Sitting of 30 November 1998

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

    Drug Treatment and Testing Orders
    Yvette Cooper: If he will make a statement on the pilots for drug treatment and testing orders. [61087]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): Pilots of drug testing and treatment orders are taking place in Croydon, Gloucestershire and Merseyside. The first order was made in Croydon on 17 November. We shall evaluate the pilots thoroughly before national implementation.
    Yvette Cooper: I know that my hon. Friend has visited Pontefract and Wakefield drug court, which is pioneering a new approach to getting offenders off drugs. Will he join me in congratulating those who set up the programme, including the sponsor Marks and Spencer, Euromed, the local health authority and the police? Is he aware that the drug court is under threat just because of a six-month shortfall in funding? Given that it would be tragic to lose such a programme when we should be expanding its work across the country, will he consider any way in which the Government can help to make sure that the drug court does not go under?
    Mr. Howarth: As my hon. Friend rightly said, I have visited the drug court. I understand that it is in discussion with local agencies to try to resolve the difficulties that she described, and the matter is essentially a local one. Talks are well under way and there is no cause for panic. It is a worthwhile venture, and I hope that the talks will be brought to a successful conclusion so that the good work already started can be continued.

    Domestic Violence
    Helen Jackson: What steps he is taking to reduce the incidence of violence in the home. [61089]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kate Hoey): We are taking forward a range of measures to achieve that, in collaboration with
    522
    a number of colleagues across Departments. In particular, we have made it clear that we expect the local crime and disorder audits being carried out under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to address domestic violence, and we are working on a cross-departmental awareness campaign for England and Wales, to be launched in the new year.
    Helen Jackson: Every day last year in Sheffield, a woman had to be rehoused, having lost her home because of domestic violence. Three quarters of cases reported to the police also involved children. We must recognise that far more than double that number experience violence in the home, but do not report it. I congratulate the Government on making violence against women one of the key points in the recent policy document "Delivering for Women". However, what practical steps is the Minister taking to ensure that homes are safe places for women and children, and not safe havens for violent criminals as they currently appear to be?
    Kate Hoey: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. She may be aware that research has been commissioned by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Department of Health, the Department of Social Security and the women's unit to look into the accommodation and support services available to those who suffer domestic violence. The research includes a survey of refuges and a comprehensive view of provision by local authorities. It will be completed late next year.
    Mr. John Bercow: How many local authorities and police forces have set up domestic violence units? Will the Minister confirm that none of those units is expected to close as a result of resources being devoted to other laudable anti-crime and disorder initiatives that are flowing from recent legislation?
    Kate Hoey: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like an exact answer to his question and I am prepared to write to him as I do not have the precise information here.
    Mrs. Helen Brinton: Does the Minister agree that 400 women's refuges in England and 45 in Wales are not enough to help victims of domestic violence? Does she agree that we really need tougher sentencing in the courts so that the people who commit the crimes do not get away with it?
    Kate Hoey: As my hon. Friend knows, the Government treat crimes of violence committed in the home very seriously. Those crimes damage the family and society as a whole, and we are determined that they will be taken seriously. The review that I have mentioned is also considering long-term arrangements to achieve a fair balance between demands on housing benefits and other sources of funding. That may mean that local authorities will find that the cost of providing refuges, which may be more initially, results in savings in the long term. We do not want resources to be a reason why women—or men—have nowhere to which to flee if they are in danger.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: One problem, which the hon. Lady may already know of, is that men and, particularly, women who suffer domestic violence

    523
    withdraw their complaints when they get near or arrive at the court stage. What can she do to assist such people in maintaining their complaints all the way to a verdict?
    Kate Hoey: The hon. and learned Gentleman is right. He will welcome the new criminal justice measures in the Queen's Speech, which will help vulnerable and intimidated witnesses, including those who have suffered and survived domestic violence.

    Child Protection
    Ms Helen Southworth: How he intends to take forward the proposals to safeguard children by creating a comprehensive single access point for police and other record checks in staff recruitment; and if he will make a statement. [61090]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kate Hoey): The interdepartmental working group that we set up to look at that matter is due to make its main recommendations by the end of the year. Subject to our consideration of its proposals, we then expect the group to take forward the detailed work that will be needed to give effect to its recommendations.
    Ms Southworth: My hon. Friend is to be congratulated on that response. She is aware of considerable concern in my constituency, and across to north Wales, about the fact that we have all failed to protect children from abuse by predatory adults. Can she assure me that the one-stop shop will proceed rapidly, that it will contain comprehensive information and that clear instructions will be issued on when it should be used in the recruitment and selection of staff and voluntary workers, so that we can make a better job of protecting children from violent, dangerous people who attempt to obtain a position of power and authority over them?
    Kate Hoey: I thank my hon. Friend and I know how much work she has put into that important issue. It is likely that we will recommend a one-stop shop, because the group's emerging recommendations envisage a central access point for three sources of information: criminal records; list 99, which is held by the Department for Education and Employment; and the consultancy index, which is held by the Department of Health. The front-runner at the moment for the central access point is the criminal records agency, which we are hoping to get up and running within two years from the date of the formal announcement.
    Mr. Shaun Woodward: Is the Minister aware of the stories in the Oxford Mail reporting that thousands of people with convictions for sex offences live in the Thames valley area? The head of the local family protection unit says that only 150 former sex offenders are monitored and registered by the police. What assurances can the Minister give my constituents in Oxfordshire and the people who are worried about the large number of former paedophiles in Oxford that they will be adequately protected?
    Kate Hoey: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I have not seen that newspaper's reports and the serious allegations that it contains. As I understand it, we know
    524
    about some 98 per cent. of offenders, but I am sure that the local police take the matter seriously. I will look into it.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: I have written to the Home Office on several occasions querying the length of time that it takes to perform checks in the Greater Manchester area through the police. The delays are seriously damaging such schemes as the mentoring scheme run by the Bolton lads and girls club, which is intended to keep young people out of trouble. Can my hon. Friend assure the House that any new scheme will be quicker than existing schemes?
    Kate Hoey: Clearly, if we are to make improvements, we want to speed up the checks. I do not have direct responsibility for the speed with which checks are made, but I am happy to look into the issue and report back.

