers. I say that because some odd observations were made on 17th November when the Commons amendments were considered by your Lordships' House. It was observed by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that those who continued to insist on their amendment were "committing a constitutional outrage." The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, said in terms at col. 1143 that the Opposition and anyone else who was minded to vote with them had no right so to do. He even suggested that they knew that they had no such right. When the Minister replied he commended what the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, had said. He said in terms that he could do no better than repeat what his noble friend Lord Callaghan had said. He went on to say, somewhat tautologously, that it was now becoming a wholly improper abuse of power. It sounds as if one can have a proper abuse of power.
My mind was taken back to the debates in your Lordships' House on the War Crimes Bill. At that time this House was robust enough on two occasions to deny a Second Reading to a Bill that had been supported by an enormous majority in the other place. True enough

65
there were free votes but that does not change the principle. My noble and learned friend Lord Shawcross referred to the differences, if any, that existed between the first and second occasions on which the question of whether there should be a Second Reading was considered:
"The only difference is that the Bill now comes to us for the second time with an indication—I will not say a threat—that the Parliament Act will be used to pass it into law if we repeat our rejection of it. That seems to me to present no kind of constitutional problem and no problem of principle. There is one restriction on the right of this House to disagree and veto measures that have come down from another place and that is not by law but by convention. That is known as the Salisbury-Addison convention. Nobody has suggested that that convention has the slightest application to this case … If that is so, by implication it follows that it is our duty and constitutional right to express our own independent view. That is the right and duty which is left to this House under the Parliament Act. We should exercise it for the public expects us to discharge it by taking an independent view of those measures that come down to us from another place and to say exactly what we think about them. There is nothing to suggest in this case that if we did so on this Bill we should be doing anything to thwart the views of the electorate as a whole. But even if that were so, and even if there were the slightest evidence that the electorate as a whole is in favour of this Bill, it would still be our duty to vote against it if we believe that it is wrong".—[Official Report, 30/4/91; col. 642.]
My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham put it a little shorter at col. 637:
"There cannot be a constitutional issue for this House. Since the Parliament Acts have been passed it must surely be the duty of this House to vote in accordance with its conscience. Not to vote in accordance with its conscience just because other people with greater legal powers than ourselves take a different view would be to vote against our conscience, which is the voice of God, in order to please man".
I refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in the earlier debate:
"We should be quite clear in our own minds that there is no question that it is competent for the House to take this step. If the reasoned amendment of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway were to be accepted and the House declined to give the Bill a Second Reading for the reasons stated in the amendment, it would be open to the Government to re-introduce the Bill in the next session of Parliament. They could then secure its enactment under the Parliament Acts, despite the opposition of the House of Lords, provided that a majority of Members in the other place still supported the Bill on its second introduction".
I stress the following passage:
"A mechanism therefore exists to ensure that where a clash occurs between the two Houses of Parliament, the will of the elected House will prevail, although there will be some delay in the legislative process. Beyond that point, we are in the realm of convention and of political judgment".—[Official Report, 4/6/90; col. 1131.]
This makes it perfectly clear that the submission of the noble Lord, Lord Shore, on the final consideration of the amendments was totally correct. I hope that in future it will be accepted that the obligation upon Peers in this House, altered, amended or otherwise, is to vote in accordance with their conscience. They have a perfect right, indeed a duty, to do so. I believe that I have quoted all that is required, and accordingly I rest my case.

Agriculture Council: Outcome
5.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the outcome of the European Union Agriculture Council held on 23rd and 24th November at which the United Kingdom was represented by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. My noble friend Lord Sewel, Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Scottish Office, was also present. The Statement, which was made earlier in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, is as follows:
"The Council voted on a proposal made by the Commission for the lifting of the worldwide ban on the export of British beef in respect of meat from animals born after 1st August 1996. Ten member states voted in favour of the measure; only one, Germany—for understandable domestic reasons— voted against. Spain, France, Austria and Luxembourg abstained. This vote represented a substantial move towards the Commission proposal by five member states from the earlier vote in the Standing Veterinary Committee. Most importantly, the procedures under which the vote was taken in Council enable the Commission formally to adopt the decision.
"I can now announce to the House that within the last three hours the Commission has adopted the proposal, which permits the export from the United Kingdom of boneless beef and beef products from animals slaughtered between six and 30 months of age and born after 1st August 1996. That is the date on which the Commission has verified that all contaminated feed was removed from the feed chain. There are further conditions which aim to prevent the offspring of BSE cases from entering the export scheme; a requirement for the slaughter of offspring of BSE cases; and strict rules on slaughtering and processing. The Government will shortly issue a consultation paper on our proposals for implementing these rules. I shall be laying before Parliament secondary legislation which will make the offspring cull, which has been operating since July on a voluntary basis, compulsory. The legislation will provide compensation at the market rate to owners of animals slaughtered.
"This is an excellent outcome which I am sure the House will welcome. It has been achieved against a background of scepticism about the seriousness with which we have tackled BSE. We have now overcome these misconceptions and had our case judged objectively on its scientific merits and supported by independent Commission inspections, taking as our over-riding principle the absolute need to safeguard public health.
"Every agriculture Minister who spoke in the Council, including those who did not vote in favour, had very positive things to say about the commitment

67
shown by the new United Kingdom Government to tackling the problems presented by BSE. The outcome is also an affirmation of the value of this Government's close co-operation and dialogue with our partners in Europe and with the European Commission.
"The lifting of the ban comes hard on the heels of the support measures for the agriculture sector which I announced to the House on 16th November. Both demonstrate the Government's commitment to securing a viable long term future for the sector.
"The Council also held a discussion of the Commission's proposals for CAP reform in the context of the Agenda 2000 measures. These proposals are essential for the future stability of European agriculture and in order to facilitate a successful enlargement of the Union to the east. The Council agreed a report to the Vienna European Council next month identifying the main outstanding issues and expressing its determination to reach conclusions on the package as a whole by next March. It is an important government objective to secure an ambitious reform of the CAP which serves the national interest and I very much welcomed, on behalf of the Government, the commitment by the Council to take early decisions. My right honourable friend the Chancellor made similar points in the discussion in ECOFIN on 23rd November on the future financing of the European Union.
"This was a very important Council meeting for the United Kingdom. We have achieved a major objective of our policy towards Europe in the lifting of the beef export ban. Although it would take time for the British beef industry to win back markets which have been lost to them in the past two-and-a-half years, I believe we have now created the conditions in which we can now plan for the future, confident that its industry is operating to the highest possible standard. Our immediate task is to work with the industry to ensure that the scheme which we have successfully negotiated in Europe works effectively to regain recognition of the quality of British beef on world markets".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.37 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. We on these Benches warmly welcome the Council decision to lift the beef ban. Will the noble Lord also acknowledge that many of the measures that were needed to satisfy the EU Commissioners were in place before the last general election?
While welcoming the lifting of the ban, I must point out that it is only a partial lifting, not a complete one. Restrictions are still in place for beef on the bone. Those countries which prefer to buy carcass beef will still be unable to buy British beef on the bone. Will the Minister accept that one of the ways in which that process may be speeded up is to lift the current ban on beef on the bone in this country? That would not only stimulate
68
confidence in the UK; it would also help to rebuild confidence abroad. While the ban is kept, it reflects our uncertainty.
The Statement details further conditions, mentioning the specific requirements of the slaughter of offspring of BSE cases. In addition to that, does the Minister accept that there are still animals from the cohort cow which need to be traced. What progress is being made in that regard?
The Statement refers to proposed rules of slaughtering. Will the Minister tell the House how the relevant abattoirs will be selected? Will they be export-only abattoirs? How quickly will that process be put in hand? Who will be part of the inspection team? What is the geographical location? And, with regard to the inspection team, will Germany be included? As we know, Germany voted against lifting our ban. If there is to be delay in the process being put in place, will the Minister accept that such delay will reflect a lack of will in Europe to open our export markets?
In the Statement the Government acknowledge that it will take time for the British beef industry to win back its markets. What additional help will the Government give to speed up that process? Within the home market, will the Government give more direction to encourage greater consumption of beef in our public sector? And will they make it possible for our servicemen once again to enjoy British beef?
The Statement mentioned nothing about labelling. As there is so much concern not only among beef producers but also among pig and poultry producers, does the Minister accept that, in promoting the best of British beef, all producers wish to see honest, clear, proper labelling of our food? It should state clearly that the product was produced in the UK and was subject to our very strict animal welfare standards. That should not include meat produced abroad but processed in the UK. Perhaps the Minister will respond to that important issue and reflect on whether it was discussed at the Council meeting earlier this week.
Finally, might I press the Minister to tell the House what progress has been made since the March meeting? The Statement refers to ambitious reform, so will the Minister enlarge on some of the specific proposals which are under discussion? For example what is the Government's view on labour unit modulation? What is the Government's view on the proposal for national envelopes? Does the Minister still hold the view that there should be a cut in milk prices of some 30 per cent.?
Those are all very serious questions. While we on these Benches welcome and congratulate the Government on achieving their partial lifting of the beef ban, it is just a start. How soon will we see our exports being restored? How soon will our farm gate prices begin to rise? How soon will our great British beef be available on menus all around the world?
5.41 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and I congratulate the Government on their limited success, which is

69
definitely a step forward. The Government's tactics in co-operating with and talking to those in Europe have been infinitely more successful than the tactics of the previous government, who threatened the countries of Europe with non-co-operation if they did not get their way. That was a dismal failure, so this Government have done better.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, clearly made many good points to which we shall have answers and I shall not repeat them. I wish to make some more general points. The Statement informs us that there will be legislation to provide compensation at the market rate to owners of animals slaughtered. Which market rate are we talking about? Is it the market rate before or after the tragedy of BSE? It is important that the compensation is reasonable so that the Government have full co-operation from people who have cases of BSE.
As regards the promotion of exports schemes, the Government have already made a start by giving farmers £300,000 to put towards another £300,000 for certain exports. They should carry that measure a great deal further because, as the noble Baroness said, there is a great deal of work to be done before the process is re-established. I agree with her about the removal of the ludicrous ban on beef on the bone so that once again I can buy sirloin on the bone which tastes much better. There is a certain amount of BSE all over Europe where beef on the bone is still being sold and I believe that progress can be made on that issue.
A big effort must be made in the export of lamb to Germany. The Germans are good trenchermen and they do not eat a great deal of lamb. Lamb, as we know, is very good and its consumption needs to be encouraged.
Another point which the Government should make strongly in Europe is that our suckler herds had hardly any BSE. The beef from the Aberdeen Angus herds and their cross herds is far superior to the miserable stuff which comes off a Friesian cow or a Friesian bullock. Such produce is worth promoting and can be promoted. Help and instruction needs to be given about that.
The Government had good intentions and I hope that they continue. Co-operation with the farmers on marketing is a way forward.
As regards Agenda 2000 and the hopeful statement that agreement might be reached by next March, how does the Minister believe that we shall reach agreement on acreage payments in eastern Europe when those countries join? Are the acreage payments to the western countries of the European Union to be reduced so that the same budget can apply? I know from friends who are farming in Poland and other eastern European countries that at the current prices they are making good profits simply because their costs are so low. We face a most curious situation, so perhaps the Minister could tell us a little more about the mechanics of making the present budget stretch over any new entries into the European Union. It is a very difficult issue and he needs to tell us more about it.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her thanks and congratulations. We believe that this is a major achievement. I confirm that the detailed measures of the agreement were on the table before the election. However, that was of little relevance to British farmers or to the exports of British beef because of the way in which the previous government conducted themselves towards Europe. No progress would have been made under the previous regime of waging a war on Europe. The difference is not in the details of the agreement that is being reached. They were rational details agreed at Florence and they meet the requirements. Progress has been made in putting in place a regime for safe British beef and a policy towards our partners in Europe which makes them more willing to trust us. That is the difference. One cannot be certain to a date exactly when exports will begin, but we are looking hopefully at the spring.
As regards beef on the bone, the ban will be lifted when we have scientific advice from SEAC, from the Chief Medical Officer, that it is safe. We had firm scientific advice from the Chief Medical Officer that it was unsafe and that was why we rightly banned it. When I attended the Agriculture Council, I understood from our partners in Europe that there was no prospect of getting the beef ban lifted if we did not ban beef on the bone. But when we receive scientific advice that beef on the bone is safe we shall be as happy as anyone to lift the ban.
As regards progress on the maternal cull, a voluntary cull has been in place since July or August. Some 850 animals have been culled and we anticipate culling up to 3,500 by the spring. That process of tracing, which is very complex and involves the state veterinary service, is currently in operation.
As regards abattoirs, many of the details will emerge in the consultation process which will take place in the months ahead. We shall also have to bring in secondary legislation.
The inspectors will be the appropriate inspectors acting on behalf of the Commission. They have already been to inspect during the summer and have given a favourable report. Therefore, the proper inspectors will come. It would be quite outrageous to suggest that any single country's professional inspectors should not be allowed in. It is as though the Iraqis were able to veto American inspectors in their process. We anticipate that there will be two inspections—in February and March. I know of no evidence of lack of will because they have been already and have reported positively.
The noble Baroness asked me about the military and British meat. I personally have been in negotiation with the Ministry of Defence in relation to British beef. It has been arranged that the British Army at home will be eating 100 per cent. British beef. The export market now begins to open up as a possibility for British troops abroad. But certainly if one looks at non-beef—for example, lamb—then there are other complications. In the end, it is a question of price. But we are currently involved with the Ministry of Defence and

71
representatives of the farming and meat industries to see what progress we can make there. But already some progress has been made.
The question of labelling was raised. Discussions continue in Europe. I should point out that it is not the Agriculture Council but the General Affairs Council which discusses labelling. However, we are continuing to have discussions on that. Your Lordships will be aware that we have already made some progress with British retailers who have agreed certain changes and improvements in labelling which should make clearer the origins of meat and, in particular, the origins of British beef.
There are a whole number of issues in relation to Agenda 2000 and I shall not detain the House about that. We have made statements about it and it is quite a long programme. I should be happy to write to the noble Baroness about that.
I have answered some of the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, asked. In particular, I thank him for his appreciation of our tactics. I share entirely his view of the unsatisfactory and totally negative tactics which operated before 1st May last year.
I have answered his comments about beef on the bone. He asked about compensation and the market rate. All productive adult and pedigree animals will be valued individually. Other stock will be valued to a scale linked to market prices. I was interested in what the noble Lord said about promotion and marketing in Europe. It will be for the Meat and Livestock Commission, and not for the Government, to undertake the marketing for the industry. The industry must, in my view, put more emphasis on modern marketing and less just on production. However, what the noble Lord said was interesting.
I agree entirely with what the noble Lord said about co-operation. Since I have taken up this post, I have been struck by the fact that the British farmers need more co-operation or collaborative marketing—call it what you will. We have far less mutual collaboration than almost anywhere in Europe. For example, if there is concern about the negotiating position in relation to powerful retailers, the farmers should look to their own marketing and to joint and co-operative efforts, which will give them relative strength.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I appreciate that we still have a long way to go but the lifting of the beef ban is certainly welcome news. I am sure it will be welcomed by the British agriculture industry.
At the outset of her questions, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, tried to claim credit for the work done by the previous government. But is it not the case that we are indebted to my right honourable friend Jack Cunningham for the work that he did in Europe during the period of the British presidency of the European Union? Secondly, is it not also the case that if the
72
previous government had handled the matter differently, we should not have found ourselves in the mess we were in?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank my noble friend and agree with every word he said. We did not inherit any benefits or assets whatever. We were definitely in a negative game and it is indeed true that my right honourable friend, especially during the time of the British presidency, managed to undo much of the damage that had been done before.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will accept my warm congratulations on what Ministers have managed to achieve. But does he agree that life would be much easier if governments on the Continent would accept independent scientific advice, because they took a long time to accept that?
Perhaps the Minister will answer three further points. First, as one who tries to deal with cattle passports and other difficult red tape in the meat industry today, I ask the Minister whether he will streamline the administration in relation to exporting cattle. Secondly, he attends as a representative of the Government at food fairs on the Continent. Will he do all he can to help to promote British beef by helping MLC and others? Thirdly, I cannot understand why the scientific committee in this country is taking so long to make up its mind about beef on the bone. It was a marginal decision a year ago which has been totally discredited. I hope now that a conclusion will be reached before Christmas that at least in Britain we can eat beef on the bone.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord about the streamlining of administration. I am not enormously optimistic. It seems to me that it is an intrinsic feature of any highly complex regime such as the CAP that it will be hugely bureaucratic. That is one further reason for trying to alter the regime.
I entirely agree with what the noble Lord said about promotion. As Ministers, we must go to European food fairs—it is basically the MLC—and we must do all we can to help. Today I have been—and only just got back in time for this Statement—to the Birmingham food fair, where I did what I could to promote British beef.
I can only say what I have said before about beef on the bone. It was not a ludicrous decision but a decision which was in favour of British farmers, because it contributed towards restoring confidence in British meat. That was essential. We shall lift the ban when we receive scientific advice that it is safe to do so. But while we have advice from the Chief Medical Officer that it is unsafe, it would be irresponsible to do that.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, has my noble friend detected an attempt to seek to spread the blame for that dreadful matter across both sides of the House? Is it not the case and should it not be recognised clearly that serious suspicions were entertained more than 15 years ago; that the severity of the disease was diagnosed more than 12 years ago; that the government were slow to introduce prohibitions on infected material;