    Doncaster Council
    Mr. Richard Allan: If he will estimate the costs of the investigation by South Yorkshire police into allegations of wrong-doing by Doncaster councillors up to 1 November. [61091]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): I understand from South Yorkshire police that the estimated cost of the investigation up to 1 November is £200,955, including £49,729 in accommodation and miscellaneous service costs.
    Mr. Allan: I am mindful, Madam Speaker, of your proper rulings on sub judice matters, so I shall refer not to individual cases but to issues of general principle.
    I assure the Minister that I wish to see allegations of corruption by councillors of any colour investigated with all possible vigour. Does he intend to apply to those convicted of council corruption his recently announced proposals to make criminals pay from the proceeds of crime? If so, the council tax payers of South Yorkshire, including those living in my constituency of Sheffield, Hallam, could be sure that whatever funds can be recovered are recovered to help to pay for our hard-pressed local police forces.
    Mr. Boateng: That would be entirely a matter for the courts, as and when the occasion arose, but, of course, all hon. Members would be concerned to ensure that corruption is treated as seriously as it deserves, from whatever source it comes.
    Mr. John Greenway: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box and look forward to working with him in the months ahead. Does he not realise that people in Yorkshire have more confidence in the police to clear up the mess than they have in the Labour party? They want to know how an already overstretched police service can be expected to cope with the four inquiries that it is undertaking and at the same time deal effectively with crime and disorder. Will he give the public a cast-iron reassurance that other policing priorities are not being neglected? Is not the real scandal

    525
    that the police have been put in an impossible position for no other reason than the events in the Labour party in Yorkshire?
    Mr. Boateng: Although I thank the hon. Gentleman for kindly welcoming me to the Dispatch Box, I am sorry that he should choose so early on to descend into party politics on this matter. He knows that the investigations in Doncaster have extended across the party political divide. He and his colleagues are the last people to be able to point a finger at us about corruption. The allocation of resources to that investigation is entirely a matter for the chief constable. We have every confidence in his ability to ascertain what resources ought to be applied and to ensure that that is not done at the expense of the other law and order priorities in Yorkshire.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my hon. Friend agree that we all deplore corruption in local government or anywhere that we find it, but that it ill becomes Tory Members to talk about Doncaster or anywhere else when they will not call on their old friend Lady Porter to pay back the £20-odd million that went missing in Westminster? Why do they not do so? Because she is a Tory and a friend of Lady Thatcher.
    Mr. Boateng: We have grown used to double standards from Conservative Members. The day that their spokesperson condemns Lady Porter from the Dispatch Box will be the day that they can give us lessons about corruption and abuse of power.