73
and the clear position was not allowed to emerge until in most weeks more than 1,000 cows were being diagnosed as diseased? Therefore, is it not right to expect congratulations to be offered to my noble friend and his colleagues in the Ministry?
Will my noble friend stress that the ban on beef on the bone, which clearly contributed to the favourable situation we are now enjoying, was a tough decision but one designed to help, though some of those helped were not particularly appreciative of that decision? Also, will my noble friend encourage the Meat & Livestock Commission and all those involved in this trade to develop urgently the marketing techniques that are clearly necessary?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those congratulations and for that contribution. Since taking office, on the whole, we have tended not to dwell on blame. The parties involved in this terrible BSE scandal were widespread and often well-meaning. But there is no doubt that it was a terrible scandal which cost the farming industry and the British taxpayer billions of pounds. We set up an inquiry into the scandal and await a report on it, some of us with great interest and some opposite, perhaps, with trepidation—of course, I do not mean individuals.
The decision to ban beef on the bone was a tough decision. We knew that it would be an unpopular decision in this House. But it was not as unpopular in the country as one would imagine from listening to the debates in this House or reading some of our more curious newspapers. When a major opinion poll was carried out some months ago on whether or not it was important to lift the ban on beef on the bone, the number of people who said yes was so small that it had to be significantly upgraded to reach 1 per cent.
Earl Peel: My Lords, surely on that basis alone it should be a question for the consumer to decide. I appreciate that the Minister has to take advice from the chief vet based on all the scientific evidence in front of him and that risk assessment is always a difficult matter, but, because of the enormous publicity attached to this matter, the consumer is fully aware of the situation. It would be in the farmers' interests if that decision was left to the consumer, and the Government should authorise the lifting of the ban on eating beef on the bone as soon as possible.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, that is the dilemma that Ministers face. We would prefer to leave consumers to choose. But the noble Earl will be aware that in a whole range of areas affecting public health we do not choose to leave the individual citizen to choose. Where there may be a major risk to public health based on proper scientific advice, Ministers have to act. Whatever their failings, on every occasion the previous government, when advised that there was a need for action, took it. They were acting in a responsible way, as we are now acting.
I am sure that the noble Earl is aware of the large number of deaths from CJD. It is a horrendous disease for which there is no cure. If taking that risk meant more
74
people died—that could still prove to be the case; we do not know the incubation period—that would damage confidence in British beef. That is bad for the farmer; it is bad for the food industry; and it is one of the reasons that countries like Germany, even though the ban is lifted, will probably buy very little of our beef. They do not have full confidence in our measures. We believe that they are wrong to be so sceptical. But if we had taken a loose approach and said that it is for the consumers to choose whether they will risk eating the beef and dying from CJD, it would have made it much harder for our beef exporters in Europe. No amount of clever marketing through the MLC would get through to people in Germany if they thought that we were not taking every measure possible to prove that our beef is safe. What we did was in the interests of British farmers and the British meat industry.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene in farming matters. The question of the science behind this issue triggers a response from me on the basis of my experience in the European Select Committee.
On a number of occasions reports from your Lordships' Select Committee have been highly critical of the science base of some of the Commission's findings. The same can be said about the science base of some of the decisions relating to the BSE crisis.
Are the Government confident that the scientific advice being given in Brussels is adequate? Are they worried that some of it may be politically slanted? What can they do to pressurise the Commission to make sure that the scientific advice given is transparent, that we know who is giving the advice and that the advice can be subject to peer review in the future?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a number of important points which Select Committees of this House have raised. In this country we can only establish and take the best scientific advice that we have available. It may not be perfect, but we will do what we can to make it as comprehensive and professional as possible. The advice in relation to beef on the bone came from our Chief Medical Officer based on other scientific advice.
The question of risk is a complex one. We do not have perfect systems of risk analysis and one periodically spots anomalies and incongruities—we have all done that. But in MAFF and the Department of Health we have units of risk analysis and we take the best risk advice we can. As Ministers we can only be as responsible as we can with the best analysis available. In the European Union there may be different levels— some better and some worse. We and the European Union must accept what advice there is. There have been suspicions of political awareness in some of the scientific advice but, in the end, the scientists recommended lifting the ban. We still have BSE in cattle. The work of the committees of this House is a major force for good in that area. But we welcome

75
anything that can be done to improve the situation. My impression is that the quality of the scientific advice in this country is extremely high.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the Minister and the agricultural team on the excellent progress they have made on lifting the beef ban. However, perhaps I can press the Minister on some of the longer-term and deeper lessons to be learnt from the BSE exercise, particularly in terms of the increasing intensification of agricultural production. We have a lesson to learn about the risks of intensive production, certainly for human health. We are already aware from a whole variety of sources of the risks of intensification of food production on the environment.
We also heard praise heaped upon the ministerial team for their new approach to Europe and for the increasing confidence that our European partners have in the United Kingdom within the European setting. I would add my praise to that, but I would ask the Minister whether, in taking that approach forward, he will be urging the agriculture team for the United Kingdom to use this well-developed track record in European negotiations to support the Scandinavian member states, including the Danes, in their commendation of the introduction of environmental conditions on all payments under the common agricultural policy, particularly the mainstream and compensation payments, including, where necessary for public health and the environment, intensification payments and conditions as part of the Agenda 2000 Agreement.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. She is quite right in saying that we should look into the longer-term implications. I think the longer term is the main question hanging over British agriculture at this moment. Although we are all obsessed with the problems of the short term, we cannot have a longer term that comprises a series of short-term crises. I think we have come to the end of that particular programme and so I agree with my noble friend on the long term. As to her particular concern about intensification, that is absolutely right. Ultra-intensification has led us into some of the problems that we have with food health, and of course in Agenda 2000 we are looking to see whether there are ways of becoming more efficient while not being over-intensive. That is a rather difficult balance, and almost a dichotomy. It is an important point to raise.
On supporting the Scandinavians, when I attended the Agricultural Council I would say that we frequently took the position of supporting the Scandinavians, and they supported us. As regards environmental conditions, cross-compliance and so, that is quite a complicated matter, in which historically our position has been to try to go for absolutely clear and clean environmental conditions. The cross-compliance ones involve an element of compromise over direct subsidies of which we are a little wary. On the whole, I think my noble
76
friend will find that on these broad issues we are standing with our Scandinavian colleagues, especially our Swedish colleagues.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
6.13 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, returning to the debate on the gracious Speech and the British constitution, I should like to point out that the British constitution has undergone massive changes over the past 200 years—changes inconceivable in the 17th century. The Monarchy has lost most of its former powers; the franchise has been extended beyond anything our ancestors might have imagined; and the ancient common law has undergone extensive reforms. However, this massive revolution has been achieved without any violent reaction: changes enormous, yet no violent reaction.
Our last revolution was in 1688, and that was a pretty mild affair. The upheavals of 1789 in France, of 1848 in almost every part of Europe, of 1871 in France again and of 1917 in Russia were not paralleled in any manner in Great Britain. I should like to suggest that this peaceful, vast and dramatic change was accomplished for at least two reasons: first, reform in Great Britain was gradual, responding gently and perceptively to popular demand. It was not imposed from above. Secondly, and possibly more importantly, in Great Britain we kept the outward forms and trappings of history while transferring and transforming powers. The Monarchy looked the same and the rituals of the past remained. The Monarch still wore the Crown and opened Parliament in traditional ways; but behind the facade all the powers had gone to the Prime Minister and to Parliament.
The structure of Parliament changed. Its membership altered, and altered drastically, but again its outward forms remained. It kept its links with its past. The common law was transformed, but the judges kept their wigs and administered justice in a manner inconceivable to their 18th century predecessors. Let me point out a comparison. Our neighbour, France, has also witnessed massive changes over the past 200 years—changes in many ways similar to those in Great Britain—yet the manner was different. The great revolution of 1879 to 1894 destroyed almost all the past. It was a clean sweep, modernising, transforming and changing everything. Very little remained the same, but the result was not two centuries of gradual and peaceful development. I think it would be well to consider what followed the dramatic changes of the great revolution.
Further revolutions occurred in 1830, 1848 and 1871. Between 1789 and 1794 there were five republican constitutions, two royalist and two imperial. What I am suggesting is that security and harmony—the psychic security that society needs—was lost. I would further suggest that France has only experienced that security

77
which we have had for 200 years in the past 40 years, when it seemed that the divisions of the past had, hopefully, finally been healed.
We used to boast, when long ago I was a young student at school, about our success in achieving change while preserving our historical past. We felt—and it was constantly proclaimed—that this gave our society a security and an avoidance of the distress that had been produced by revolutionary change. Let us remember that of those continental countries which experienced a French revolution and the aftermath in the Napoleonic conquest seven were ruled by dictators on the eve of the Second World War.
My main reason for making a contribution tonight is not to give your Lordships a history lesson: I was paid for that for 40 years and I do not need to earn money doing it now. I say this because it seems that we are in danger of abandoning the proven patterns of the past in our approach to constitutional change. We seem, under the present Government, to have rejected that ancient idea that change should only be a response to great popular demand. As far as I can see, popular demand in the present climate of change seems only to have existed in Scotland, where I acknowledge that there was a great demand for devolution. However, in the public bars and the clubs that I frequent I do not find individuals coming up to me, even in the Garrick, and saying, "My God, that House of Lords, those hereditary Peers!" It does not seem to touch hearts.
We also seem to have abandoned the idea of maintaining the trappings—the historical links with the past—which masked the radical nature of the change that we have accomplished. For example, we talk now of changing the Monarchy—not so much its powers, which have all gone, but the trappings are suddenly seen to be in need of change. The traditional patterns of Parliament, which were borne by radicals throughout this century, and were even valued by the former Prime Minister, Mr. Attlee, are now under question. There appears to be a feeling that we lost by not having those great modernising and revolutionary changes which France and other large parts of Europe experienced between 1789 and 1815. Then the past was erased and a new world was created.
I hope that that is not the feeling of the present Government. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will reassure me about that fact. If it is, I believe that they are wrong, and dangerously wrong. I hope that in all constitutional changes that they are inaugurating they may give thought to the manner of constitutional growth in the past and the way in which the disturbing effects of change were masked by preserving the appearance of continuity. Without that we may find that that security, which has been characteristic of British history over the past 200 years and which enabled us to be at ease with our past while adapting to change, will be lost and lost for ever. As all history shows us, societies are fragile entities and care must be taken in dealing with their structure and forms.
I end by saying that French history did not begin on 14th July 1789 as France found out to its cost in the violent and divisive century that followed. I can only
78
echo the words of my noble friend Lord Cranborne and hope that the Lord Chancellor also does not believe that it began on 1st May 1997. The forms of the past often mask massive change and avoid revolution.
6.21 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, by intervening in this debate I should like first to pay tribute to the Leader of the House, my noble friend Lady Jay, for the very effective way in which she introduced the debate this afternoon. I also pay tribute to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, for his contribution—not, unfortunately that which he made today, which did not come up to his usual high standard—to politics that he has made over the past 18 months.
In the short period of time in which I shall address the House I wish to touch on two matters. The first is to refer to some statistical facts. Secondly, I shall talk about timing. The main subject I shall be addressing is the reform of your Lordships' House. I pay tribute to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, for his political acumen over the past 18 months. We need to recognise that it is almost solely due to him that we are looking at accelerated progression to what one might describe as stage two in the reform of your Lordships' House. Unfortunately, one of the difficulties is that he has also put on the agenda the suggestion that life Peers are somehow second-class Members of your Lordships' House. As a Labour hereditary Peer I refute that entirely. In my experience during 13 years in your Lordships' House I hope that I have come to respect every Member of it. I do not necessarily agree with their political stance, but I respect them for the contributions that they make to the way in which the House works.
One matter which has not been touched on greatly this afternoon, and in previous debates on the reform of your Lordships' House, concerns the numbers involved. Currently there are 1,166 Members of your Lordships' House of whom 41 per cent, are Conservative; 15 per cent, are Labour; 6 per cent, are Liberal Democrats; and 38 per cent, claim no political allegiance and are generally referred to as Cross-Benchers. It is interesting to reflect that out of 750 hereditary Peers, only 18, which is 2.4 per cent., take the Labour Whip. I have argued before that that demonstrates that the hereditary peerage in general is totally out of touch with the modern political realities of the United Kingdom.
If we were to look at the situation after we hereditary Peers have left the Chamber, membership of the House of Lords will amount to about 540 Members. As my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede said in an excellent speech this afternoon, it will still be the largest second Chamber in a parliamentary system in the world. If one considers the make up of the life Peer Members of this House as it will be constituted later on—I hope, in this parliamentary Session—the figures are as follows: Conservative 177, which equates to 33 per cent.; Labour, 159, which is 29 per cent.; Liberal Democrats, 45, equating to 8 per cent, and Cross-Benchers 159, equating to 29 per cent. The reason I have quoted those figures is that there is a considerable amount of misconception that a reformed House of

79
Lords will be a House of Prime Ministerial patronage, Tony Blair's poodles. I cannot imagine that the 130-odd life Peers which the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, created during her term of office, would be described as Tony Blair's poodles. One remembers life Peers created by nine Prime Ministers since the days of Harold Macmillan. I hope that we shall hear no more argument about the fact that a reformed House of Lords would not be independent and be able to do a very effective job in revising and questioning Government legislation brought forth from the other House.
The second matter is timing. My family has been involved in British politics since 1832. One of my ancestors was elected as the first Member of Parliament for the City of Plymouth. I suggest to the House that the development of modern democracy that we have seen evolving in this country stems from that landmark, the Reform Act 1832. It began the progress of parliamentary elected democracy in a real sense in this country. Over the period from 1832 we have seen, first, an extension of the franchise to women and, in Harold Wilson's government, an extension of the vote to 18 year-olds. There has been a continuing march of democratic modernisation. In that process the powers and responsibilities of the peerage have declined. I believe that we all recognise that it is totally right that that should be so.
We are faced with the situation where either just before or after the millennium the hereditary Peers will no longer have the right to sit and vote in this House. I hope that it can be agreed across the Chamber that the manner of the going of hereditary Peers will reflect well on the contribution that we and our ancestors have made over the past 200 years of British political development. It would be pleasant to believe that at the beginning of the new millennium the hereditary peerage will no longer have a place in the House of Lords. I am worried about the possibility that we could go into the next century having to be dragged kicking and screaming from this Chamber. That would be a stain on the new century and on our characters. It would be remembered throughout the new century. I make a plea that we go with dignity. By going with dignity, we can gain the respect for the contribution that we and our forefathers have made to public life. We should go with respect.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Harmsworth: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, deplores the small number of hereditary Peers sitting on his Benches. That could be explained by the policies of his party during the 1960s and 1970s.
I feel I should ask the indulgence of the House for speaking on reform of your Lordships' House for the first time today. We were flying back from Penang on 14th October, the first day of the excellent debate on the subject. We arrived early in the morning of the 15th by which time it was too late for me to make a contribution.
One thing I would not like to see is a change in the balance of powers between your Lordships' House and the other place. For me, the most important consideration in any reform would be success in retaining the essentially revising nature of your
80
Lordships' legislative business. How many times have I heard from the Cross-Bench judges that we must get the legislation right here or they will be making judgments based on bad law. I fear that the kind of changes I have now read about, which were extensively aired in mid-October, promise only a more powerful upper Chamber, with the possibility of less attention to drafting detail. Competition is hardly something which the House of Commons should or might want.
In a way, I am surprised that the Government, with their passion for control, would wish to strengthen the status of this Chamber. Removal of hereditary Peers will, in one fell swoop, place control of legislation further from the grasp of government—government of any hue. Like it or not, hereditary Peers must provide what is, as near as can be, an automatic and copper-bottomed guarantee of the status of this House as a revising Chamber. Remove the hereditary Peers and the immediate result will be a change of authenticity, resulting in a competitive Chamber with the Commons, with the possibility of loss of legislation on a scale hitherto unseen.
Many years ago I read Lord Shackleton's brilliant report, which was to become a Command Paper, on the Falkland Islands. Shortly afterwards I was talking to a very senior diplomat. He told me that there was a value in the Falklands to the Argentines. It was this: when domestic politics reached very heated and difficult stages, the head of state would rattle his sabre and cry, "Let us go and get the Falklands." Everybody would forget what they were arguing about and the matter would then be quietly dropped, the ruse having done its job. In this context, the mistake that Galtieri made was that he actually invaded. The tool was valuable only as a tool. Members of another place and your Lordships may wish to consider whether there is some parallel here with the presence of hereditary Peers in this Chamber.
Apart from wishing to perpetuate constitutional change in the English way, from the bottom up and not from the top down as is done on the Continent—and how much better have we been than our continental friends over the centuries at constitutional change—for my money, I would much like to see the present balance of power little changed, and the role of this House likewise, other than possibly in ways suggested by my noble friend Lord Hurd. Even then, reform should start at the bottom end of the legislative production line and not at the top. Stabbing at reforms before watching how imbalances lower down the line shape out is no way to manage anything.
My impression is that your Lordships' House in the past year or so has been beginning to behave more like it will inevitably do with the hereditaries gone. If it is not too late, and until we have sight of the Government's detailed plans, let us keep our imperfect but largely efficacious automatic balancing mechanisms.
6.35 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, there was much to be thankful for in the gracious Speech of 1997. Many useful alterations were made towards the much-needed reform of the United Kingdom, and for

81
those I am particularly grateful, especially the Scottish Parliament. This time around we have more constitutional change, and some omissions from what I believe ought to have been in the gracious Speech.
Certainly, the reform of the membership of this House was well heralded. Had it not been in the gracious Speech yesterday, it would have proved to have been one of the greatest wind-ups of all time. More of a pity was the mention of, rather than proposals for, the reform of the work of this House. Clearly, there is a need for real proposals, as the antics of last week may have confirmed. One hopes that the Royal Commission will come back speedily with practical proposals within the timeframe mentioned. I hope that the peerage Bill—or whatever it is called—and the preceding White Paper will be published soon.
In the meantime, I hope that we can see an end to the blanket criticism of the hereditary peerage. There has been far too much of it in recent months. The individual's right to reputation extends to all citizens, even to hereditary Peers.
I conclude this section of my remarks with three reminders. First, hereditary Peers are not a corporate group. Secondly, Peers in receipt of writs of summons are legitimate Members of the House, with a duty to attend, participate and vote. Thirdly—this is my most substantive point—the peerage of Scotland have always attended by statute, as do Peeresses in their own right and life Peers. Of course, statutes can be repealed, and I claim no protection from those provisions.
This brings me to more positive thoughts about the reform of this House, allied to reforms of the constitution of the United Kingdom and Scotland's future participation in it. Stage one, the reform of this House, will bring about a need for new provisions for a statutorily guaranteed number of working Peers domiciled in Scotland. Despite devolution, there will still be Scottish clauses of UK legislation and Scots law provisions being scrutinised in this House. This is best done, with the greatest commitment, by citizens who will be subject to those new Scottish provisions.
To back up that claim, there is an important constitutional principle which the Government would be foolish to ignore at a time when scepticism about the United Kingdom connection is rife in Scotland. The peerage of Scotland have attended this House by statute since 1707, as have at least 45 MPs. Their attendance is a condition of the Treaty. Articles 22 and 23 and the two supporting Acts confirm all this. For the past 291 years Scottish representation in this House has been guaranteed by statute. In 1963, Section 4 of the Peerage Act repealed the mechanism for, and the need for, the election of 16 Peers representative of the peerage of Scotland. Since then the whole peerage of Scotland, which is about 130 in number, has been eligible to attend this House.
To be competent, any reform of this House will need to deal with the appropriate repeals and, more importantly, to ensure a continuing guarantee of Scottish representation. Any government who tinker with the foundation statutes of the United Kingdom, or any other Union state, do so at their peril.
82
At this time the issue of Scottish membership of the United Kingdom is really only one of principle, despite the scare stories, many of which come over in the category of either pathetic or out of date. Membership of the United Kingdom needs to be presented at all times in Scotland as a positive. Hence my continuing enthusiasm for the radical reform of the United Kingdom, one in which the people of Scotland can find their true and unstifled destiny and pursue their rightful task of autonomous government. Anything less and the new Union project will fail.
Perhaps I may move on to a completely different subject which interests me. On an environmental tack, I am surprised by the omission of any proposals for public access to the hill country in England and Wales. This is a serious issue which needs to be dealt with by government with real vision—a vision of how to marry up the recreational and health needs of the urban population with the working needs of the rural population. At present I feel that the various sides are just shouting at each other. The preparation of a balanced and heavy duty new countryside code will help, backed up by a means of sharing the load of liability, and wear and tear from increased use of footpaths and other recreational facilities. I am pleased to read in The Scotsman newspaper that the Scottish Office is well ahead in this respect, with the aim of presentation of a Scottish public access Bill in the first session of the Scottish Parliament.
Given the substantially different legislative and philosophical background to public access in the Scottish jurisdiction from that of England and Wales, I suspect that the process south of the Border will be very different and there may not be too much to learn from the Scots law process. It is an issue that needs to be brought down off the hills and into the low country. The demand for recreational walking is predominantly in the low country adjacent to urban areas. This is a health issue as well as being one of sustainability. I believe that there is a means of resolving the conflicting demands of public access and cultivation or stock rearing. I look forward to initiatives by the Government along these lines.
In conclusion, I look forward to participating in the scrutiny of the new criminal justice measures, the constitutional Bills and the Scottish clauses of UK legislation. My immediate view is that I am a working Peer from Scotland until I am sent home.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I very much regret that I was unable to speak in the recent two-day debate in your Lordships' House on the reform of this Chamber. I now have an opportunity to do so with the advantage of having read your Lordships' contributions in that debate, for which I am indebted and which have made me better informed. In my contribution I shall try to summarise the position we have reached on the reform of your Lordships' House, looking at the background and effects that the current government position will have on this Chamber.