    Police Expenditure
    Mr. Christopher Fraser (Mid-Dorset and North Poole): If he will make a statement on his spending plans for the police service for each of the next three years. [61093]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): Following the outcome of the comprehensive spending review, I announced on 21 July our plans to allow police spending to increase by 2.65 per cent. next year, by up to a further 2.8 per cent. in the following year and by up to an extra 4 per cent. in 2001–02. That represents an extra £1.24 billion over the next three years. Part of the additional funding for the second and third years will be dependent on the police achieving targets for efficiency improvements of 2 per cent. a year.
    Mr. Fraser: Will the Home Secretary join me in congratulating Dorset police, who have reduced crime to 1990 levels? Does he recognise the concerns that were expressed to me by the chief constable in Dorset, who said that funding increases would barely pay for pensions in the forthcoming year, let alone maintain the police service? What can the Home Secretary say or do to allay his fears and those of my constituents?
    Mr. Straw: I am certainly happy to congratulate the chief constable and his officers on what has been achieved in Dorset and to provide reassurance. First, the settlement that I announced in July amounts to a real-terms, albeit modest, increase in police spending for each of those years. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues
    526
    must acknowledge that there is ample scope for economies and efficiency savings in the police service. That has already been demonstrated by the way in which police services have had to deal with sickness and early retirement.
    The best advice that I can give to the chief constable and the police authority in Dorset is to apply themselves to the still unimplemented recommendations of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, which give huge scope not only for making efficiency savings, but for increasing the effectiveness of the police service within the budgets that we have set.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his recent announcement, which adds up to a reasonably generous settlement for the police. At the same time, may I encourage a thorough review of all police force management structures? Is it not about time that we started thinking the unthinkable on how to get better value for money out of top-quality managers and good management techniques in the police force—even, perhaps, abolishing the notion of chief constables for a more modern management structure that delivers the goods to the British public?
    Mr. Straw: I have no proposals to abolish the posts of chief constables. What we need, and on the whole have, are highly experienced and skilled professionals at the head of the police service. I accept the rest of my hon. Friend's question; it is not thinking the unthinkable. The Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities accept the case for a better career and training structure in the upper levels of the police service. On top of changes to improve the effectiveness of the police service, we shall be ensuring that best-value arrangements apply to it.
    Sir Norman Fowler: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the statistical section of the House of Commons Library that, between 1979 and 1997, there was a real increase of 72 per cent. in spending on the police, which meant an increase in police strength of 15,000? Under his plans, there will be no real increase in spending whatever between 1997 and 2001. Does that not mean an inevitable reduction in the strength of police forces?
    Mr. Straw: What I will accept, not from the Library of the House but from the Official Report, is that there is no case whatever for the Opposition to lecture us about the £1.24 billion increase in police spending because, far from criticising us for spending too little, the shadow Chancellor—the right hon. Gentleman may have been asleep when his right hon. Friend said this, and one can understand why—has been criticising us for spending too much. Indeed, he described this spending settlement as "reckless". The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) must spell out by how much he would reduce police budgets if he were in power.
    Sir Norman Fowler: I will not take lectures from the right hon. Gentleman on controlling public spending, as he knows only too well. Does he not understand that he has reduced the financial commitment to the police service? There are reports from around the country that

    527
    the strength of police forces is falling, and will fall further. How does he square that with his boast to be tough on crime?
    Mr. Straw: Police service numbers fell by 500 between 1992 and 1997. It is my duty to point out the Opposition's double standards. I have here a wodge of letters that I have written to the right hon. Gentleman over the past four weeks, all of which are unanswered, in which I have asked him to say exactly by how much police spending would fall following his right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor's criticism of our spending, not for being too little but for being too much.
    Moreover, I have here a little-known work, "Ministers Decide", which was originally priced at £18, but was knocked down, first to £2 and then to £1, and was picked up by a friend of mine. In it, a Mr. Norman Fowler, as he was then, says:
    "The trouble with some of those who make much of their support for—
    a particular public service—
    "is that they also oppose any measures taken to make it more effective."
    The right hon. Gentleman was talking about the health service, but his criticism applies equally to the police service.
    Sir Norman Fowler: The trouble with this Secretary of State is that he is not deciding; this Minister is simply going along with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's plans. He challenges me on public spending, but does he not know that the changes that I made to the state earnings-related pension scheme will mean eventual public spending savings of £30 billion? I am not prepared to take lectures from the right hon. Gentleman.
    Let the Home Secretary stop wriggling and return to the subject of the police. Why will he not admit that his plans will entail the reduction of the police service and police forces throughout the country?
    Mr. Straw: The most lasting part of the right hon. Gentleman's epitaph will be the other thing that he did to SERPs—which was to set up portable personal pensions, by which hundreds of thousands of people throughout the country were defrauded by private insurance companies. I have spelt it out in answers to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that the spending increases that we have proposed will result in a modest but real increase in spending, year on year. That is the truth. The other truth, which the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) cannot gainsay, is that, were he in power, and were he following the opinion of his right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor, spending on the police, as on other public services, would decrease.

    Freedom of Information
    Judy Mallaber: What is the proposed timetable for consideration of the draft freedom of information Bill. [61094]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): And now we come to freedom of information.
    528
    The Government will publish a draft freedom of information Bill early next year for pre-legislative scrutiny by the Select Committee on Public Administration, and for public consultation. Following that, the Government will introduce the Bill to Parliament as soon as the legislative programme allows.
    Judy Mallaber: Will the Secretary of State confirm that legislation on freedom of information remains an important plank of the Government's programme to modernise Britain as we move towards the millennium? Does he agree that measures on openness and accountability are a central part of that constitutional programme, which includes reform of the second Chamber, devolution of power and incorporation of human rights? Will he press for that legislation to be introduced as soon as possible after consultation on the draft Bill, and for it to be moved as high in the parliamentary timetable as possible?
    Mr. Straw: The answer to all those questions is yes. We do regard the matter as important. I hope that the whole House will recognise that, by having a draft Bill, we give the House a greater opportunity properly to scrutinise the legislation. In advance of the Bill, many Ministers, including me, have taken steps to secure greater openness.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: Has not the information that is emerging about the handling of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy affair demonstrated that the public and the business community urgently need freedom of information? As a previous Minister, the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), said in the House that the Bill was 90 per cent. drafted, does the Home Secretary acknowledge the disappointment at the fact that the process is taking so long? Will he, therefore, consider whether the process might be accelerated, and will he consider the fact that the Bill could be a candidate for the new carry-over procedures, so that, following consultation, it is introduced later this Session and carried over into the next?
    Mr. Straw: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) for the work that he did on the freedom of information Bill, but, as I believe that he would acknowledge, a great deal of work remained to be done before the Bill could be put in proper draft order. That work is now being done. Early next year a draft Bill will be published, which will then go to the Select Committee on Public Administration. I dare say that it will return to the House for debate. In those circumstances, and given the fact that the present Session is shorter than usual, I think the possibility of its being introduced this Session is very limited indeed.