83
Before I do that I should like to stress to your Lordships that I have not met anyone on these Benches who does not wish to see reform take place provided that those reforms improve the purpose, functions, powers and composition in your Lordships' House and make it a better place. I should like to remind your Lordships that this House voted substantially for reform in 1968, but that was axed by a Labour Prime Minister in 1969.
I should also like to comment on the Labour Party manifesto statement. First, why is there such a rush to abolish hereditary Peers, and why does it have to be done as a first stage and not as part of overall reform of this Chamber? Many of your Lordships and a large section of the general public fear that once they have been thrown out no reform of this House will ever take place. Perhaps the Government feel that their task will be very much easier if there are no hereditary Peers within the consultation process. There was no mention in the Labour Party manifesto that this had to be addressed with such speed, and in any event surely it would have been courteous to have entered into cross-party consultation. I understand that there has been no cross-party consultation, no proposals made to any of the parties and no logical reasons given as to why hereditary Peers should be abolished. My Lords, surely this is a most arrogant way to address this subject and not becoming to the manner in which matters are conducted in your Lordships' House.
The second question I should like to raise about the manifesto statement is why the abolition of hereditary Peers as a first stage will make this House any more democratic and representative. The appointment of life Peers with party ties through prime ministerial patronage could be considered to be less democratic than those who sit by the rights of their ancestors. While nobody would deny that an accident of birth should not automatically qualify a person for high office, it is equally undemocratic to disqualify someone arbitrarily for this same accident. The Government have yet to explain what is intrinsically more democratic about a nominated House than the present one, especially one where nominations are made by, or on the advice of, an unelected committee. The hereditary Peers provide much of the independence which is so essential to a second chamber, and many of them encompass broad horizons as they do not necessarily focus on a single career.
It is not true to say that the Government lose Divisions only because of the votes of undemocratic hereditary Peers. Discounting the votes of hereditary Peers, a number of government defeats would have taken place on the votes of life Peers alone; for example, by 71 votes to 66 on 5th March on the protection of pharmacies in the Competition Bill; by 99 votes to 80 on the principle of equal treatment for Scottish students on 23rd June; by 152 votes to 91 on the same issue on 7th July; by 77 votes to 70 on 2nd July on the School Standards and Framework Bill and by 93 votes to 89 on 13th July on the same Bill; and by 128 votes to 93 on the age of consent on the Crime and Disorder Bill. So, my Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will explain why there is such a hurry to
84
abolish hereditary Peers and why this matter cannot be addressed as part of the overall reforms for your Lordships' House.
The Government's position is having the effect of splitting your Lordships' House into two camps. The happy atmosphere that existed, the courtesy extended to one another and the kindly and helpful attitude shown to each other are fast disappearing. This is not helpful at a time when the House is to be reformed and in fact is damaging the good relations that have always existed in your Lordships' House. In addition, it is clear that without detailed agreement on the shape of a new House, stage one—the abolition of hereditary Peers— would bring about a second chamber nominated entirely by the Prime Minister or agents appointed with his approval to undertake this task. This is a power that no politician has sought since Oliver Cromwell in the 1650s.
The abolition of hereditary Peers would increase hugely the Prime Minister's patronage. It would throw two-thirds of the independent Cross-Benchers out of the Lords at a stroke; erode the independence of the Lords and allow the political party in power to turn the Lords into a rubber stamping organisation, not a true revising chamber.
There is also a disturbing pattern of political authoritarianism in the Government's proposals. I should like to draw to your Lordships' attention the fact that the Labour Party has already subjected the right of local parties to choose councillors and Members of Parliament to the diktat of party headquarters. Noble Lords will be well aware that last week the same would have happened to MEPs if your Lordships had not decided to vote against the closed list. It would be a potentially highly dangerous matter if Members of this House were nominated only by the Prime Minister or by a committee approved by him. The reality is—
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. I do not know whether the noble Lord heard the noble Baroness the Leader of the House speak at the beginning of this debate, but she said most plainly that the Government are producing a White Paper to look at the whole of the selection process for life Peers. She also said specifically in her opening comments that the Prime Minister was giving up any role of patronage he has in the selection of life Peers.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I am grateful for that intervention, but it is still an unelected committee. I was present at the start of the debate and I have been present throughout.
To save time I shall not repeat my noble friend Lord Cranborne's six main principles for reform as they have been well documented. However, I believe strongly that these principles should constitute an agreed baseline for further consultation when the purposes, functions, powers and composition of your Lordships' House can be addressed. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may wish to comment on those principles when he replies to the debate.

85
I accept the main purposes set out by the Mackay Commission, which are to share with the Commons the responsibility for the enactment of legislation; to act as a check on the House of Commons' use of its powers; to balance the political dynamics of the Commons within Parliament by providing an alternative parliamentary forum for political activity; to provide a mechanism for reconsideration of issues within Parliament; to supplement the work of the House of Commons; to balance the relationship between Westminster and the assemblies and any further devolved bodies; to provide a means of mediating between European institutions and the United Kingdom and to represent other institutions and interests in this country.
I believe that the main functions of your Lordships' House should continue to be discussing legislation and debating public issues and policy in a way that is frequently different from, and in greater depth, than discussion in the House of Commons. It should continue to provide additional scrutiny of the activities of government and to conduct in-depth policy reviews through the Select Committees. It should continue to provide safeguards for the integrity and balance of our constitutional arrangements. It should encompass special responsibility for the parliamentary supervision of human rights and undertake detailed scrutiny of, and exercise special control over, the policies and legislation of the European Union as they affect the United Kingdom, over and above the work undertaken by the House of Commons. It should be more representative and cover the Scottish parliament and the assemblies, the United Kingdom regions, the European Union, local government, professional, academic, industrial and trade institutions, the trade unions, the Churches and other faith communities, minority and special interest groups, individuals with special expertise and experience, and the peerage.
This brings me to the powers of the House of Lords. On the basis of existing parliamentary practice, the key powers and privileges that the second Chamber might enjoy might include the power absolutely to block, delay and amend primary and secondary legislation; the power to compel individuals to appear before the House or its committees and to provide parliamentary privilege conferring immunity from prosecution for offences such as libel for remarks made in debates in Parliament. Other powers might include the approval of certain government appointments and increased powers over financial legislation.
I now turn to the composition of a future Chamber. If reform goes ahead, the composition of any future Chamber should be dependent on the purposes, functions, powers and representation that are required. If your Lordships were to agree with what I have already said, I would suggest that the second Chamber should not be composed on a political basis, but on a functional and representative one. It should either be a fully elected Chamber or an appointed one. If it is to be the latter, a Royal Commission or some such body selected from the Privy Council, should be appointed to establish a representative Select Committee of Peers, which should be empowered to nominate both hereditary and life
86
Peers, after application to them, as members of a functional and representative Chamber. I suggest that these members should be known as Lords of Parliament, LPs, a title in line with MPs, and this should dispense with any distinction between these two types of Peers.
This body should also decide the number of Peers that should constitute this Chamber. Perhaps a figure of about 800 would provide some 400 Peers who attend daily, which is similar to the present daily attendance. A government Bench would be required from which the government would introduce their case for new legislation. The rest of the House would table amendments in an attempt to improve this legislation, propose Motions, ask oral and written Questions and vote in Divisions in accordance with their own assessment, their experience, their conscience and what is in the best interests of the country.
I say in summing up that your Lordships' Chamber should be independent of any political party. It should continue to give good value for money and remain the main place for the scrutiny and revision of legislation. It is hard working. It has been called one of the busiest chambers in the world. It has sat for an average of 143 days a year and in the past four sitting Sessions has sat for an average of seven hours a day with about 84 sittings after 10 p.m. Your Lordships' Chamber has made over 2,000 amendments to Bills most years and in the past Session some 3,963 amendments were made, almost all of which were accepted by the other place. This signifies that between 75 per cent, and 80 per cent, of all amendments to Bills are made in this Chamber. Since May 1997 this Chamber has asked the Government to think again on various issues, for example students' grants and tuition fees in Scotland, the age of consent for homosexuals, freeing Churches and Church schools from interference by secular European human rights laws, and the proposal that closed lists should be the system for voting in European elections. These are all subjects that affect the interests of the nation.
There should be cross-party talks before any stages of reform are entered into; otherwise the second Chamber could become the largest quango in the land purely rubber stamping business from the other place. That would lead to a complete elective dictatorship. In the interests of the nation there must not be abolition of hereditary Peers before any proper reform of your Lordships' House takes place. The position of these Peers must be taken into account as part of overall reform. I believe the case for combining the first and second stages of reform is compelling.
6.58 p.m.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, if I do not follow the noble Lord who has just spoken in his comprehensive review of these great constitutional issues which face your Lordships now and in the course of the next year, that is not because I wish to minimise in any way their importance or the difficulties involved, or because I do not have views on the matter which I should like to share with your Lordships. I do have views on the matter but there is a limit to your Lordships' patience, even

87
during a long debate such as this. I know that many others have and will discuss those issues comprehensively.
The debate encompasses both constitutional and legal affairs. I wish to lay emphasis on the latter. In her illuminating speech, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House had hardly mentioned the word "legal" before she was able to say that such matters would be dealt with by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Equally, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, had hardly uttered the word "legal" before he was at pains to say that such matters were being dealt with by his noble friend Lord Kingsland. I notice, unhappily, that those two eminent authorities are right at the bottom of the speakers' list. Therefore, perhaps it may not be inappropriate if one of the foot soldiers in the middle tries to say a little about legal matters. After all, as the noble Viscount reminded us, life has to go on, whatever we are trying to do with the constitution—and there are important matters with which the Government will have to deal.
I want briefly to comment on one legal topic: reform of the substantive law mainly through the enactment of Law Commission report recommendations. I find it disappointing that the gracious Speech, although containing the usual,
"Other measures will be laid before you",
did not, as often happens, contain the codicil, "including measures of law reform". Last year, I did not speak on this subject because it seemed to me to be obvious that, with a new Parliament, there would be a period of ample legislative vacation and time before the flood of legislation started to flow. There was indeed a considerable period at the beginning of the previous Session when we did not sit on Fridays, had early nights and a very light programme, but there was no flood of law reform measures. The whole year can be signalled as one of very disappointing action in that area. Although the present situation is much more difficult, with a much greater burden of legislation facing us, I want to urge the cause of law reform this year.
I am, of course, perfectly aware that very important measures of modernisation in the legal field are to come. References are made in the gracious Speech to the justice system, a community law service, the youth courts and the protection of witnesses, and the Government have on hand the mammoth task of modernising legal aid. In the course of the year, the whole system of civil litigation will undergo vast changes under the Woolf reforms. All that is extremely valuable and will call for much work and effort in this place and elsewhere. However, it lies almost wholly in the area of administration and procedure and there is very little left for the substantive law. Perhaps I am not being unduly cynical when I say that the reason may be that administration and procedure cost money and, as we know, big money in the area of legal aid—£1.5 billion in a year—whereas substantive law does not, on the short view at any rate, do the same. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to give us some assurance that the cause of law reform is not forgotten or even postponed for another year.
88
There are already a number of excellent Law Commission reports which are all ready and crying out for legislation. There will be more in the course of the year. I shall not weary your Lordships with a list, but shall single out one—I refer to that relating to offences against the person—which has been outstanding since 1993, and as to which there is a draft Bill which has received favourable consultation. The existing law is out of date, confused and wrong, giving rise to a great many unnecessary prosecutions and so even attracting a money dimension. That is just one example. There are many others of equal merit.
Of course, the answer may be, "No legislative time", but that easy answer simply will not do. If the present system does not provide enough legislative time, we must change the system to ensure that it does. In this House we already have an excellent procedure for handling comparatively simple and non-controversial measures which has worked well. I refer to the Select Committee procedure. However, I respectfully urge the Government most urgently to consider selecting and adapting that procedure to deal with major matters. One such major matter is establishing a criminal code. A criminal code is urgently needed. All the work has been done. Nobody who has heard the recent speech of the Lord Chief Justice at the Lord Mayor's Banquet can doubt any longer that the time has really come for the enactment of such a code. Again, that would save a great deal of money.
The same theme was enlarged yesterday by the Hardwicke Lecture, given in Lincoln's Inn by the chairman of the Law Commission. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the chairman of the Law Commission for her extremely good and distinguished work during her period of office. However, enacting a criminal code would require a new procedure. Several hundred clauses cannot be handled in the normal way in Committee, even in the Moses Room. The same problem will occur even more intensely if we come to the project on simplified and modernised tax legislation which we were told very reassuringly only a few weeks ago, is well under way. That is an extremely important subject. It is of great interest to everybody and, again, a great money-saver. Such a Bill would involve at least 1,000 clauses, if not more, and could not possibly be accommodated within conventional procedures.
So I urge the Government to consider, either through the Select Committee on Procedure or an ad hoc committee, how we can carry such matters forward so that in the next Queen's Speech—I have given up for this year—we may be assured of such legislation. Do not let law reform be forgotten. It should be cherished. It is well within a programme of modernisation. It is well worth finding time for, and well within the capacity and ambition of the Government. I urge the Government to take it seriously.
7.6 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, the rude interruptions yesterday to the gracious Speech were something which saddened and shocked us all. As far as I can ascertain, nothing like that has ever happened before. They were

89
an insult to Her Majesty, an insult to Her Majesty's Government and an insult to the whole of your Lordships' House. What was even worse, the Evening Standard, the BBC, The Times, and the Daily Telegraph attributed the noise to the hereditary Peers. That was not true. Every single person in this Chamber sat as silent as a stone. The baying came from beyond the Bar. It was not until we had all been to many jolly parties and with family and friends enjoyed the amazing banquets which Mr. Bibbiani, Miss McWilliam and all the refreshment staff had clearly been working round several clocks to achieve—we thank them enormously—that we began to feel restored.
Yesterday's opening speeches also contributed much to restoring your Lordships' House to its usual high level of peace, harmony and good sense. Although she is not in her place, I should particularly like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, who is also my noble friend when we are not in the Chamber, on her charming, funny and witty speech. "Scotland forever", I would say!
I am against discrimination. I am sure, on reflection, that all your Lordships are also. I do not like being discriminated against because I am a woman, Scottish, an hereditary Peer, old and fat—although I mind less about the last because that is my own fault; none of the others is. Only in the last year has this element of discrimination crept insidiously into your Lordships' House cloaked under the guise of reform. I do not personally think that your Lordships' House needs reform. I think that it is perfect as it is.
However, if reform is felt to be necessary, I suggest that we retain, without discrimination of any kind, all the Peers who regularly attend and contribute to this House. There are only between 400 and 500 of them, and we all know who they are. Those who failed on either of those criteria would be entitled to speak but not to vote. There should be parity between the strengths of the two major parties, with the balance being held by the Cross-Benchers, which I am sure the usual channels, mindful of the milk of human kindness that flows along them, could easily arrange. Perhaps—though I say this reluctantly—after 10 years without a maiden speech, the privilege of speaking might also be withdrawn. Every new Peer, either on creation or on succession, should have a year's grace to see whether he or she fulfils the two criteria. There should be no discrimination on the ground of age—many noble Lords are only beginning to peak after their 90th year—although I should not personally lower the younger age limit below 21.
Noble Lords must be aware by now that the first Lord Strange of my creation was beheaded at Bolton for supporting his monarch in 1651. He was wounded in the fight in Wigan Lane in August, taken prisoner after the Battle of Worcester in September and beheaded on 15th October, at the age of 44. His last words were: "I die for God, the King and the laws, and this makes me not be ashamed of my life nor afraid of my death".
7.11 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, in her delightful speech the noble Baroness said that this House was perfect. I have been in the House for 53 years and I love it. After being here so long I should despise anyone who did not. The House has rendered great service to the nation, and in a lesser sense to the world, and has not done any harm that I can think of. So I go a long way, if not quite the whole way, with the noble Baroness when she says that it is perfect.
On an earlier occasion I paid tribute, as I do again, to the collective services rendered by the hereditary Peers—not, I am bound to say, all of them, but a sufficient number to earn the gratitude of the nation for their work collectively speaking. On a previous occasion I made a speech which later drew thanks from Members. I do not know what the Front Bench thought about it. But they are kindly, youthful people—
The Lord Chancellor: Youthful or useful?
The Earl of Longford: Both youthful and useful, my Lords. I know that they are tolerant of senile deviations. I consider the intellectual quality of debates in this Chamber to be unrivalled, and there is a special quality of civilised decency which I have not heard of or read about as existing elsewhere. So there are great values attached to this House. Reform is bound to come. I only hope that in the new Chamber the essential values of the existing Chamber will be retained.
That said, I may be asked how I relate these high-sounding propositions to the Bill that will come before us. I suppose that the duty to vote will fall upon us every now and then during the next few months. I see that the noble and learned Lord is leaving, so I have already lost one distinguished member of my audience. I hope I have not said something shocking. I have not referred to breeches or any such indelicate subject. I am bound to relate these high-sounding remarks to actual voting intentions.
Before expanding on that, I wish to back up the remarks of the noble Baroness in denouncing an age limit. On a previous occasion, one of the most distinguished Members of this House suggested an age limit of 75, which found very few supporters at the time. I admit to bias in this regard. I confidently submit the proposition that as we get older, we get wiser—until, of course, the moment comes when we lose our marbles! But it is up to the House to say of any speaker, including myself, that that moment has arrived. On the whole, that does happen. I remember sitting on the Benches opposite, near to the Bar, and a great friend of mine, who was then rather past his intellectual prime, was sitting within a yard or two of his wife. When the matter came to a vote, he turned to me and asked (I shall not use his wife's actual name): "Can Daphne vote?". I could see that there was something wrong, and he did not reappear. So on the whole the House knows how to deal with people who have rendered great service but whose time has come.
On the whole, as we get older, we get wiser, as I feel sure the Prime Minister, whom I greatly admire, would agree when he is as old as a former Labour Prime

91
Minister whom I have admired for much longer; namely, the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. I am sure the Prime Minister would agree that, 40 years from now, he will be wiser than he is today. It is an eternal proposition. Of course, we do not become more energetic. We could not compete with younger people, for instance those who work at the Bar and may sit up all night over cases, and so on. This is not intended to be a full-time Chamber. People bring valuable contributions from their work outside. Except for the leading politicians on the Front Benches, Members are not expected to attend full time. Therefore I do not think that age should enter into these calculations.
Returning to my previous point, if there are to be votes in the coming months, how shall I vote?
Lord Hacking: With the Government.
The Earl of Longford: Every now and then, my Lords.
I was Leader of this House 30 years ago—I dare say before some of the younger Members were born or before they had grown up. I was here before the present Prime Minister was born. Thirty years ago I moved an amendment to a Bill introducing the "two-writ plan", under which hereditary Peers would attend and speak, but not be allowed to vote. It was accepted with firm acclamation by all the party leaders. It was sabotaged in the House of Commons by a strange combination whose Members I need not mention now. I still believe that it is the best idea, and indeed the only sensible compromise. I hope that someone of more contemporary significance than myself will reintroduce that proposal. If not, I shall have to do so myself. If it falls for lack of support, that is too bad. I shall have done my duty. Assuming that it falls by the wayside, there will no doubt be other amendments, and I might do well to keep my options open.
However, in the last resort, if my noble friend puts me to the test, I shall support the Government. I shall consider the issues. I shall feel great reluctance to take any step which would damage the real and lasting values of this House. As I think and pray about these matters, I shall remember that I had the great honour of being appointed Leader of this House by a Labour Prime Minister and was brought into the House before that by a Labour Prime Minister. Without the Labour Party I would have been and would be politically nothing.
7.20 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, it is a daunting task to follow the noble Earl after his eloquent and charming speech. He sits as a Baron in two respects: first, as a hereditary Baron of his own creation and, secondly, as the fifth Baron created in 1821. That was the same year as the creation of the barony for which I sit. I said that I could not speak with the same charm and eloquence of the noble Earl and I am afraid I shall be more controversial. However, anything which removes the right of the noble Earl to sit and speak in this House would be to its great disadvantage.
92
The removal of the hereditary rights of the hereditary Peers raises the question whether it is the intention to score party political points or whether it is to weaken the power of the upper House. Neither seems to me a positive contribution to the constitutional question. It is the privilege and duty of the hereditary Peers and of all Peers to ensure that a viable alternative is secured in place of them. Without infringing the customs of the House, perhaps I may mention the maiden speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Butler of Brockwell and Lord Norton of Louth, both of whom pointed out the need to ensure that a viable alternative is secured in place of them. It does not seem to me from the proposals put forward in the gracious Speech that such a position will be secured in the course of the deliberations of the Royal Commission. As has been adequately mentioned already, it may take so long to come to a conclusion that there will have been established either a unicameral legislature or a committed quango of acquiescents.
The noble Baroness the Leader of the House pointed out that there would be a tight timetable. My noble friend Lord Cranborne asked that the subjects to be covered in the White Paper should be clearly and eloquently pointed out today. It is time to have that because without it there can be no realistic discussion of the future course to be taken.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, pointed out, it was noticeable that during the gracious Speech there was a cheer—to put it politely—if not exactly barracking from some Members of the other place when the point came to mention the removal of the rights of hereditary Peers to sit and vote. It may have been bad manners, but it was also a significant precursor to the assumption that there would be no more interference with their wishes, regardless of the constitutional consequences, of which this House is the guardian.
For that reason, it is likely that there will be considerable resistance to the legislative programme until it is certain that there will be an established form of reform for both Houses. It is worth recalling that the 1911 Act, which fell by the way, insisted on,
"a strong and effective House of Lords".
That is what we need and what most hereditaries are calling for. There is no great personal benefit to me. I am in my 80th year. And it means nothing to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, whose age I am approaching. I do not expect great benefit from whatever decision may be taken. There has been mention—I hasten to admit not from the Government Benches—of some form of compromise such as granting Government, Liberal and even Cross-Bench life peerages.
That brings me, by a somewhat circuitous route, to the second point I wish to mention: the disenfranchisement of the Irish Peers. Incidentally, they have the same rights as Scottish Peers from a treaty more recent than the Act of Union; indeed, under the auspices of Castlereagh and Pitt in 1800. This may not be the time to ask for reconsideration of their plight, but it occurs to me that this may be the last opportunity to mention the slight they feel has been put upon them. If there is to be any form of compromise, then their position should be considered within that compromise.

93
The Peers of Ireland owed the creation of their peerages to English sovereignty. From the 13th century to 1800 the two Houses in Ireland and England developed along broadly parallel lines. Under the terms of the Act of Union of Great Britain and Ireland in 1800, the Irish Peers consented to the elimination of their 150-seat assembly in Dublin in return for 28 seats in the more powerful House of Lords at Westminster, to be filled by an election among themselves.
The Act set out in considerable detail the manner in which,
"the twenty eight lords temporal to represent the peerage of Ireland in the peerage of the United Kingdom",
were to be elected. Since 1919, however—incidentally, the year I was born—nothing was done to honour the agreement and the last Irish representative Peer died in 1961. The Irish Peers Association, of which I have recently been made a committee member, was formed in 1963 to promote the interests of the Irish Peers who had thus become disenfranchised.
It is not that they purport to represent the people of Ireland but that they are the inheritors of a personal right secured to them by law. In my submission, it is proper that the matter should be raised at this time and appear on the records of the House. There is much additional detail which I shall refrain from extrapolating as the matter has already been before all-party committees, especially in one instance the Committee of Privileges in its report of 5th July 1966 when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, dissented. I see that the noble and learned Lord is in his place. He kindly agreed to allow me to use his name.
It came up again in 1971. The Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills voted only by a majority to deprive the Irish Peers of their rights. The father of my noble friend Lord Massereene—my noble friend is not in his place—and the noble Lord, Lord Rees, dissented from the findings of the committee. I submit therefore that this is not an open and shut case. There has been dissent.
7.27 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I expect your Lordships will be pleased to know that the majority of the speech I wished to make has been torn up, not least as some of the points I wanted to make have been clearly outlined this afternoon. That was done notably by the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam. I was interested in his comments on the Irish Peers; we are both members of the Irish Peers Association. That line might commend itself for recommendation by the proposed Royal Commission.
Like one or two previous speakers, notably the noble Lords, Lord Vivian and Lord Harmsworth, I regret that I was unable to attend the magnificent debate that your Lordships had last month, simply because I could not be here for the two days. I could do one but not the other. It only goes to show that there being about 130 speakers plus another 35 this afternoon on the one subject seems to demonstrate the enormity of the subject put before us by the Government.
94
One constructive point which came out of the first debate was that, I think I am right in saying, the Government then realised that the matter should be considered in depth by a Royal Commission. We heard in the gracious Speech that a White Paper would be published. That is a tremendous step forward.
I support reform of your Lordships' House, as I believe do most people on all sides of the House, but completely to abolish something that has worked, is working and will go on working is very regrettable, to put it mildly.
I have a good deal of sympathy with the Leader of the House and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who referred to the in-built Conservative majority and how unfair it was given the perceived allegiance of hereditary Peers to that particular cause. It cannot be much fun always going in to bat knowing that one faces the best bowler in the world and one will be out without scoring a single run. I believe that this is the root cause of why this matter is being discussed. If one had the privilege of being able to issue strong Whips to enable legislation to be frustrated or pushed through, depending on which side of the argument lay the Conservative Party, we would not be in this position and the Government would find the situation tolerably acceptable. They would not care to admit it but I believe that they could live with it. That would be a tremendous step forward in making this House more publicly acceptable in areas where many people probably find it unacceptable.
One must remember that the ultimate role of your Lordships' House is to prevent the Government from prolonging their life and, in the end, to act as the guardian of the constitution. It stops any government— I do not mean this particular one—with a large majority from undermining the constitution. That was ably demonstrated last week. Although a rather unedifying spectacle took place which I do not believe enhanced British politics very much, we were absolutely right to do what we did. That shows the definite need for a Chamber such as this in a modified form. But to try to consider all of the various options open to us—everyone has excellent ideas, all of which deserve recognition and consideration—is perhaps too much for a debating Chamber in one debate, two debates or what you will and to get the answer right.
I am extremely grateful that the Government have agreed to set up a Royal Commission. They are to publish a White Paper setting out their ideas which are to be worked upon. Surely, the Royal Commission should operate from scratch and should not try to come up with something that we have already debated and that may be part of an approach that it may or may not recommend. We cannot legislate on something until we are aware in depth of the arguments and the reason why this, that or the other idea is acceptable.
I urge the Government to think about this very carefully. In any organisation it must be wrong for management to do away with something before it has the slightest idea of what to put in its place. I do not share the perceived fears that the Government may get rid of hereditary Peers and then sit back and do nothing. That would reflect lack of faith and trust, and I do not

95
believe that the Government could conceivably behave like that. That fear should be treated with caution. But we must have the results of the Royal Commission, it having listened to the many arguments advanced by noble Lords the other day and today. We should be able to attend the commission and put forward our points. Let the commission consider the matter and come up with an answer. If the answer took a slightly different route from that which I would like—the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, has hit the nail on the head—I would accept it. I would feel on that basis that it had been properly considered. But I cannot accept, and I hope that this House will not accept, that there should be any change of this House in any shape or form unless and until we have heard the recommendations of the Royal Commission about what should happen having heard all the arguments.
Perhaps the Government should also bear in mind that with this House they are onto a very good thing. After all, we conduct ourselves reasonably well. There are only a very few occasions on which we find it absolutely necessary to put our foot down and frustrate government business. If the hereditary Peers were not here and the House were composed of life Peers the whole concept of the Salisbury convention would be ignored. There would be no reason for it; it would be far more democratic and therefore the convention would not apply. What would happen then? The other place would have far greater trouble with a House made up of life Peers and nominated Peers. To a great extent the hereditary Peers would be of great use to the other place. A good number of people may not agree with that but I am sure that that is so.
If power, which is finite, is transferred by one means or another to this House—that will happen inevitably if the hereditary element disappears—it will reduce the powers of the other place. I have never heard of anyone who wants to give up power. What about the farmer? Has one ever heard of a farmer who voluntarily gives up one square yard of land, let alone anything else? By the same token, I do not believe that the other place would be very happy to wake up one morning to find that some of the powers that it presently enjoys have been slightly eroded.
I am not very moved by the perceived idea that because this is an unelected Chamber it has no right to act according to the dictates of conscience and what it believes to be correct. I do not believe that it is possible to have it both ways. In Brussels the European Commissioners, who are responsible to no one, spend a good deal of time dictating to this country what it can and cannot do. Conservative governments, Labour governments and Liberal Democrat governments—if they are ever in power—have to go along with those instructions that come from an unelected body. They are not patriots and they are not British. Why is the country prepared to accept that but not the contributions and suggestions made by an unelected House, which at least is made up of patriotic British people? That is a point of view.
Many points can be made but I believe that they are better made to a Royal Commission. I echo the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord
96
Wilberforce. Please let the commission consider the matter and then take action. Please do not take action first.
7.39 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, subject to one question on a related matter, I do not propose to follow the noble Viscount down the path of discussing the future of this House. Primarily I wish to make a few comments on the legal issues raised in the gracious Speech.
First, the gracious Speech refers to modernising legal aid. I have no problems about a reformed legal aid system. But I should like to make sure that any reform means that the legal aid system will be cost efficient, competent and give choice to the consumer. When the Legal Aid Board considers the awarding of contracts I hope that it will make sure that the whole country is covered and that there are no gaps. The right to choose a solicitor is surely a basic human right for a member of the public. While I fully endorse the plea that any change should ensure the highest professional standards, I hope that the Government will encourage all firms that reach those standards to apply for a franchise to give the maximum choice to the consumer.
Secondly, I fully endorse the modernising of the youth courts and the power to refer young offenders to a special panel with the possibility, if they are prepared to plead guilty and admit the offence, of an apology to the victim and perhaps community service as punishment. In your Lordships' House I have fully endorsed some pilot schemes along those lines. I believe that it is extremely valuable to bring the offender face to face with the victim. That will be of real psychological help for the rehabilitation of the offender and in giving support to the victim. I appreciate that it will not always work, but I strongly support the move to allocate the young offender to a special panel which can make a judgment.
The gracious Speech refers to the protection of vulnerable witnesses. From some of the stories that 1 have heard, and while going round the courts and prisons in my county of Sussex, I have appreciated the need for that. From information that I have gathered, many judges do not treat witnesses the same, even in the same legal area. There is a case for uniformity. I have spoken to some judges who seek to bring uniformity at least to their own area. We need steps to protect vulnerable witnesses. I am glad to see that aspect referred to in the gracious Speech.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will consider one small matter in his review of crime. It relates to the state of mind and health report, about which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will know, although non-lawyers in your Lordships' House may not. When a person who has psychiatric problems commits a couple of offences, let us say within a fortnight, he is entitled on each occasion to demand a state of mind and health report. If it is made twice within a fortnight, the report will be exactly the same. It is a great waste of time and expenditure. The

97
Government can economise on their expenditure by changing the rules so that it is not binding on a court to award a right to such a report to an offender.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, spoke about human rights. There are references to human rights in the gracious Speech. I understand that at present the United Nations is considering a human responsibilities charter. I believe that that would be a potent balance to our emphasis on human rights. I welcome the move by the United Nations. I hope that the Government will give consideration to incorporating a human responsibilities charter into our law as they have done the human rights charter. I believe that that is needed to balance the present system.
I have one question on constitutional matters. It does not relate directly to the future of this House. In his admirable address yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, spoke of the manifesto commitment to make Parliament more democratic. If I understood the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, correctly, she said that the Royal Commission will consider the role, function and composition of the House of Lords. My question to the Government is this. At the same time, could not the Royal Commission also consider the same qualities for another place? If we are to have the great procedure of a Royal Commission, could it not endorse the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, to make Parliament more democratic? In his admirable philosophical discourse on democracy today, I wondered whether the noble Lord, Lord Judd, would make the same point: that we need to look at another place as much as at this place. For instance, is the balance of power between the Executive and the legislature in another place correct for the 21st century? I question that.
Members of the general public frequently refer to the use of the guillotine in another place. I know that governments of every colour enjoy the use of the guillotine, but members of the electorate are appalled that another place can be stopped from discussing and considering legislation by the Executive use of the guillotine. I should like a Royal Commission to consider such questions along with issues relating to the role, functions and composition of your Lordships' House. That would be valuable in promoting democracy which, as I understand it, is what this Government wish to do.
There are many valuable issues in the gracious Speech. I do not agree with them all, but I support the legislation that I believe is beneficial to this country.
7.48 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, in the past hours I have been experiencing the terror of someone who realises that the speech he has prepared does not meet the high quality exhibited by his elder Peers. I therefore say that I have learned much and look forward to reading Hansard tomorrow.
I make one request. Could the Government please commission a business consultancy to produce a report on the contribution that active hereditary Peers make in this House; and the likely consequences of their removal?
7.50 p.m.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, as your Lordships know by now, I have a particular interest in consumer issues. I listened carefully to the gracious Speech to hear what good improvements the Government will be making for consumers. I know that there are Members of your Lordships' House who detest the word "consumer". Earlier tonight I had it explained to me over two sherries in the bar, so once again I shall define a consumer. A consumer is each man, woman and child in this country—your Lordships and me—when at some time during each day we use or buy goods or services, whether publicly or privately provided. It is not a citizen's issue; it is a consumer issue. I hope that your Lordships will bear with me and accept the use of the word which some of you find so difficult.
I looked at the gracious Speech to see what good work we could welcome. Some of the work that has been done by our new Government is very good indeed. We have on the statute book a reformed competition policy and we on these Benches have supported it. I was grateful for some of the amendments which were made. We have had White Papers on freedom of information and the Food Standards Agency and utility regulation reform. Therefore, together with many others, in particular the National Federation of Consumer Groups and the National Consumer Council, I am very disappointed that a freedom of information Bill will not be reaching the statute book this Session. I had hoped that this Government would build on the efforts of successive governments who paved the way for a freedom of information Bill this coming year.
The first significant move was in 1977. Then, under the government of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, the Croham Directive was issued by the Head of the Home Civil Service. It created a government policy to publish as much as possible of the analytical material used as the background to major policy studies. While chairman of the National Consumer Council, appointed by the Conservative government, I was free to lobby for more openness from that government—successfully.
The next important development towards freedom of information came during the previous Conservative government. The Prime Minister, John Major, introduced an open government code which came into effect in April 1994. The code set out circumstances in which the government would volunteer information and those in which it would produce information on request to individuals and organisations. People who were refused information under the code could appeal to the Parliamentary Ombudsman and ultimately to his Select Committee. The code was an important step towards opening up government to the scrutiny of the governed. But it operated at the discretion of the government department concerned, and then ultimately at the discretion of the ombudsman. Under this system, which 18 months on still operates, the Government still hold the cards because of its voluntary nature and because the ombudsman has no power to force the Government to provide information.
The White Paper, Your Right to Know, published at the end of last year, proposed significant improvements. It would give people a statutory right of access to all