    Community Sentences
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: What plans he has to make community sentences more (a) rigorous and (b) effective. [61096]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): It is important that community penalties are seen as credible and effective by the public and the courts. The probation

    529
    services are currently working to implement a detailed programme of action to reduce reoffending. We will shortly issue further guidance to promote more rigorous enforcement of community sentences.
    Mr. Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the introduction of a witness protection scheme would be a vigorous and effective way to make community sentences more effective? When would he like to introduce such a scheme? Will he take the opportunity to acknowledge the work done in magistrates courts in Coventry, and "Reclaiming Our Communities"—an initiative of Coventry city council?
    Mr. Howarth: As my hon. Friend knows, there are proposals in the Queen's Speech to extend witness protection, particularly into the magistrates courts. I hope that these proposals will meet my hon. Friend's concerns, which I know are shared by many in the community, especially when they feel in any way intimidated.
    Mr. David Heath: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that one of the key factors in making community service work is the quality of the probation service? Will he therefore give me an assurance that disparate probation services will be amalgamated not simply to make them coterminous with police authority areas, but only to make them more effective and efficient?
    Mr. Howarth: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, a Prison Service probation review is under way. I would not want to gainsay what might come out of that. Clearly there has been a commitment in the past to try to make the probation services coterminous with police boundaries, which I think makes sense. I think also that a growing number of people in the probation service are coming to understand that that will make sense.
    The hon. Gentleman should be aware that an extra £127 million has gone into the probation service as a result of the comprehensive spending review. I hope that that will enable the service to carry out the work that is expected of it, unreformed or otherwise, by society and by the House.
    Mr. James Clappison: Does the Minister agree that, if community sentences such as electronic tagging are to command the confidence of the public, they must be respected as being effective sentences? Does the hon. Gentleman not think that the public's confidence in community sentences such as tagging will inevitably be undermined when they discover that tagging is used to release prisoners early from their sentences, so that a sentence of six months in prison will mean only six weeks inside in practice? Will not the public think, as has been said, that the criminals are getting away with it? Does the Minister not agree that, if the Government are really to be tough on crime, as opposed to boasting about being tough on crime, community sentences and sentences of imprisonment should mean what they say?
    Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. The purpose of the curfew orders to which he refers is not to let prisoners out early to do what they want but to have a properly managed and supervised period between the completion of a sentence and the time when they are completely free of any penalty. If the hon.
    530
    Gentleman thinks that that is not sensible, I suggest to him that he examine some of the projects where such a transition has been effectively run. That process does not necessarily involve tagging, but the process that tagging enables to happen is an important one.
    The hon. Gentleman is bandying statistics that may in some instances apply, but in others will not. In so doing, he misses the point entirely. I think that most people accept that there must be some connection between the end of a prison sentence and prisoners going on to lead a respectable, law-abiding life. If the hon. Gentleman cannot understand that, I suggest that he has a long, hard think about law and order. He clearly does not understand what is going on in this country.

    Police (Freemasons)
    Mr. Tony McWalter: If he has plans to require senior police officers to confirm whether or not they are freemasons; and if he will make a statement. [61097]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kate Hoey): All police officers, of whatever rank, will be asked to disclose whether they are freemasons as part of the Government's policy to set up voluntary registers across the criminal justice system.
    Mr. McWalter: I thank my hon. Friend for her answer. Indeed, I commend the work on freemasonry that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench have been carrying out. Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that a society that is secret and deemed to have extensive powers is capable of precipitating real fear in society? Indeed, some Members have told me that I was courageous to table the question. In these circumstances, I hope that my hon. Friend will bear it in mind that a voluntary code may not be enough and that the timetable that she is suggesting may be much too lenient.
    Kate Hoey: I thank my hon. Friend. We are committed to a voluntary scheme. Clearly, compulsory steps requiring employees in the criminal justice system to disclose freemasonry membership will be introduced only if a review of the voluntary register arrangements show that they have not been effective.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: I can assure the House that I have absolutely no direct interest in the matter, but will the Minister reflect on the unwisdom of singling out any particular group that happens to be a minority, because the principle could be extended to other minorities in terms of the practice of their religion, to ethnic minorities, or, in extremis, even to old Labour?
    Kate Hoey: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there is a perception that any secret organisation might have something to hide. Clearly, it is in the interests of the criminal justice system to be open and accountable. The voluntary way forward—voluntary registers—has so far received support from all the chief constables and is the right way forward. I do not think that anyone is suggesting that, just because someone registers membership of an organisation, it in any way implies that that person has done something wrong.

    Car Crime
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: What measures he proposes to introduce to reduce car crime. [61099]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): The Government regard vehicle crime as a very serious matter; after all, it amounts to about 24 per cent. of all reported crime. On 29 September, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced a national target, aimed at delivering a 30 per cent. reduction in vehicle crime over the next five years. To achieve that, we have recently established a ministerial task force, the vehicle crime reduction action team.
    Mr. Dismore: Does my hon. Friend welcome, as I do, the work of Barnet motor project, which is based in the Peel centre in my constituency? The project has been working with young offenders and those thought to be at risk of offending, channelling their enthusiasm for the motor vehicle into more constructive work—for example, by teaching them to drive and service vehicles off road. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a constructive and useful way of tackling motor crime?
    Mr. Boateng: It is certainly one of a range of activities in which young people can be engaged so as to get them to recognise the implications of motor vehicle crime, both for themselves and, more important, for the general public. It is a real mischief with which the Government are determined to get to grips. Our challenging but achievable target is an indication of our seriousness.

    Surrey Police
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: What representations he has had from Surrey police force regarding funding for expected manpower levels over the next three years. [61101]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): We have received representations from the chairman and the treasurer of Surrey police authority about the funding of the Surrey police. The provisional police funding settlement for England and Wales in 1999–2000 will be announced later this week.
    The proposed boundary changes between the Surrey police, and the Metropolitan police in April 2000 will result in some transitional costs for the police authority next year. We are considering its bid for extra funding to help meet those costs.
    Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to the Minister for indicating that that matter is under consideration, but, when examining the overall funding position of police authorities such as Surrey, as well as the funding position of the national crime squad and the national criminal intelligence service, he will be aware that value added tax and the ability to reclaim it are currently a big issue. I see the Home Secretary nodding; will the Minister confirm that that issue will be carefully looked into? We do not want our police forces to be handicapped by being less able to reclaim VAT, with the result that there is less money for police officers on the beat, which is what concerns all our constituents.
    Mr. Boateng: Only last week, I met our former colleague Sir John Wheeler regarding the matter. He is
    532
    doing excellent work with the authorities in that respect. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I are taking a careful look so as to ensure that the police service is not disadvantaged.

    Divorce
    Mr. David Chaytor: What representations he has received on the proposals for divorce information meetings contained in his consultation paper "Supporting Families". [61102]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): The consultation period on the document "Supporting Families" is due to run to 31 January next year. Once the consultation period has ended, the responses will be analysed. However, none of the responses received so far has focused specifically on the proposals for divorce information meetings, the policy concerning which is a matter for my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor.
    Mr. Chaytor: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he tell the House how he intends to evaluate the pilot schemes that are currently being undertaken in that respect? Does he agree that the proposals in the consultation document run the risk of setting up a series of hurdles through which divorcing couples will have to run? There will have to be one meeting for couples by themselves; a second, for individuals, to obtain information about the divorce process; and a third, a meeting of groups of people, to get information about the property and financial implications. Is that not overkill in terms of advice and provision of information?
    Mr. Straw: The points that my hon. Friend raises are important in considering which way we go forward on that difficult issue. On the one hand, there is the view that divorce should be considered to be an entirely private matter, in which there should be no encouragement to mediation by the state or by anybody else; on the other, because children are almost always involved in divorce cases, there is a public interest. Trying to find a way through that will be difficult; it is difficult for this Government, and it was difficult for the previous Government, but we hope that some improved arrangements will emerge from the consultation.

    Police Authorities
    Maria Eagle: What plans he has to make police authority members more accountable. [61103]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I have no plans at present to change the arrangements for police authorities. The majority of members on each authority are councillors who are democratically accountable to local people. Any member of a police authority may also be required to attend council meetings to answer questions about the conduct of police authority business.
    Maria Eagle: My right hon. Friend is aware of a recent controversy involving Merseyside police authority, which has managed to appoint a new chief constable without its

    533
    selection panel apparently carrying out the most basic of duties, such as reading the papers in front of it and raising important questions with the candidate. Some of those members have resigned, but many have not. What advice can he give my constituents who are writing to me regularly asking what they can do to hold to account those members who are not elected councillors and who have yet to resign in view of the mess that they have made?
    Mr. Straw: Of course I am aware of the controversy which has surrounded the appointment of the chief constable of Merseyside, but I want to make it clear in the House, as I have done already outside the House, that Mr. Norman Bettison was appointed in accordance with the standard procedures. His nomination was approved by the then Minister of State—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales—and by me; he got the job fair and square; and he has my full confidence.