99
information held by government and their agents unless there was a compelling reason not to disclose it; for instance, in respect of the defence of the realm. This would enshrine an individual's right to information in law. The proposed freedom of information commissioner would have the right to order disclosure and impose penalties for non-compliance.
I wish to give the reason why I, a Conservative, believe that freedom of information legislation is so important for everyone. I will use the example of medicines. In the United Kingdom, the decision about whether a drug should be available is taken by the Committee on the Safety of Medicines. Suppose that I am suffering from a condition for which a new drug is on the market. How do I decide whether to take it? What information will I have available to me on which to base my decision?
My doctor will receive a brief data sheet basically saying who the new drug is intended to help, who should not take it and how it should be used. If I am lucky, I might have a glimpse of that data sheet, but normally I will have instead a patient information sheet with general information about taking drugs and some very basic information about taking this one. Neither I nor my doctor will ever see any information about the trials of the drug or the thinking behind the decision to licence it, including what negative results have been disregarded and why. And, perhaps more importantly, those publications such as Health Which? or the Drugs and Therapeutic Bulletin, which could be providing information to help me decide, have access only to what the doctor receives.
By contrast, in the United States, which already has a Freedom of Information Act, anyone who requests it can get much of the information used by the regulator when deciding whether or not to licence the drug for use. And the regulator will also supply a justification for the licensing decision. While I myself may not want to plough through the hundreds of pages of the licensing information, I would know that the American equivalent of Health Which? or the Drugs and Therapeutic Bulletin had access to the information and would publish it in a way that I can understand. When in this country a drug which I have been taking for perhaps the past 10 years is withdrawn I cannot know or be told why I cannot use it any more. I may be very afraid of what has happened to me in the past 10 years, but ridiculously I can fax to the United States and within seconds receive across the airwaves that information—and that is not from my own country but from a foreign land.
Back in the UK, the regulator will tell me if the drug is safe for me. That has two implications. First, I believe that I have a right to be reassured that the regulator has taken decisions wisely. I can only really have that confidence if the information on which the decisions are based is publicly available. Secondly, once that decision has been made and the medicine which can help my condition is on the market, I need the fullest possible information about all the potential consequences of taking it. Only then can I take an informed decision. I am then "empowered"—something for which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, pleaded in a democracy.
100
Your Lordships may ask what is wrong with the ombudsman taking the decision. Who better than a regulator to decide what is safe? But medicine is not an exact science. There is no absolute safety. A decision to license a drug for use is not based on whether it is absolutely safe but on whether it is safe enough. It is often a political judgment as well as a scientific decision. In relation to drugs, decisions are often based on the absence of evidence that the drug is harmful rather than on the presence of guarantees that it is safe. The people of America can freely know that information, but in the United Kingdom—in my country—I cannot.
The uncertainty for the consumers about whose interests are given priority is compounded by the fact that the Committee on the Safety of Medicines does not contain one consumer representative, although I understand that from next year there are to be two out of a total membership of 34. That is a very closed shop!
A good freedom of information Act would make regulators and government much more accountable to the people on whose behalf they regulate. It would allow us to see the process of regulation, warts and all. If we had a better appreciation of that imperfect science, perhaps we would be more careful and perhaps we would read more carefully the instructions we are given and work in tandem with regulators in order to minimise the risks.
I am sorry that the Government appear to have lost their appetite for freedom of information. If they bottle out by giving our people a weaker Act than the White Paper promised, or if they let freedom of information quietly slip off the legislative agenda, we will all be the poorer in two ways. First, consumers will not have access to vital information to help them make proper decisions about important aspects of their lives. Secondly, the myth will be perpetuated that regulators, being all knowing and all powerful, can be left to make important decisions for the people of Britain while we sit back, childlike in our innocence.
In a world of ever-higher technology, rapid growth in our medical capabilities, vast multi-national enterprises, mass consumption on an even bigger scale and increasingly complicated investment opportunities, that myth cannot be maintained for much longer.
Over several decades, but notably more in opposition than in government, the party opposite has spoken with a great passion about the need for open government. But rather like an unfortunate groom, just as this Government's enthusiasm for the consummation of a partnership with the consumer is reaching its peak, their passion appears to be deserting them. I warned that the result is likely to be deep disappointment for the bewildered bride. For the sake of all Britain's consumers, I hope that the Government rediscover their ardour—and soon.
8 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, in addressing the House, I remind your Lordships that I have no interest to declare. If I am abolished tomorrow, well and good. If I am not, nature will do it in any event.

101
I wish to refer to two politicians whose speeches I have studied: Robert Walpole and Edmund Burke. They gave much attention to the representation of interests but they did not give any sort of exhaustive analysis of the ambiguity in both those words.
First, I take the word "representation". We say that a sample represents the bulk from which it is drawn. That is a short-term affair because the bulk from which it is drawn in nature will be changing the whole time. Your Lordships are well aware of the results of opinion samples in newspapers. From time to time, there is a surprise because public opinion has changed completely from what it was on the last occasion.
Then there is the other sense of the word "representation" where a barrister represents his client in court. That is a totally different meaning from the sampling of a procedure. That is a professional meaning of the word "representation".
As regards interests, there are two kinds of interests— short-term interests, which is what people want, and long-term interests which is what they need. An alcoholic wants a drink. That is a short-term want that can be serviced by the nearest bartender. What he needs is drying out. That is a long-term professional business.
If we then combine the two, we have a model for the House of Commons and the House of Lords with the House of Commons tending to people's short-term wants and the House of Lords tending to their long-term needs. One must note that people are frequently reluctant to take good advice when it is given. Therefore, the House of Commons would have the last word when wants and needs conflict.
How can we avoid the nomination to this House falling into the hands of one person? We can do that if, following the abolition of the hereditary peerage, we start to build a House from the professions.
I have found some figures. I must confess that they are about two years old, so they are probably out of date. However, 225 hereditary Peers were members of one of the chartered professional institutes out of a total membership of 527. Therefore, approximately 50 per cent, of the membership of this House has a professional standing and half of that comprises hereditary Peers. Their average attendances compare favourably with party attendances in the House. My statistics show that 34 is the average attendance of a professional man in this House. That compares with 30 for the Conservatives, 41 for Labour, 37 for the Liberal Democrats and 27 for the Cross Benches. In the future, we may turn the House of Lords into a senate of the professional classes, thus giving the patronage such a wide distribution—there are more than 91 chartered institutes—that it can never get into one pair of hands and end up virtually a unicameral legislature because, of course, that would be on the way to dictatorship. I agree very much with the picture painted by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, about the dangers of that. We must avoid it at all costs.
So the model I have given is a model for the eventual Royal Commission to study and to fill in the details which I have only sketched for your Lordships' House.
102
In the meantime, I must deal with things as they are. One of the works I commend to your Lordships for study is a book by a German sociologist, one Helmut Schoek. It is an extremely large, fat and expensive book which I bought and gave to the Library. At least one person has borrowed it because I cannot get it back again to check the quotation for the time being. But Schoek has a very high reputation and his generalisation at the end of his study on envy is that equalitarian societies are envy-ridden societies. That is something from which we must suffer. That is why the hereditary House of Lords has become a target for envy, much more than it was in the past. Exactly how we are to cure that manifestation, I do not know.
In conclusion, I was rather struck by what seemed a complete irrelevance in the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, in the last Session of Parliament when we had the two-day debate on the constitutional future of the House of Lords. She suddenly threw in, as though it were a criticism of the hereditary Peers, that 45 per cent, of them had been at Eton. Exactly what was the relevance of that I cannot imagine. However, out of curiosity, I started to check on the statistics of Prime Ministers from Robert Walpole to Harold Macmillan. I found that 41 per cent, of them had been at Eton which compares favourably with the 45 per cent, quoted by the noble Baroness. I do not know what inspired her to that quotation and I am sorry that she is not here to answer for herself. She has a copy of the statistics. I have given them also to all leaders of parties in both Houses and to my friends. Having said that, the time has come to sit down and just hope that things come out all right in the wash.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Harding of Petherton: My Lords, due to other commitments, I too was unable to speak in the two-day debate on the reform of this House which took place in the last Session. Therefore, I am afraid that I shall talk about reform of this House and I hope that I shall not bore your Lordships in so doing.
As an hereditary Peer, I recognise that it is time that we departed as legislators. Indeed, as was stated implicitly in the Parliament Act 1911, that has been so for the past 87 years. It is not the fault of hereditary Peers that they have remained in Parliament for so long. If blame should be apportioned, the fault is with the governments and MPs over those years.
The difficulty has always been to devise a membership of the second Chamber so that it has legitimacy and yet does not take away the overriding power of the House of Commons. Many believed that by instituting life Peers, the problem was solved. Some still believe that. I am afraid that I do not share that belief.
This House as at present constituted is very good at revising legislation. Not all government amendments are as a result of the second thoughts of Ministers and civil servants. Academics speaking about this House often do not know what they are talking about and they get it wrong. Many amendments are as a result of Peers from the other two parties and the Cross-Benches forcing the

103
government of the day to produce their own amendments. That is particularly so when the government have a small majority in the other place, which happened before the last election. Government Ministers and their civil servants are loath to accept amendments other than their own. However, when it comes to contentious legislation, because of the large hereditary element in this place, the House of Lords cannot do its job properly. That has become glaringly obvious in recent weeks over the closed list system in the European Parliamentary Elections Bill. Because of its make-up, large numbers of the general public and respected political journalists such as Mr. Peter Riddell (who talks a great deal of sense), believed that the House of Lords had no right to hold up that Bill, even though they may not like the closed list system; even though it is quite legitimate—as other noble Lords have said much better than I—under our constitution that the House of Lords can only hold it up for a year. It was seen as an outrage.
We must have an upper House that is perceived as legitimate enough to be able to insist on amendments and, if necessary, to hold up a Bill for a year. Whatever the composition of this House, there will always be governments and their supporters—in the Commons and outside—who will be outraged at the Commons being defied and having legislation held up. However, the general public will not be concerned if the House of Lords is looked upon as a legitimate check on the government of the day.
Obviously, a reformed House should not do that too often. As presently constituted, this House has rarely sent back amendments or held up Bills such as the War Crimes Bill and, more recently, the European Parliamentary Elections Bill. The amendments insisted upon must have wide support with respected opinion in the country. As the Leader of the House said, if not today during earlier exchanges, why have not the Conservatives (my party) done this before? I would have supported my party leadership if they had. But that is easier said than done. As the Labour Party is aware, it must carry its supporters with it. At the moment the Labour Party seems to have solved that problem and is managing to do it with a small leadership. But for how long? In the end the party's supporters must be brought along.
Conservatives—with both a big "C" and a little "c"— have great affection for the House of Lords as it is presently constituted. I spoke to a Conservative audience three-and-a-half years ago in Dorset and said to them that hereditary Peers should go and the House of Lords should be reformed. It did not go down at all well. If I had been well known or a thrusting ambitious young Turk, my line of argument might have produced results. However, as a Back-Bench Peer it did not seem to me that I would do any good trying to change traditional attitudes.
That is why my party leadership has not wanted to tackle the problem in recent years. I would have liked my right honourable friend John Major, when he was Prime Minister, to have done so, but he would have had to carry Conservative opinion in the country with him. The easy part would have been to carry both life and
104
hereditary Peers and MPs; the difficult part is to carry Conservative voters and conservative thinkers. I have talked to many people about the reform of the House of Lords and was often told, "We like this place". They did not necessarily vote Conservative in the last election. They like the House as it is. Opinion polls show that many people throughout the country— perhaps even those who vote Labour—may not like what the House of Lords does, but have affection for it.
I have great sympathy with those who say, "If it works, don't fix it" and "No change for change's sake". But the present arrangements do not work and it is important that they are fixed. I may be accused of hypocrisy in holding those views. But I have been interested in politics since I was a boy and have therefore been extremely lucky to be able to come here regularly over the past seven-and-a-half years. As my noble friend Lady Strange said, to me it is a perfect place; it has a marvellous atmosphere; but as a hereditary Peer I recognise that it is an anachronism, and has been for a long time.
The Prime Minister said that he will divest his office of most of the appointments of life Peers to the House of Lords. That is welcome. We will take him at his word, though we must also see that it is laid down by statute. In my opinion, that is still not good enough. The upper Chamber must have a substantial elected element. As my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said this afternoon, it may be that a wholly-elected second Chamber is the only real answer in the end. However, that is not realistic in the foreseeable future. Hereditary Peers may go with regret and resignation; I cannot see life Peers leaving so easily.
I would favour a partly-elected upper House as an interim measure. Although I am totally against proportional representation for election to the House of Commons, I do not see why it should not be applicable for Members of the upper House—but no closed lists. The Government say that they are determined to reform the House of Lords in two stages. That was stated in the gracious Speech. I urge the Government to be wary of doing that and to think again even at this late stage. Reform should be undertaken in one go. I will support my noble friend Lord Cranbome in any parliamentary action he takes and advises us on these Benches to take to force the Government to change their mind. However, I am not in favour of the proposal of my noble friend Lord Onslow to act as hooligans. That is not the way that Members of your Lordships' House should act and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Cranborne will not be doing that. I shall trust his judgment.
With the election of the Labour Government with a large majority and a mandate to do away with hereditary Peers, we on these Benches must face reality. However, as far as we are able, we must insist that proper reform takes place which preserves this House as a revising Chamber with a legitimacy recognised by the majority of the electorate. I look forward to the Government's White Paper and the setting up of the Royal Commission.
8.17 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I wish to speak on the legal affairs aspect of this debate which has so far not attracted a great deal of comment. Yesterday in the gracious Speech there appeared the commitment:
"My Government will introduce legislation to modernise legal aid to make the system fairer and more cost effective; to provide for a community legal service; and to make other changes to overhaul the justice system".
In the other place the Prime Minister confined himself to saying that legal aid would be "radically" transformed. This afternoon the Leader of the House stated that, with what she called a "heartland" issue for the Government,
"citizens [will have] better access to justice in our courts".
As a still practising solicitor after 34 years' qualification, who spent five years in a general country practice before setting up my own firm in London, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on what seems to me a crucial underlying issue vis-àvis justice; namely, access. My preoccupation goes back a long way. I seem to recollect that the Lord Chancellor and I were in attendance at a conference in Oxford in 1967 or 1968 which preceded the launch of that seminal Fabian pamphlet, Justice for All. Whatever I may say by way of criticism, I do not doubt the just and good intent of the proposals which the Government have put forward. Afterwards I was the first chairman of the Legal Action Group.
I make two things clear. The first is that, showing proper concern for the cost of legal aid to the taxpayer and with the ballooning complexity of ordinary citizens' legal lives, there are no easy answers to legal aid improvements, especially if there is no extra money. In the present year the net cost of all legal aid will be £1.6 billion, split roughly one-third each in respect of crime, family and civil legal aid. In fact last year legal aid expenditure was less than budget, and in three years' time the Government estimate that it will have dropped to £1.55 billion. Given that this sum is not inflation adjusted and that the cost of running legal services, as with health, tends to run ahead of inflation, that represents a significant real decline in solicitors' income.
If calls on the system go on rising—and last year they were three per cent, up at 2.3 million cases—the shoe, already pinching, will pinch even more for the hard-pressed legal aid solicitor. Rates of reward for legal aid work have fallen further and further behind inflation, and even more behind remuneration for private practice, particularly for commercial firms. For example, the hourly rates for giving advice under what is called green form legal aid work is rather less than the typical central city firm will charge for the time of a trainee solicitor. By and large, legal aid work is hard, intensely pressurised and attracts little public notice, thanks or esteem.
Many are giving up, heading for easier pastures, and I predict that many more will do so if these reforms come to pass unaltered. The thrust of the Government's proposals is to seek to control legal aid, both as to cost and quality, principally by means of what is called
106
exclusive contracting. Over five years ago the previous government introduced franchising of legal aid, giving firms which took out a franchise—and there was no exclusivity, importantly—some modest advantages over those who simply did legal aid work on a case-by-case basis, particularly in terms of more regular payment.
The Government wish to take this process a crucial stage further and over time propose to confine legal aid work to those firms which comply with the whole range of Legal Aid Board criteria and tender for the work covered by exclusive contracts at a price which the board is willing to accept. The overwhelming effect of the exclusive contracting proposals will be an unprecedented and dramatic reduction in the number of solicitors and firms doing legal aid. Whereas at present there are no fewer than 11,000 solicitors' offices undertaking some legal aid work, the Legal Aid Board proposes that only 2,000 to 3,000 exclusive contracts will be awarded to solicitors in the family case category, and a mere 100 to 200 contracts to cover other areas of civil work.
On top of that, 200 to 300 contracts are expected to be awarded to charity providers of legal services—and I wholly applaud that—the majority of them in the field of death and welfare benefits. The Prime Minister was certainly right when he said legal aid would be radically transformed. Who could have believed that it would be at the expense—not just the choice—in a minority of cases of any practical access to lawyers at all?
Yet geographical access, I need hardly say, is vital. The issues we are dealing with here have some similarity to the plight of the general store in villages or country towns without the countervailing benefit of big firms panting to snaffle their business at cheaper rates. The reality here is the very reverse. The larger firms of solicitors have much bigger fish to fry at far, far higher fees. When Sir Hartley Shawcross, as he then was, moved the Second Reading of the Legal Aid and Advice Bill in 1948, he said that the Bill was,
"the charter of the little man to the British courts of justice."
So it was, but whatever else this Bill is, it is certainly not an "access to justice Bill" at all. If one remembers that legal aid is these days available to less than half the population—originally it covered 80 per cent.—and if one realises that for all the general affluence, a sizeable and increasing minority of our countrymen are poor as well as confused and if one recollects, too, that for all the general mobility, public transport is simply not available in many parts of the country and invariably expensive when it is, and if perhaps above all one realises that there is a major psychological barrier to access to legal services, one will then realise what a catastrophic reform this has the potential to be.
In response, the Legal Aid Board will say, as reported to the Lord Chancellor last month, that access is really not a problem. What it calls "outreach work", particularly via telephone services, is to be the substitute. The board claim that,
"these outreach services may provide us with a means of ensuring access in certain rural areas and for specific client groups."
The PSI research on which this startling judgment is based seems seriously inadequate to support such a heavy weight of policy. In saying that, I make no

107
criticism of the researchers. They were not asked to do any research with solicitors in private practice at all but confined themselves to charitable organisations, 200 to 300 of which will be awarded contracts.
Secondly, the researchers were not asked to look at the results of the advice by telephone from the client's viewpoint, nor at the objective quality of the advice given. In short, they did not look at actual cases but at systems. The whole tendency of the proposed exclusive contracting reforms and, to be fair, some which have preceded them, will be to create a two-tier and ultimately two-class profession—something which the original architects of the legal aid scheme strove mightily to prevent.
Already many firms which undertake a significant amount of legal aid work are asking: is it worth it? Even if they are able to meet the new criteria for exclusive contracts, the bureaucracy, the inflexibility and the demands of the new legal aid regime are increasingly being seen as too onerous. Perhaps I may read briefly from a letter I received only today from a practitioner in Gravesend, Richard Miller, chairman of the Legal Aid Practitioners Group, which comprises 600 firms, and who therefore knows what he is talking about:
"This firm is a typical High Street practice. We have one office, four partners, 10 other fee earning staff and around 20 support staff. We are the only firm in this town which holds a welfare benefits franchise which means that we have demonstrated quality standards in the advice we give in this complex area. At any one time, we are handling between 60 and 80 welfare benefits matters of varying degrees of complexity. We probably handle at least 200–300 cases in the course of a year. Under the new scheme being proposed for next year, there is a requirement that the person in charge of the welfare benefits department should personally carry out at least 350 hours of work on welfare benefits matters. Because the rates of pay for this work are so low, the only economic way to do it is to delegate the more mundane aspects of the work to more junior staff. The new scheme prevents this from being done. The result of this is that when exclusive contracting is brought in, my firm will probably not be able to apply for a contract and this firm's years of experience in dealing with welfare benefits matters will be lost to the local community."
That is a pretty sobering and depressing letter. What one is seeing, I believe, is that the firms currently doing legal aid, which are supported by more profitable work, will no longer be able to rely on that as the scheme develops and the effects of it have their impact. They will fall further and further behind the profitability of private client practitioners, and the chances of this or any other government devoting significantly more funds to the legal aid scheme, particularly to improve the remuneration rates for the lawyers involved, can be more or less written off. This is all too likely to lead to demoralisation and a decline in standards, quite apart from reduced geographical access. No amount of externally applied quality assurance standards will be able to remedy that.
The belief of those on these Benches and my own conclusion, based on a great deal of knowledge and discussion I have had with other members of my profession in legal aid practices, is that the total impact of exclusive franchising will be to produce a dramatic reduction in access. I put it to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that to reduce the number of solicitors' firms available for legal aid from the current
108
11,000 to a mere 3,000 has obvious consequences. I very sincerely hope that even at this stage there will be a serious review of that central proposal and its effects.
I, and I am sure many in the House, will be wholly behind the Government's aspirations vis-à-vis a community legal service. It has been argued for by Liberal Democrats and lawyers for a very long time. We shall do everything possible to make it an effective reality. But on the issue of access there seems to be absolutely no doubt but that the consequences will be a disaster for the most vulnerable sections of our community and in time will lead to a two-class solicitors' practice and profession with predictable consequences for those who most need those services. It is a dry subject. I remind the House that behind legal aid stands a concept built into the very bones of this place; namely, the notion that, as Magna Carta decreed,
"to no one will we sell, deny, or delay right or justice".
8.32 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, in his opening speech my noble friend Lord Cranborne drew attention to the number of times that the word "modernise" was used in the gracious Speech. There is a danger that if the Government go on using that word as a cloak for unsound policies it will become like the word "peace" in the early days of the Cold War. They will discredit the word and discredit an admirable purpose.
It seems that the Government are seeking to race forward at such a pace and on such a wide spectrum in changing our constitution that there is a real danger that our very fragile and complicated constitution could be reduced to a shambles. That would destroy one of our historic strengths. For centuries the British constitution, from Westminster to judicial review, has been most effective in protecting us from tyranny and in protecting the individual from ill-treatment by the Executive. If it were harmed that would diminish our influence abroad. I remind the Government—although I am sure they are fully aware of it—that British influence on the world scene is now far greater than our economic weight alone would justify, and long may it be so.
As regards House of Lords reform, I myself start from five propositions. First, a second chamber is essential. Secondly, the present House of Lords does a pretty good job in practice. Thirdly, we should not expect an elected chamber to do a better job. Indeed, I contend that it is likely to do a less good job. That would apply even more to a partly elected House. Fourthly, to distinguish between the legitimacy of hereditary and life Peers is wholly spurious. Fifthly, we should recognise that the Government are quite determined to seek to end the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords.
In the short time I have at this late hour, I shall focus on the third, fourth and fifth of those propositions. With regard to an elected second chamber, I have a real worry about the legislative quality of the House of Commons. In the time I have observed it, it has deteriorated and it is continuing to deteriorate. That deterioration can be measured in two ways. First, there is the decreasing independence of view and action; and, secondly, the

109
falling level of expertise and experience from outside. Partly that is the unavoidable consequence of large majorities, which applies to any government. More seriously, it is the product of the overkill of the early Nolan philosophy, the apparent assumption, certainly by the media and to a most regrettable extent by the Nolan Committee, of the infinite corruptibility of MPs. That has already introduced conditions of membership which are making many who would previously have contemplated a parliamentary career unwilling to do so. A distinguished Member of this House, a Cross-Bencher, said to me yesterday, "Treat MPs like pygmies and you get pygmies". I hope that the new Neill Committee will be less reactive to tabloid pressure.
The concept of legitimacy put forward so frequently by government Ministers is clearly flawed. Hereditary Peers are constitutionally every bit as legitimate as life Peers. Frankly, in terms of democracy, it is hard to see more than a shade of difference. Certainly, I have never seen myself as a jot more legitimate in purely democratic terms than my hereditary colleagues. Until there is a legislative change, hereditary Peers are legitimate and should be treated as such. I echo the argument used by the noble Lord, Lord Shore, last week and so powerfully reinforced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, this afternoon. Therefore, I ask that from now on we hear from Ministers no more of the legitimacy argument about hereditary and life Peers.
However, I am prepared to accept that the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords should be removed. Therefore, I support those words in both the Labour manifesto and the gracious Speech. The reasons I am prepared to go that far are: first, the theoretical membership of the House of Lords, at 1,300, is far too large, and, at 750, there are too many hereditary Peers. Many do not attend at all. In the 1995–96 Session, which lasted 136 days, 165 Peers never came to the House. In the 1996–97 Session, which was a short Session of 79 days, 181 Peers never attended. Therefore, in practice those particular hereditary Peers are not legislators.
Some attend infrequently. We must admit that in the past they have come to muster support for the Tory Party. If we consider those who attend, but for less than one day in four, in the 1995 Session there were a further 240 Peers. In 1996–97, 209 Peers attended for less than one day in four. I can understand why the Labour Party sees the arrival of backwoodsmen as an objectionable practice. Thus one can probably say that of the 750 hereditary Peers some 400 are in a sense "out of the frame". Some of those who attend regularly appear to make little contribution. I emphasise that that applies just as much to life Peers who attend quite frequently. There are a very few—they get plenty of media coverage—who, it is generally accepted, are not appropriate candidates as legislators.
I understand that regular attenders are classified as those who attend more than one day in three. Over the two most recent Sessions that covers about 210 hereditary Peers and 230 life Peers. If we are a little more rigorous and suggest that attendance on half the
110
days that Parliament sits makes for regular attendance, then for those two Sessions the figure is 160 hereditaries and about 180 life Peers.
So I start from full agreement with the Government's fundamental position. But then we come to the crucial question of how to achieve that, and of course then we are back to the old argument about babies and bath water. I have been a Member of this House for seven years and I have been immensely struck by the hard, effective, unpaid work which our hereditary colleagues perform. We have in this country a tremendous tradition of voluntary service, at every level of government, from the grass roots of the parish council to the House of Lords—and, indeed, at every level of charitable body. It would appear that the Government are proposing, at one legislative stroke, to eliminate this in one of its most distinguished forms. This I totally reject.
The figures I quoted earlier suggest that, very roughly, the work of the House of Lords is divided fairly evenly between hereditary and life Peers. Just to illustrate that—admittedly, arbitrarily and subjectively—some of the hereditaries we would lose from the clean sweep approach would include: on the Labour Benches, the noble Lords, Lord Strabolgi, Lord Genfell and Lord Berkeley; on the Liberal Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury; on my own Benches, the distinguished scientific experience of the noble Earls, Lord Selborne and Lord Cranbrook; and on the Cross-Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and my noble kinswoman, the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth.
How, therefore, can the Labour manifesto commitment be implemented while, at the same time, ensuring that hereditary Peers continue to make their contribution within the parliamentary framework?
I, for one, would find it quite unacceptable if behind closed doors deals were made between the two opposition parties and the Cross-Benches for a certain limited number of their flocks to be made life Peers. That would be a malignant combination of patronage and cronyism. It would be as bad as the closed list for the European Parliament, eliminating the awkward squad, leaving only the safe supporters—the poodles, not the rottweilers. I do not believe that individual hereditaries should depend on the usual channels for their lifeboat. What a lesson we have to learn from the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, who, in his maiden speech, made a fascinating reference to what Edward Gibbon said on this subject.
How, therefore, do we achieve the result that we all want and accommodate the Labour manifesto? First, let us consider Privy Counsellors. Membership of the Privy Council reflects one of the highest tributes to eminence in public life. Being a Privy Counsellor is probably much better than being a Knight and so on. There are 192 Privy Counsellors in your Lordships' House. Of those, 30 are hereditary Peers. I would hope that all of those would be allowed to stay.
In addition, I believe that there should be an electoral college formed from the 500 hereditary Peers who have been the most active attenders in the last two Sessions, and that they should be empowered to elect 100 of their

111
number for a Parliament. Such a scheme would conveniently mean that the size of this House would be reduced to approximately the same size as the House of Commons. It could be seen as an interim stage, to continue until the Royal Commission had completed its work. I have some confidence that it would form a very satisfactory long-term framework for the House of Lords.
I have declared myself to be sympathetic to the stated objective of the Government. However, I would oppose with all my vigour a clean sweep of all the hereditaries. The status quo would be much better than that.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, could he clarify something? I think he said that about 250 hereditary Peers attended each day. The exact number does not matter, but was he implying that it was the same hereditary Peers who attended each day?
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, the figures I gave were the figures of those individuals who attend more than a certain number of days in each Session.
8.44 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I rise to speak to two aspects of the gracious Speech. The first is the access to justice Bill, which was effectively dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. No doubt the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will comment on the noble Lord's remarks.
Anyone who has been a Member of Parliament for a constituency, as I had the privilege of being for a number of years, cannot but help reflect on those occasions when poor, well-driven people came to their Member of Parliament—not to solve their housing problems, educational problems or immigration problems, but because, by one means or another, they had strayed into a need for access to justice.
Although we are well aware in general of the good work done by the legal aid system, in my experience there has always been a great need to improve access to justice. As I see it, the access to justice Bill is part of a broader programme of modernising justice. It would aim to fulfil a manifesto pledge to create a community legal service. It would help to create a fair and efficient system of justice, operating in the interests of the people who use it and the wider public. It would encourage a greater range of high-quality, value-for-money legal services for those who need them most. It would make the best possible use of the public money which supports legal services, reduce restrictive practices in the legal profession, simplify and speed up civil court procedures and help government initiatives to tackle crime by reforms in the courts.
I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and I respect his vast experience. He has laid a number of challenges before the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to be dealt with in his wind-up speech, which I have every confidence he will rise to. Apart from that, I am not competent to make any further comment. I
112
speak from the heart on the need for what is set out. Whether it will achieve the objective or not, I do not know.
Secondly, I applaud the Bill to deprive hereditary Peers of the right to sit and vote in this Chamber. I have listened, sometimes with sadness, to the way in which Members on both sides of the argument feel it necessary to sneer at and attack the motives, the background and the historical interest which Members of the hereditary peerage bring. That is not the way to win arguments. Over the next period I look forward to taking part in debates which are well fought, hard fought and in which those on both sides of the argument will speak with passion.
I can fully understand the feelings of an hereditary Peer whose family has enjoyed the privilege of that position for 100, 200, 400 years and the sadness with which he and his family may view the loss of his ability to sit and vote as being the end of the world. It is not. All that it says is that it deprives the person of the right to sit and vote in this place. I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, when he objected to the spurious difference that had been cleaved between hereditary and life Peers. I make no distinction. We are all politicians. We are all members of a political House. The basis and the raison d'être for the Opposition fighting so strongly is that it is selectively to be deprived of one of its most powerful political weapons: that before a vote is taken, because of an accident of birth, they can rely on a whole swath of people. When people say "Well, Ted, if it was reversed what would you say?", I think I would fight just as hard not to lose the privilege, not to lose the majority. They have got it. We ought not to be mealy mouthed. The Opposition is fighting to retain something which has been in their party interests for hundreds of years. We are entitled to try to deprive them of it.
In the past few weeks I have been interested to see how the Opposition have tried to turn the issue into one of "Tony's cronies" and have suggested that the House will be filled with Labour nominees. Not for the first time the Library has produced some interesting statistics. I have before me a document setting out Peerage creations between 1958 and 1998. According to the record, over the whole of that period 945 life Peers were created. Of those 945 life Peers, the present Prime Minister has to his credit 105, which is 9 per cent, of the total. Under the column headed Thatcher, we see that 216 life Peers were created, which is 23 per cent. of the total. Under the column headed Major, we see that 171 life Peers were created, which is 18 per cent. of the total. The administrations of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, and John Major created four times as many life Peers as Tony Blair has created. Therefore, the party opposite ought to reflect seriously on whether they are misusing the argument.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, should not the noble Lord allow for the fact that we have had to put up with Mr. Blair for only 18 months whereas the Tory administrations lasted for that number of years?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, if we are going to debate this matter, it should be recognised that

113
two points are already on the record. First, unlike the Conservative Party, the Labour Party has declared that it does not wish to see any party with a majority in this House, as the party opposite has enjoyed for many years. Secondly, the Prime Minister has said that he is not only willing but he will give up his ultimate right of patronage. Those are two enormous gifts and that ought to be part of the record.
Earlier this afternoon the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, wondered where the Government's right to act in this matter as they are acting has come from. The answer is simple. It comes from the other House. The other House is largely peopled by Labour Members of Parliament who were put there by the electorate. The doctrine of the mandate is clear and the mandate indicated that, as a first self-contained step, the Government would proceed with these matters. I am well aware that, although a party may win one general election, there is no guarantee that it will win the next election. It ought not to take the electorate for granted. I do not believe that my right honourable friend is doing that.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and others have argued that we are acting too hastily. They say that they share our view that reform is needed and change is required. For 18 years, with absolute power, the party opposite did not lift a finger. However, as soon as this Government bring forward their plans, there is a cry of "haste". I make a genuine offer to all the hereditary Peers to whom I want to give their cards. I have in my hand a postcard. It states, "Labour clears the way", and on it there is the House of Lords being battered by the workers. What I have in my hand is a facsimile of a poster by the Labour Party in 1910. We have been attempting to make a change of some kind—noble Lords will be aware that the policy has changed over the years—so I do not think it is fair to argue that we are acting with undue haste.
What propositions have been advanced by the other side? I do not think that we have heard anything sensible. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, alleges that the House is being sold snake oil by snake oil salesmen. I can advise him that the best way to apply snake oil is to rub it in, and I enjoy doing a bit of that using snake oil at the moment. For too long Members on this side of the House have won the argument on many an issue but have lost the vote by virtue of the votes of hereditary Peers.
Perhaps I may remind the House that when last week noble Lords on the Benches opposite argued against the Government they constantly used the term, "We are doing it on principle". I remind the House—
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord to address a problem which has perplexed English government for a long time. I refer to the enormous executive control of the House of Commons. A former leader of the Labour Party reminded his Members of Parliament that unless they wore his dog collar they could not get elected. Does the
114
noble Lord, as a former Member of the House of Commons who cracked legs, not feel that he should give some consideration to this point?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I find it rich to hear that coming from the party opposite, which has enjoyed an in-built majority of 300 or 400 over Labour's hereditary Peers. I find it rich that those who have enjoyed and misused their power here are now, when the boot is on the other foot in the other place, arguing for the Government to call off the dogs and to give them a chance. The people of this country were invited by the noble Lord's party and by mine to express their views in a democratic election. The party opposite was whipped; it was rejected; it was run out of office. I am not going to wave goodbye. What has happened is the result of democracy. We know what happens to people who argue that it is better to run the ship with a smaller number. All I say is that the House of Commons reflects the will of the people in a free election.
We hear the constant cry, "Why change the House of Lords? It works". Of course it has worked: it has worked for the party opposite. That is why it does not want to change the House of Lords. It wants to keep the House as it is. Let me remind the House of some of the issues on which the party opposite felt on principle it ought to use its hereditary majority and get its way. On 12th February 1996 an amendment to the Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill, extending grants to people with learning difficulties, was rejected on a majority of the hereditary Peers' vote. On 24th June an amendment to the Asylum and Immigration Bill, to exclude unaccompanied children from fast-track asylum procedures, was rejected by the party opposite on the weight of the votes of the hereditary Peers. On 25th June an amendment to the Housing Bill, giving greater security to temporarily housed homeless families, was rejected. Where were their principles on all of those issues? The principles they operated on were, "We have power and we are going to use it and abuse it".
Many of us will remember that during the war Churchill said to Roosevelt, "Give us the tools and we will finish the job". On 1st May the British people gave us the tools, and this time we intend to finish the job.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may quite calmly ask him a question. I have a great respect for the noble Lord, as the House knows. He said that the Government have a mandate. Of course, they have a vast mandate. Let us assume that some people read the manifesto and let us assume that at that time they all thought it was a good idea to do away with hereditary Peers, without, so to speak, putting anything else in their place and to set up a wholly nominated Chamber. The noble Lord talks about a mandate. Surely the noble Lord will accept that that mandate no longer subsists; it is long past its sell-by date.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, whose views I respect. I refer to a mandate which is clear and unambiguous. However, I take his point as