    Door Supervisors
    Dr. Lynne Jones: If he will make a statement on the licensing of door supervisors. [61104]
    The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr. Paul Boateng): We are committed to introducing statutory regulation of the whole of the private security industry, including door supervisors. As we suggested in opposition, there is no time for legislation on this issue early in our term of office. In the meantime, we are working with the industry and others to draw up firm proposals for comprehensive, effective and streamlined regulation of the whole of the private security industry. The consultation exercise was completed last year to inform that process. We are reflecting on the outcome, and hope to be able to announce our proposals for regulation shortly.
    Dr. Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but he will be aware from the endorsement in the foreword by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), that the code of practice produced recently by the British Entertainment and Discotheque Association, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Local Government Association called for the registration of door supervisors to be put on a statutory basis as a matter of urgency. They say that that is the best way of tackling drug-related crime in night clubs. In view of their call for urgency, and the fact that the comprehensive legislation proposed by the Government is not imminent, will my hon. Friend consider extending to other areas the current provisions in the London Local Authorities Act 1996?
    Mr. Boateng: We will certainly have a look at that; it is our policy to keep these matters constantly under review. All the organisations that my hon. Friend mentioned recognise that it would not be wise to regulate door supervisors alone, ahead of the rest of the industry. I commend all those—local authorities, the private sector and the police—who have already set up more than 100 schemes that are about registering door supervisors, and involve effective police checks and training. Good work is being done in Bradford, Middlesbrough, York and
    534
    Liverpool. We want more of that work to be done, but, in the meantime, we will indeed keep the matter under review. There is an issue that needs to be addressed, and we are addressing it.

    Forged Passports
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: How many persons have been found in possession of forged United Kingdom passports in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [61105]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The only comprehensive figures available relate to foreign nationals seeking entry to the United Kingdom who are detected in fraudulent possession of UK passports by the immigration service at our ports or airports. There were 584 such detections between 1 October 1997 and 30 September 1998.
    Mr. Prentice: I thank the Minister for that reply. What about individuals already in this country who have access to forged UK passports? My hon. Friend must share my concern at the revelations in The Observer a week ago yesterday, which alleged that Mr. Abdullah Azad of the welfare centre in Manchester was making forged passports available to people who walked in through the door. That is appalling. The same article said that Mr. Azad was suggesting to people whose immigration status was in doubt that they should apply for asylum. Is it any wonder that legitimate applicants for asylum status are disconcerted by the fact that persons such as Azad can make the queues grow ever longer by encouraging people bogusly to apply for asylum status, to which they are not entitled?
    Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend makes a good case for regulation of immigration advisers. The Home Affairs Committee recommended such a measure in 1992, as did the Labour party during the passage of Bills introduced by the previous Government. The Conservatives did not do so, but we shall regulate unscrupulous advisers. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) has, for many years, held a list of approved advisers whom he can recommend to his constituents. Other MPs should consider their experience of advisers, and should give clear advice to their constituents about which corrupt or incompetent advisers they should avoid.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Is the Minister aware of other recent press reports, which have detailed plans that the Government may offer an amnesty en masse to illegal immigrants? Will he comment on that, and confirm that, if any such amnesty is offered, it will not include anyone who is found to be in possession of forged documentation?
    Mr. O'Brien: There will be no amnesty of people who have been refused asylum. The Conservatives left a backlog of cases: tens of thousands of asylum seekers, some of them genuine, had not been given a decision in six, seven, eight or 10 years. It was a shameful dereliction of duty. Now they complain when we are having to clean up their mess. If they had decided cases quickly, the mess would not have been created in the first place. We are

    535
    determined to restore integrity to our asylum system by tackling bogus applicants. We have taken the tough decision that the Conservatives ducked. They carp, we act. Where they failed, we shall succeed.

    Norwich Prison
    Dr. Ian Gibson: If he will make a statement on the deaths in custody in Norwich prison during the last year. [61106]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): Regrettably, there have been five self-inflicted deaths at Norwich prison during the past year. Inquests held in three cases resulted in verdicts of suicide, and two inquests are outstanding. Each death has been investigated thoroughly. A review of suicide awareness procedures was undertaken in May, which found no deficiencies in the procedures.
    Dr. Gibson: I thank my hon. Friend for sharing my concern about the events in Norwich prison. Will he meet me and share some of the information that he has with me as soon as possible, so that I can see what has happened, because I have been denied information?
    Mr. Howarth: Yes.

    Police Disciplinary Regulations
    Mr. Ivor Caplin: When he proposes to change police disciplinary regulations. [61108]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): As my right hon. Friend announced in March, new police discipline regulations will come into effect on 1 April 1999.
    Mr. Caplin: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he reassure the House that, under these new regulations, early retirement will not be a way of avoiding disciplinary regulations when they are required?
    Mr. Boateng: Abuse of the discipline system through early retirement is to be deplored. The regulations will deal with that mischief. This is a long-overdue measure, which is widely supported in the police service.

    Immigration Advisers and Solicitors
    Mr. Neil Gerrard: What representations he has received recently about improper practices by solicitors and immigration advisers. [61109]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): Many Members of Parliament have made representations to me about constituents whose immigration or asylum cases have been undermined by incompetent or unscrupulous advisers. The Government will introduce legislation to regulate advisers in the forthcoming immigration and asylum Bill.
    Mr. Gerrard: I have drawn my hon. Friend's attention to a number of firms in my constituency that have been involved in very dubious practices.
    When my hon. Friend introduces the legislation and provides for registration schemes, will he please include solicitors? There are far too many solicitors around who seem to think that knowing nothing about immigration law is no barrier to taking on cases and giving advice.
    In setting fees, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that there are small voluntary organisations that may be capable of giving good advice? May I ask him not to set fees at a level that would drive them out of business?
    Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend is right to point out that a number of reputable small organisations—and, indeed, law firms—operate in this sphere; but unscrupulous, incompetent, dishonest firms also operate. We need to introduce a system that regulates advisers.
    I will pass on to my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, who is in charge of the legal profession, my hon. Friend's strong and properly expressed views on some solicitors whom he and I have encountered when dealing with constituency cases.
    Mr. Roger Gale: The Minister will know that, as a result of the practices of some solicitors and immigration advisers, the county of Kent is now playing host to a large number of economic migrants, who impose a burden on it. In the Queen's Speech, the Home Secretary indicated that that financial burden would be removed and that central Government would pay, but in earlier parliamentary answers he has suggested the payment would cover only board and lodging. That means that the burdens of health care, education, policing and social services will continue to fall on the county.
    Will the Minister clarify the position? What are the Government prepared to pay for?
    Mr. O'Brien: We very much appreciate the work of Kent county council, and many councillors of all parties on that council. It has handled with skill and fortitude problems arising from the number of asylum seekers. I also praise the hon. Gentleman's constituents, and many others in Kent, for the way in which they have responded to the pressures on the area.
    The hon. Gentleman is right: we intend to shift most of the burden of dealing with asylum seekers, in particular, on to Government, where it should have been in the first place. It fell on local authorities because of the way in which legislation was passed by the last Government. Support for asylum seekers will in future be dealt with by the central Government agency. There may well be other costs in relation to education; it is possible that they can be met by section 11 and other grants, but that will have to be discussed by the local authority and central Government.
    I think that we shall be able to try to deal with many of the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman—issues that I consider to be genuine—during the next year.
    Mr. David Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that a number of so-called immigration advice firms encourage unrealistic claims, at a high cost to clients? When it is clear that there is no way in which an appeal can be upheld by an adjudicator, the client is

    537
    told to go and see his Member of Parliament. Is it not time that all the racketeering that is going on in so-called immigration advice was cleaned up? It is unfortunate that the last Government took no action, but we hope that the present Administration will do so soon.
    Mr. O'Brien: We are committed to taking such action, and we shall do so as soon as possible. The whole way in which these rackets have been run is a scandal. All too frequently Members of Parliament are dragged into such cases, supposedly making representations that have often been made by law firms. Let me tell hon. Members that they should consider carefully before deciding to support an application from someone who has merely written to them. They should consider whether it is a good case. If it is, by all means let them put it to the Minister—but Members of Parliament should not advance cases that have been submitted to them as a way of dragging out the procedure, with requests for them to meet the Minister, so that people can stay in the United Kingdom for longer.
    We need firm immigration controls. The Government are committed to such controls, and we ask hon. Members to support us.
    Mr. Humfrey Malins: I agree with the Minister that unscrupulous immigration advisers are appalling, but will he take this opportunity to remind the House of the existence of the Immigration Advisory Service, a free national charity that gives expert legal advice? It has offices throughout the country, to which applicants could and should go to get the good, free and independent advice that is often missing.
    Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is right. The Immigration Advisory Service, the Refugee Legal Centre and other organisations have a great record in advising asylum applicants and people with immigration problems. Unfortunately, that record is not replicated among some unscrupulous advisers. In passing, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's work in setting up the Immigration Advisory Service and to his record as its chairman.

    Asylum Seekers
    Sir Teddy Taylor: How many persons are currently awaiting decisions on political asylum; and what was the total in each of the previous three years. [61110]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The number of asylum applications awaiting an initial decision at the end of October 1998 was 59,000. The corresponding figures at the end of December in 1995, 1996 and 1997 were 70,000, 57,000 and 52,000 respectively. There are also cases in the appeals backlog, although that is being reduced because we have employed more adjudicators.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: This is obviously a serious and worsening problem which makes it more difficult for genuine cases to be dealt with. Is the Minister aware that, for some of the old hands in the Commons, it is depressing to hear Ministers trying to blame the problem
    538
    on the previous Government? Would it not be infinitely better, when dealing with the real problems of real people, to try to find a way of resolving them by putting forward sensible proposals, instead of going in for party politics—particularly bearing in mind the nightmares that many genuine applicants suffer?
    Mr. O'Brien: The previous Government had 18 years to try to sort out all these problems. They failed to do so. It is right that this Government should point out that we have inherited a shambles in the asylum system. Nevertheless, it is now our responsibility to sort it out. We propose to introduce legislation that will bring firmer, faster and fairer controls to our immigration system. Up to now, the system has not worked effectively. After we pass the legislation during this parliamentary Session, we will ensure that we have a system that works far better than that inherited from the Opposition.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: I know that my hon. Friend is doing everything possible to try to eliminate the appalling backlog of cases that we inherited but—recognising the problems that the backlog causes to the individuals and, in many cases, to the families—can he give any indication of when he believes he will get rid of the terrible legacy of the last Tory Government?
    Mr. O'Brien: We are proceeding to deal with the cases in the backlog. Many of them are being decided as quickly as possible. We are introducing new working methods during the period up to the end of January, which will help to make much more efficient the making of decisions in relation to the asylum backlog. We are also dealing with a number of cases that date back to 1993 and 1995, which we have inherited. We intend to proceed with dealing with those cases as quickly as we possibly can.