115
regards whether many people or any people read it in detail. The first part of the mandate is clear; namely, that a self-contained piece of legislation will remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote. Like many others I am agog to know the precise details of what will follow in the second stage. Of course it would have been easy for the Government or their policy makers to produce a detailed second stage, in which case noble Lords opposite would have latched their teeth onto it straight away. The Government are undertaking the widest possible consultation to which everyone can contribute and out of which I hope will arise a better second Chamber.
9p.m.
Lord Sudeley: My Lords, in contrast to the speech we have just heard, I believe that the Bill to eliminate the hereditary peerage is a tragedy owing to the understanding which the aristocracy has of inheritance and tradition. As regards the power of inheritance and tradition, one has to consider only the existence of the present state of Israel.
During the summer Recess the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, who is a hard rationalist on matters of House of Lords reform, wrote to me to say that during the debate on the future of the House which took place last month the Government would answer the question which I put to her in my correspondence as regards whether any Bill to abolish the hereditary peerage would be illegal under the Parliament Acts. As no answer was given by the Government during that debate—rather on the level that not answering letters is the way the world works—I had to table a Question for Written Answer on this subject so that the question cannot be evaded.
Under the Parliament Acts we are used to the inability of the House to delay legislation from the other place for more than a year. However, with the abolition of the hereditary peerage we may be entering a different area. Is it legal under the Parliament Acts for one House to dismantle the other House without its consent; in other words, can Parliament commit hara-kiri with itself?
During a speech which he made before the election, the Prime Minister said that his fundamental objection to hereditary Peers—whose titles, he said, emanate from illegitimacy in the Royal bedchamber, though, in point of fact, it is more often the case that they were awarded for honourable service to the government (if we cannot libel the dead at least we should honour them)—is that they have voting rights and thereby provide an in-built Tory majority in this House. However, speaking rights are much more important than voting rights. In consequence of speaking rights things happen. We have to consider only the number of amendments won in this House simply by argument on the Floor of the Chamber in Committee. In consequence of the debate which I introduced in the House in 1973 on the export of manuscripts—one of the quiet glories of England which represent the continuity of our institutions since the Middle Ages—the provision of copies of manuscripts going overseas has much improved. Our present Government seek to disrupt that continuity.
116
Without the success of my Prayer Book protection Bill in 1981, it is thought that the Prayer Book would have disappeared. That was an important victory as the new services secularise Christianity when that is not what Christianity is about. I can claim only less than half the credit for that victory, as much was due to the skill with which Professor David Martin of the London School of Economics handled a press conference so that not a single national newspaper did not favour the traditionalist case.
I may be an hereditary Peer and a Tory Back-Bencher, further to the right than my own side, but I believe the situation is difficult when so many hereditary Peers do not believe in their own case. We need to rely on a life Peer to advocate our cause. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is the best advocate of our cause. On individual issues I have received much support from Labour parliamentarians. My debate on the export of historic manuscripts was suggested to me by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who was then on the Labour Front Bench. As regards my Prayer Book protection Bill, my principal supporter was the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara. My forthcoming initiative on bankruptcy has been much welcomed by a Labour Member of the other place, the Member for Great Grimsby, with whom I am working over opposition to usury in its old sense of lending money without taking a share of the risk. I hope that more parliamentarians will join our isolated cause. Usury was appropriately condemned in the Middle Ages. When Henry I was absent, this House emasculated all moneylenders and the present damage caused by usury is evident when banks need the support of public opinion for the sake of their own custom. With the present Government's conviction as regards political democracy, why do they not give us economic democracy, with the abolition of usury and the reassumption by elected governments of the supply of our money on a debt-free basis?
During the debate last month on the future of the House of Lords much was said about the danger—by the removal of the independent hereditary element of the House of Lords—of not curbing the power of the Executive. This quarrel has existed ever since the struggle in the Middle Ages between the Crown and the baronage, to whom I was then related. In the Chronicle of Robert of Gloucester there is a vivid account of how during the conflict between Henry III and the baronage the barons' sheriff of Gloucestershire was ridden over by horses on the royal side. The Quinquennial Act is important. Whatever mask may be assumed by the Government as regards greater democracy, we are moving in the direction of a dictatorship, not only in this area but in other areas too.
The Home Secretary has advocated the abolition of the Royal Prerogative. The arrest of General Pinochet took place without consideration of whether we have an independent judiciary. Shakespeare and Bernard Shaw would have dealt with all this very well but they are now both dead. We need another gifted playwright to take over and to lay on an entertainment for us in the West End. The Prime Minister's smile may destroy him in the end.
9.6 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, today has been a truly historic day because I believe it is the first day in living memory, perhaps in all history, when a Lord Chancellor has sat in your Lordships' House elsewhere than on the Woolsack. I look forward to the even more historic day when for the first time he will wear his trousers in this House!
But, more seriously, we are now at the start of an historic Session. Today's debate has not matched the seriousness of the occasion, which is perhaps inevitable. That is because what we have had is largely a re-run of the debate we had some six weeks ago. When expressing reservations about the quality of the debate today, I wish to make an exception for the three maiden speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, made a thoughtful and constructive speech. The brevity and charm of the noble Earl, Lord Dunmore, set an example which some other noble Lords would have been wise to copy. I hope that they will both forgive me if I give a particular welcome to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell. I do so because he now holds an office, that of the Master of University College, Oxford, which my father held some 40 years ago. The noble Lord spoke today with the experience and wisdom derived from a long and brilliant career in the Civil Service.
The debate today has been on legal as well as constitutional affairs. Not surprisingly, constitutional affairs have dominated. Legal affairs have been touched on only to a limited extent, notably in the most distinguished speech by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, and in the powerful speech by my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury.
It is difficult to make comments on legal matters now because the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is to wind up the debate. Until he does so, we have little information to go on and, of course, when he sits down, that will be the end of the debate, so this is the time for questions rather than comments about the proposed access to justice Bill.
I come to my first question. We had a lot of discussion in the last Session about legal aid. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor accepted that the rules on legal aid could not be changed as quickly or perhaps as fundamentally as was originally proposed. Does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor now accept that legal aid will remain essential for many types of case; for example, in medical negligence cases where there is a need to commit oneself to substantial expenditure before it is possible to find out even whether there is a viable case?
My second question is: Will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor give a proper trial to the contingency legal aid fund system advocated for many years by Justice—perhaps I should say that I chaired a committee which prepared the original pamphlet on the subject—and more recently by the Bar Council and the Law Society?
Thirdly, a discussion paper was published earlier this year about rights of audience. I support most of the proposals in that paper. However, the proposal that the
118
Lord Chancellor could impose rules on professional bodies without the concurrence of either Parliament or the judiciary is open to the most serious objection on constitutional grounds. Those objections were made strongly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, in another location, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, pointed out in today's debate. I have seen a suggestion in the press that the Lord Chancellor now accepts that there should be a need to obtain parliamentary approval for enforced rule changes. Is that correct?
Fourthly, there have been suggestions in the press that an exclusive franchising system is intended to be extended to criminal legal aid. If implemented, that would mean that legally aided defendants in criminal trials could use only firms or chambers approved by the Legal Aid Board or some other official body. That would be the end of the defendant's right to be defended in a criminal trial by counsel of his choice. Are those suggestions true? If so, they are likely to meet with strong opposition from these Benches.
Before leaving legal matters, I should like to endorse very strongly the speech by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. No Law Commission Bill has been enacted since the general election and if none is enacted in the coming Session, there will be a gap of at least three years in enacting any Law Commission proposals. I would remind the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that the Law Commission was created by one of his predecessors, the Labour Lord Chancellor, Lord Gardiner. A great deal of valuable work has been done by the Law Commission. I hope that the Government will now ensure that it comes to fruition.
I turn to constitutional issues. Perhaps I may start with the two Bills where drafts have been promised for this Session and legislation deferred until the next. I welcome the practice of publication of draft Bills and hope that that will be extended as far as possible.
First, I turn to the Bill to implement the report of the Neill Committee on party funding. As a member of that committee, I welcome the confirmation that the Government will legislate on that report and I entirely accept the decision not to include that in legislation for this year. The report was not delivered until mid-October. It was more extensive and perhaps more radical than was generally expected. It will require extensive consultation with parties in all parts of the United Kingdom and cannot in practical terms be ready for legislation this Session.
I am, however, much less happy about the delay in introducing legislation on freedom of information. That was a manifesto commitment. An excellent Green Paper on the subject was published in December 1997. It asked for comments by the end of February this year. Nine months on, all we are promised is a draft Bill.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, that freedom of information legislation should not inhibit frank discussion on policy issues. There has been plenty of time to take that kind of issue into account. I fear that the delay means that the departmental rats have been gnawing at the Bill. The Home Office has taken over control from the Cabinet

119
Office. Frankly, that is like transferring responsibility for guarding a flock of sheep from a sheepdog to a wolf. I hope I am wrong in this, but when the draft Bill is published we shall scrutinise it very carefully.
I turn finally to the two issues that have become interlinked over the past weeks: the future of the European parliamentary elections Bill and the future of the hereditary peerage. What happened last week was, I firmly believe, unconstitutional. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that this House has a duty to scrutinise carefully the provisions of a Bill and, if it thinks it proper, to amend it. But that is not to say that this House should insist on the amendment to the end, against the opposition of another place.
Speaking from these Benches three weeks ago, in what was, I believe, round two of the battle, I said that if Conservative Members were serious in trying to insist on their amendment, they would push us into the most serious constitutional crisis for decades. That is exactly what has happened. For the first time for nearly 50 years—with the sole exception of the War Crimes Bill in 1991, which was a minor Bill and a special case because of the circumstances of its passage in the other place—this House has triggered the Parliament Acts procedure, and it has done so on a manifesto issue.
The Government are not faultless. There was scope for compromise which would have given the Conservatives slightly more than a review while preserving the essence of what the Government were seeking. But for the Conservatives in this House to pose as defenders of democracy is humbug. Their real motive—as, to be fair, they have made perfectly plain— is to block the Bill and force us back to first-past-the-post for the elections next June.
I do not want to go at great length into the respective merits of closed and open lists. We have spent too much time on that topic already. But I must say one thing. The open list system chosen by the Conservatives is perhaps the one system that is arguably worse than that of closed lists. It means that the 80 or 90 per cent, of voters who will probably want to vote for a party list will not be able to do so. To say that you cannot vote for a party list seems no more democratic than to say that you must vote only for a party list.
The Conservative amendment has had a better press than it deserves. The Conservatives succeeded last time round in hoodwinking no less than five Bishops into voting with them. But we are reaching a point where they are in danger of believing their own propaganda. Some speakers seem to believe that the leaders in the Daily Telegraph are the voice of the people. They really believe that across the country in pubs and clubs, on buses and in the tube, people are saying, "God bless Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, the champion of open lists and democracy, the scourge of closed lists and dictatorship!" That is not in reality what is happening. What is happening is that your Lordships' House is seen to be flexing arthritic muscles to block the will of an elected House of Commons.
That brings me to the reform of this House. I acknowledge that the hereditary peerage has made a valuable contribution to the political life of this country
120
over the past 87 years. But for all that time it has been living on borrowed time. The hereditary membership of this House was an anachronism in 1911. How much more so is it an anachronism now? I do not believe that the hereditary Peers, or their allies among the life Peers on the Conservative Benches, are entitled to dictate the terms on which the hereditary Peers will leave this House. I say that fully recognising the personal sadness that this will involve for hereditary Peers of all parties. I have not long been a Member of this House; however, I have been here long enough to develop a great affection for it and a great sense of the very real privilege of being allowed to take part in its affairs. It will be a sad day for me when we life Peers are called upon to vote for our own removal from this House, as we surely shall be, to make way for our democratically chosen successors.
I know that the removal of the rights of hereditary Peers is in a sense the end of seven centuries of history. I can understand why the descendants of great historic families like the Cecils or of those who have more recently rendered outstanding service to this country do not wish to leave this House. But they will have to do so. Before the end comes, I believe there is one last service they can give to their country; that is, as the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, said, to leave this House with dignity and self-restraint.
I fear they may not do so. I fear that because in the past few weeks I have felt a presence in your Lordships' House of a ghost. It is the ghost of the first Earl of Halsbury, the ancestor of the noble Earl who spoke earlier this evening. The first Earl of Halsbury was a former Lord Chancellor who, at the age of 87, led those Conservative Peers who wished to die in the last ditch in defence of the rights of the peerage against the Parliament Act of 1911. He must be looking down with pleasure at the recent behaviour of the Conservative Party in your Lordships' House and hoping that this time there will be a fight to the finish.
Wiser heads prevailed in 1911. Will they do so again or will the Conservatives die in the last ditch in defence of the indefensible, as Lord Halsbury wanted them to do in 1911? Will the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, be the Halsbury of 1999? We shall see.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I cannot help beginning by saying that I found the final remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, to your Lordships' House to be a bit rich. Many noble Lords will recall that 30 years ago your Lordships' House voted by a vast majority to reform yourselves. The fact that that did not happen was due to a decision by the government, in a democratically elected place, another place, the following year.
There is no complaint, and I do not speak as a hereditary Peer but I hope I speak for the hereditary peerage, about the fact of the departure of the hereditary Peers. But there is a complaint about the proposed manner of their departure. No better evidence of that exists than the vote of your Lordships' House 30 years ago.

121
My noble friend Lord Cranborne allotted to me the task of dealing with those matters that arise out of the impending access to justice Bill. Like others of your Lordships, I have not yet seen that Bill. I do not know what its contents are. Therefore, I thank my noble friend Lord Cranborne for allotting to me this part of the day's business. However, coming at the end, I feel I have a duty to cast some glances at what has been said on constitutional matters.
I start by referring to the three excellent maiden speeches that we heard today. The noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, as befits an astute orator declaiming his maiden speech, tantalised us on controversial issues without positioning himself. I refer to the freedom of information Bill. I thought, in the last remarks that he made, that I detected some blades of long grass.
I turn to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. I must say how lucky your Lordships' House is to have such a distinguished constitutional expert joining your Lordships' ranks. He made an important point that one of the many items, but perhaps the most important one, missing from the Government's constitutional agenda is the strategy behind it. We do not know what that strategy is. We do not think the Government know what that strategy is. Of course, it has not been a question that any government needed to answer during the previous few centuries—because our approach to constitutional change has been gradualist. Since Oliver Cromwell no government have dared such an adventurous programme. Therefore, it is not surprising that the noble Lord should pose such a fundamental question.
As yet we have no answer to that question. But I hazard that the real threat is that the centre may not hold. We have devolution to the judges and to the component nations of the United Kingdom but nothing to hold the centre together, save perhaps the political parties. Should we be asking questions about how democratically run those parties are since they seem to be the only part of the constitution that will hold the periphery together?
Lastly, noble Lords heard the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Dunmore. He reminded your Lordships' House of its trans-continental reach. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that the noble Earl's speech was characterised by charm and brevity—characteristics that are, almost invariably, dominant in your Lordships' House. I understand that the noble Earl's eldest son is called Viscount Fincastle. I record our gratitude to that famous name who, a century ago, won the Victoria Cross on the North-West frontier in the most brave and distinguished circumstances. It reminds us of one of the reasons why we value the hereditary peerage in your Lordships' House.
I was struck by two remarks by members of the Government in the course of the controversy the previous week about the European Parliamentary Elections Bill: "affront to democracy" and "frustrating the will of the democratically elected House". I regard
122
those remarks as nonsense for three reasons. First, the powers of your Lordships' House are given to it by another place. That other place is democratically elected. The constitutional rights possessed by your Lordships' House have a firm democratic foundation. Those rights were given to your Lordships' House for a purpose: from time to time, to ask the democratically elected House to think again. If necessary the democratically elected House has authorised your Lordships' House to go as far as to require the invocation by another place of the Parliament Act.
Since those powers have been given to your Lordships' House it must have been anticipated by another place that from time to time they would be used. They have been used very sparingly. I believe that this is only the fourth time that your Lordships have taken the matter this far. There are no grounds whatever for saying that your Lordships' House is frustrating the will of another place.
There are two other reasons for regarding the remarks as nonsense. The Bill is itself inherently undemocratic. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, admitted that when he said that one of the advantages of the closed list was that it allowed candidates to be elected to the European Parliament who would otherwise not be elected on open lists. What better refutation of democracy can one have than that?
Finally, I should have found the allegations about an affront to democracy more firmly based had they been made with the background of an intention by the Government to replace the present composition of your Lordships' House by a democratic Chamber. But that is not the case. As noble Lords know, the composition of the present House will be replaced by a purely nominated House. It is therefore simply not fair to accuse this House of not being democratic when it will not be given the opportunity of being democratic, at least in the foreseeable future.
I cannot predict what will happen to the Bill when it returns to your Lordships' House. But when it does, I hope that, whatever other allegations are made against Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, there will not be one of acting without full democratic authority.
My noble friend Lord Cranborne asked the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, a number of questions about the timing of stage two. I know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will wind up for the Government. Therefore perhaps I may remind the noble and learned Lord what those questions were. First, will the Royal Commission deal with the issue of powers as well as the composition of your Lordships' House? Secondly, when does the noble and learned Lord anticipate that the Royal Commission will report? Thirdly, when does the noble and learned Lord anticipate that the Government will react to the Royal Commission's report? Fourthly, does the noble and learned Lord believe that the Government will adopt the Royal Commission's recommendation, whatever it is? Fifthly, do the Government feel bound to introduce stage two immediately after the Royal Commission has reported?

123
I ask those questions because they are important to the Opposition. The Opposition have said that if there is a guaranteed stage two, our attitude to stage one will be different from the attitude that we adopt now. It must therefore be in the interest of the Government to give clear and unambiguous answers to these questions.
I turn to the few questions that I wish to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor about legal matters. Since the noble and learned Lord has become Lord High Chancellor of England he has introduced a radical programme of legal change, both in the administration of justice and in the procedures of the courts. I refer to the noble and learned Lord's proposals for legal aid; his proposals to change the rules of the High Court and county court; his proposals for contractual arrangements between the Government and solicitors for the carrying out of government legal business; and issues connected with the qualifications for appearing in the High Court for solicitors, barristers and employed lawyers.
Has the noble and learned Lord given any thought to what effect those changes will have on the structure of the legal profession? At present the legal profession is constituted somewhat like the medical profession. There are the solicitors—the general medical practitioners; and the barristers—the specialists. The noble and learned Lord has often spoken with admiration about the way in which the medical profession arranges itself. Does he continue to think that this relationship between solicitors and barristers should dominate the structure of the legal profession; or has he something else in mind?
Were the noble and learned Lord to stand back and consider his changes as a whole, would he not be tempted to come to the conclusion that they will dramatically change the relationship between the Bar and the solicitors' profession, in such a way as to create de facto fusion? If he were to reach that conclusion, would it be one that he would regret or one that he would welcome?
As regards legal aid, he was quoted in the Sunday newspapers—I know how unreliable they can be so perhaps he was misquoted—as saying that 46 per cent, of the legal aid budget is spent on 1 per cent, of criminal cases. I do not know whether that is accurate, but his reaction indicates that it is roughly accurate. If so, it suggests to me that 99 per cent, of criminal cases which are financed by legal aid provide very good value to the state. Does not that suggest to the noble and learned Lord that far from a radical reform of criminal legal aid something ought to be done simply about that 1 per cent, of cases?
I am reminded of the story of the taxpayer who received a tax demand from the Inland Revenue with his name misspelt. He wrote back to complain. The Inland Revenue replied that it would be better for the taxpayer to change his name by deed poll. I believe that the radical change of legal aid proposed by the noble and learned Lord is out of all proportion to the problem he faces.
Finally, I turn to a matter which was dealt with most eloquently in a recent lecture by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, and upon which the noble and learned
124
Lord, Lord Ackner, has also written and spoken. It relates to the powers which the noble and learned Lord is said to wish to adopt with respect to decisions about rights of audience in court and legal training. At present, his power is shared with the designated judges. It is reported that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor wishes to have the last word on all these matters. Does he not believe that that would breach the principle of the separation of powers?
He will be the first to recognise how dangerous that would be were it to be true. For two centuries before the advent of universal suffrage in this country, the fundamental guarantee of freedom was the separation of power. We were a free country for 200 years before we became a democracy because everyone was equal under the law, including and perhaps above all the Executive. So the separation of power, and the crucial role which his predecessors from their unique vantage point, played in protecting it, is very precious in our constitution.
If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is to have the last word on the education of lawyers and on which lawyers can appear in front of which courts— indeed, on the whole question of rights of audience— does he not honestly believe that that will be a fundamental breach of the principle in circumstances where judges and barristers today are often the only protection the citizen has against an overweening Executive?
9.38 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, in replying to tonight's debate, I shall focus first on legal issues and then on constitutional issues. Noble Lords will appreciate that the debate has ranged far and wide and I shall not be able to answer every detailed point. I shall try to deal with the most important points. Noble Lords may write to me on any subject and be assured of a detailed answer.
The Times this morning described the proposals for legal reform as the biggest shake-up in legal services for 50 years. I agree. A leader in the newspaper suggested that the Government were taking on the lawyers. I disagree. Few lawyers, in their hearts, could defend some aspects of the present legal system, even though some will try. We do not aim to take on the lawyers. We aim to work with them to create a better, faster and more cost-effective system.
However, our focus is not on the lawyers; it is on the clients, on the people who use the system. Their interests must come first before the interests of those who work within the legal world. An access to justice Bill will be introduced which will bring about much-needed reform in many areas.
First, it will give the Government power to control the spiralling legal aid budget and focus the money where it is most needed. There is vast unmet legal need in our country. Much of that occurs in our most disadvantaged communities but it falls outside traditional legal aid. We cannot offer hope and support to people in acute need unless the existing system is brought under effective control. Year on year, the taxpayer has been paying more and more for legal services while fewer people

125
have been helped. For too long, lawyers working at taxpayers' expense have not needed to show expertise in the area of law in which they are operating with public subsidy; nor have they been required to satisfy anyone that they are providing best value and high quality. Those exemptions from the principles which govern all other public services cannot be allowed to continue.
The Bill will replace the Legal Aid Board with the legal services commission which will be responsible for the community legal service and the criminal defence service. The community legal service will have power to enter into contracts with lawyers who have proven expertise in their area to provide legal services at fixed prices. That will be an opportunity for the good lawyers to flourish and a challenge to others to develop relevant specialist skills.
There is little logic about what areas are and are not supported by legal aid at present. The community legal service will analyse the legal needs of our communities, prioritise those needs; and then develop plans to deliver the legal services needed. The community legal service will work in partnership with other funders and providers of legal services, building on local expertise and local services to supplement legal advice and assistance where it is needed most.
A court-based legal solution will sometimes be appropriate. There are many other cases where mediation or alternative dispute resolution in other forms will provide a quicker, cheaper and more appropriate answer to the client's needs. The powers in the Bill will allow those services to be supported as well as the traditional routes to the courts.
There are some areas where public subsidy is unnecessary to provide access to justice. Lawyers employed by trade unions and their members have been effectively operating conditional fees in personal injury cases for years, with a zero uplift, at no cost to the unions. They have been a great success, delivering access to justice for their members. This Government are prepared to learn from their successes. Unions have succeeded in making their lawyers more efficient and with examples of good practice like that, it is impossible to justify the demand for public subsidy from the less organised and less efficient.
The Bill will also address unjustifiable restrictive practices about which lawyers can appear in which court. There is no justification for preventing employed lawyers appearing in our courts. I cannot accept the notion that an employed lawyer faces unresolved conflicts of interest, has lower ethical standards or cannot be trusted. Any lawyer appearing in any court has a first and overriding duty to the court, not to his client or employer. As a practising barrister for 30 years, I can tell your Lordships that I never saw any evidence that there were any doubts about that. That duty to the court, confirming the present position, will appear on the face of the Bill. We wish to ensure that advocates are chosen because they have the skills to do the job, not because they belong to one part of the profession or another.
126
The Bill will create a new criminal defence service to provide high quality legal defence services for those appearing before our courts. To ensure that anyone appearing before our courts gets the best possible representation, the Bill will take powers so that contracts for these services will only be placed with those lawyers in private practice who have proven ability in this complex area. Criminal law is too important to be left to anyone who does not have a specialist skill and cannot demonstrate sufficient competence. The contracts will, so far as possible, be at fixed prices so that the taxpayer gets value for money.
Contrary to the rumour mill, I am happy to confirm that the Government have no plans to move towards a wholesale public defender service. However, we have a duty to ensure that citizens charged with criminal offences get the best representation and the taxpayer gets the best value for money. That means we do not exclude the possibility of directly employed lawyers being a part of criminal defence services. It will be interesting to compare costs and quality with those of lawyers in private practice under contract. Meanwhile a public defender service is being piloted in Scotland.
The Bill will follow the recommendations of the Bowman Report on the organisation of the Court of Appeal and will establish the general principle of one level of appeal.
These reforms—taken together with the reforms of court procedures inspired by the Woolf Reports—will change the legal landscape in Britain. Judges, barristers, solicitors, para-legals and advice workers will all see the way they work change in the coming years. I am confident that the legal professions recognise that change is needed if we are to provide a better service to the people who really matter—those who need legal advice and help and come before our courts.
I can offer the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, who is no longer in his place—
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I am here!
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I apologise. I am delighted to see the noble and learned Lord in his place; he must never hide his light under a bushel. I want to give him some comfort on Law Commission Bills. I expect to bring forward two more reform Bills this Session: a privity of contract Bill and a trustee delegation Bill. But for a decision of your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity which put the law to rights, I would also have been bringing forward a Law Commission Bill in relation to mistake in contract. I can assure the noble and learned Lord of my strong support for the work of the Law Commission in getting its Bills onto the statute book.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, expressed concern that franchising in criminal cases will make inroads into the principle that a defendant can choose his own lawyer. I can offer him reassurance. In most cases suspects and defendants will be enabled to choose any lawyer who has a current contract with the criminal defence service. The contract will guarantee a quality assured lawyer and that is in the interests of defendants.

127
In very high-cost specialist cases—for example, criminal fraud cases—choice will be limited to a specialist panel. But again, that is a guarantee of quality and it is still choice.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, should be the first to recognise—having cited the statistics, though not entirely accurately, that 46 per cent, of the criminal law budget goes on 1 per cent, of high-cost cases—that, in an area where there has been some notorious publicity about the high fees that those cases have attracted at the expense of the public purse, there is an overriding need to bring those fees under proper and reasonable control.
Another point I should like to make to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury—obviously I cannot reply to all his points of detail but if he desires to write to me I will write to him—is this: it is not the Government's role to guarantee a particular structure for the legal services industry. The Government's duty is to guarantee and to secure the best quality of advice and service for consumers at prices affordable by the taxpayer.
So far as rights of audience go, I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that there will be no violation of the separation of powers because, in the unlikely event that I, as Lord Chancellor, having consulted with the judges and with the professions, have to exercise a fallback power to impose rules upon the profession—and I am as great an enemy of rules which are too lax as I am an enemy of rules which are too restrictive—I would not do so without the support of an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. When that is said, as I say quite unequivocally, I can see no ground for argument that there is any violation of the separation of the powers.
I turn to the Government's commitment to major constitutional change. Our objective is to put in place an integrated programme of measures to decentralise powers in the United Kingdom and to enhance the rights of individuals within a more open society. We are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for his interim assessment of this part of our programme: nine out of 10 for trying, seven out of 10 for achievement. I say to the noble Lord that in my book those are pretty good marks. I hope that perhaps in the eyes of history we will score even better. Perhaps we will even persuade the noble Lord to score our card better as our programme beds down and is tested, as it will be by events.
It was essential to settle our priorities and to make early progress to establish momentum from the word go. Less than a week after the election the Cabinet had decided on the constitutional measures for inclusion in our first legislative programme. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, in his notable maiden speech, called attention to that speed of progress—a great co-operative effort, he said.
Those measures were devolution to Scotland and Wales through a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly; a referendum on a strategic authority and elected mayor for London; the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights; a Bill to provide for the establishment of regional development
128
agencies in England; and provision to give the Bank of England operational responsibility for setting interest rates.
First, we brought forward proposals for the creation of a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly. These democratically elected bodies will take control of a wide range of public services, currently the responsibility of central government departments and unelected bodies. Devolution to Scotland confers, subject to areas expressly reserved, a general power of legislative competence on the new Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish executive will have responsibility for most aspects of domestic, economic and social policy, while the United Kingdom Parliament will retain control of foreign affairs, defence and national security, social security and macro-economic and fiscal areas. Relations with the European Union and with other foreign governments will, however, remain the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government.
Devolution is not a form either of federalism or independence for Scotland and Wales. The Union will be strengthened, not weakened, by devolution and the Westminster Parliament will remain sovereign in the United Kingdom. I must say to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, that I could give no real meaning to his musings about the state of the opinion polls in Scotland unless he was reverting to type and declaring that devolution should have been withheld since he claims it will lead to independence for Scotland. That argument is well in the past. I am sure that devolution will secure, not break, the Union. I say to the noble Viscount that a dog-in-the-manger attitude to Scottish devolution does not mark out a bright, optimistic route for the resurrection of Tory Party fortunes in Scotland, where it was wiped out at the election. It is not a promising platform for a party seeking to come back from the grave in Scotland to ask the electorate to vote for it and to return it to the new Scottish parliament when it is not reconciled to devolution.
The Belfast agreement also has constitutional implications. There will be an Assembly of 108 members, with legislative and executive powers on social and economic issues. In time it may also take responsibility for law and order. These are complex mechanisms, but they hold out the prospect of constructing stable and widely acceptable political institutions in Northern Ireland.
We have also put forward proposals for extending regional government in England, but not until popular demand is demonstrated. As a first step we are creating regional development agencies to co-ordinate transport, planning and economic development. We have also set out plans for revitalising government within London. For most people it is inconceivable to think of any major capital city of the great size and importance of London without its own city-wide government. Yet for over 10 years London has had to do without after our predecessors abolished the Greater London Council. Despite that, London has continued to thrive. It remains a world-class city. But like all major cities it faces problems such as traffic congestion, air pollution and areas of inner-city poverty. These are problems that must be tackled on a city-wide basis.

129
Our proposals for a Scottish parliament, a Welsh assembly, a mayor and authority for London, and in the new political settlement in Northern Ireland in each case were put to the people in the regions affected in separate referendums. In each case the Government's proposals have been endorsed and any further proposals for regional government in England will be subject to approval in referendums. We are also committed to having a referendum before we join our European partners in economic and monetary union. We would only join a single currency if the Government, Parliament and the British people agree that we should do so. The wider use of referendums in the United Kingdom marks our insistence that people must have a determinative say in major constitutional change.
Openness is also fundamental to good government. Confidence in government has been undermined in the United Kingdom by a culture of secrecy.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble and learned Lord's flow. But before he leaves the subject of referendums, can he give me some kind of answer to the question I asked during my opening remarks as to what the Government's attitude will be about legislating for the fair holding of referendums before any more are held?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is something that the Government will address in the context of the Bill which will be published before the Summer Recess on the subject of the funding of political parties. I said that openness is fundamental to good government and that confidence in it has been undermined in the United Kingdom by a culture of secrecy. Therefore, our manifesto included a commitment to introduce a Freedom of Information Bill. Our first legislative programme did not include such a Bill. There were those who claimed that we had lost our appetite for openness at the first taste of office. But in fact we simply wanted sufficient time to devise from within government a regime across government which would be as liberal as possible consistent with the protection of the national interest. Complex problems do not benefit from hasty solutions. But I can give an absolute assurance that there will be a Freedom of Information Bill which will be published early in the New Year. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, that she need have no doubt that such legislation will be brought forward and that it will constitute a strong freedom of information regime. The media, too, will gain largely from that regime if it operates the Act with vigour, as I am sure that it will and should.
Another key part of active citizenship is for citizens to know their rights and how to enforce them while at the same time knowing how to respect the rights of others. Hence the Human Rights Act giving greater effect to the European Convention on Human Rights. These human rights proposals will prove to be a
130
landmark step in guaranteeing fundamental human rights in Britain. Meanwhile we are engaged on a major programme of training our judges to implement the Human Rights Act in all—I repeat, all—our courts, high or low.
I do not repeat what my noble friend said at the outset of this debate about the reform of your Lordships' House. But it is as well to remind the House that this Government won a majority of 179 at the last general election. We have an unambiguous mandate to remove the hereditary Peers. Let me read it:
"As an initial, self-contained reform, not dependent on further reform in the future, the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords will be ended by statute. This will be the first stage in a process of reform".
Nothing could be clearer. Nothing I say would become the hereditary Peers less than if they fail to go quietly and respect the clear will of the people. I hope that they will accept the dignified judgment of the noble Lord, Lord Harding of Petherton, and reject the invitation to mark their departure by hooliganism.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, asked various questions about the White Paper. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, had no need to repeat them, I was busy scribbling them down. I can give some assurance to the noble Viscount. The White Paper will cover how Peers will be appointed in the interim House; it will cover the timing of the Royal Commission. I can say, quite unequivocally, that there will be a stage two. The noble Viscount is afflicted by the most advanced state of suspicion that I think I have ever observed. I do hope that it is not terminal. It is very extreme.
The White Paper will cover the terms of reference of the Royal Commission, including its anticipated timetable. I hope that in the White Paper it will be possible to name the chairman of the Royal Commission, if he has not been named earlier. The White Paper will set out options for the Royal Commission to consider; it will address the role and functions of the House and it will consult widely. The White Paper will come in the context of the Bill. Noble Lords will have to wait only a little longer. Patience, therefore, should replace the noble Viscount's advanced state of suspicion. Quite apart from anything else, I rather think it will be good for his health.
The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, asks: why such a hurry? The answer is absolutely plain—because the presence of hereditary Peers is a centuries old state of affairs which this Government have a huge mandate to eradicate. I say this to him: the case for not combining stage one and stage two is that we won the general election on the opposite proposition.
With the strong public support for our agenda, we have seized an historic opportunity to modernise our constitutional system. Unless we modernise we will never secure the levels of commitment, interest and trust needed to develop and maintain real practising democracy in this country.
I shall close by repeating a familiar quotation: "There is no such thing as society. There are only individual men and women". So said Margaret Thatcher, as she then was, in 1987. We profoundly disagree. Society

131
does exist. It is the weave of personal, political and contractual relationships in which we all participate every day of the week. It is the set of values—of decency, trust, tolerance and mutual respect for one another's rights and freedoms—that hold us together as one nation. It is the word describing the common interests we serve as civilised, responsible, active citizens. Yes, we are all individuals, but we are not isolated from each other. We owe obligations to each other and our total success in life depends, substantially, on each other. It is that recognition which informs our constitutional programme to put in place integrated
132
measures to decentralise power in the United Kingdom and to enhance the rights and freedoms of individuals within a more open society.
Lord Carter: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Gilbert, I beg to move that this debate be adjourned until tomorrow.
Moved, That the debate be adjourned until tomorrow.—(Lord Carter.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly until tomorrow.
House adjourned at six minutes past ten o'clock.

  Culture Council, 17 November
  Culture Council, 17 November
  Human Rights Act: Section 19
  Human Rights Act: Section 19
  Abuse of Trust: Working Group
  Abuse of Trust: Working Group