    Firearms Compensation
    Mrs. Eleanor Laing: How many gun owners are waiting to receive compensation for handguns surrendered under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. [61111]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): Around 23,000 individual compensation claimants have yet to receive full payment of their claims. However, the great majority of those have received a part payment. Full or part payments totalling £62.6 million have been made to more than 50,300 claimants. Those figures were correct as at 20 November.
    Mrs. Laing: I thank the Minister for that accurate and informative answer, but does he agree that 23,000 is a very large number of debts outstanding from the Government to individuals, many of whom live in my constituency? When Parliament decided that handguns should be given up, those people willingly gave up their handguns and, therefore, the recreational use of those guns, and they are now waiting for compensation so that

    539
    they can reconstitute the sporting clubs to which they belonged for some other purpose. They cannot do so without the money that is owed to them by the Government. Will the Minister undertake to pay those claims as soon as possible?
    Mr. Boateng: I hope that the hon. Lady is equally concerned about the number of unlawfully held and adapted handguns in her constituency. She will realise the
    540
    danger that they present. She will realise also the action that the Government have taken to speed up processing claims under the compensation scheme. My predecessor as Minister of State—now the Secretary of State for Wales—took action on the matter as long ago as last July. Only recently, I announced expansion of the scheme, to bring forward the completion date for the task as far as we possibly can. The task is a complex but important one. I am sure that the hon. Lady will wish unlawfully held and adapted handguns to be dealt with.

Social Services
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): A year ago, I announced our plans for a modern and dependable health service. In February, I announced our proposals to tackle health inequalities. Last month, I set out for the House our plans to ensure that children in care are looked after properly. Today, I am publishing our White Paper "Modernising Social Services", which spells out our proposals to create modern and dependable social services. The White Paper is another step along the road to providing people in every part of our country with high-quality health and social services whenever they need them.
We are determined to have social services that are convenient to use, respond quickly to emergencies and provide top-quality services to those who need them. We do not have such services at present. Despite the efforts of many very dedicated staff, many services are not provided sufficiently conveniently and promptly, or to a sufficiently high standard.
The services are important to all of us. At any one time, up to 1.5 million people in England rely on the help of social services. At some point in our lives, all of us are likely to need to turn to social services for support, whether on our own behalf, or for a family member, a neighbour or a friend. The need for help often arises at a time of personal or family crisis—such as the onset of mental illness, the birth of a disabled child, a family break-up, or a death that leaves someone without the carer on whom he or she had come to rely.
Social services are provided in many and various ways, ranging from meals on wheels for elderly people, to help at home for people suffering from mental or physical illness or removing children from danger. Help may be delivered at home, in a day centre or as residential or nursing home care. It may be provided by councils, voluntary bodies or commercial companies.
As individuals or as families, it is in our personal interest to ensure that good-quality services are available. However, the matter goes wider than that. Any decent society must provide for those who need support and are unable to look after themselves. Moreover, we all benefit if services are provided for those who need them, as we can all suffer if services break down for young offenders or people with mental health problems.
It is in everyone's interest to ensure that services are available, effective and efficient. However, that objective is not being met. Although there are many top-quality services, all too often, social services are failing to provide the support that people in need are entitled to expect.
People who work in social services have a hard job. They have to deal with some very difficult people, often in difficult—sometimes in dangerous—circumstances. They and their managers are often criticised. Some of that criticism may be justified, but often it is not. However, staff have suffered from a major difficulty. Until now, no Government have spelt out what local people can expect from social services or what the staff are expected to do. The lack of clarity has meant not only that, in daily matters, social services cannot easily be held to account, but often that, when something has gone badly wrong, they get all the blame even when others have been at fault.
542
The Government are determined to change that. We propose to lay down the standards of service that people can expect from social services in every part of the country. Needs vary from one part of the country to another, but the quality of services should not. The new standards should apply to services for young and old, for both sexes and for all ethnic groups, whether they live in the inner cities, the suburbs, country towns or rural areas.
We aim to ensure that people who need social services help are treated with dignity and provided with what they need in a way that promotes rather than diminishes their independence. We want social services to help people to live in their own homes, to do things for themselves and to hold down a job if they can.
We intend to improve the protection provided for vulnerable people by putting in place tough and effective new inspection systems, working to national standards. The new arrangements should make sure that anyone receiving social services help—young or old; living at home or in residential accommodation—is protected from neglect, abuse or exploitation.
Our aim is to raise standards across the board, so that social services everywhere provide top-quality care and attention and are efficiently organised to meet the needs of local people promptly and conveniently.
We will lay down new standards of performance and publish annual reports on what every council has achieved or not achieved. We will set up in each English region a commission for care standards to regulate care services, whether they are provided in people's own homes, through organisations such as fostering agencies or in residential homes. The commissions will cover all services, no matter who provides them. They will have tough new powers and the Secretary of State will have new powers to step in when things need to be put right.
As a further development in our commitment to improve the protection of children, the commission for care standards in each region will include a children's rights officer. Their job will be to inspect children's services to make sure that children are properly safeguarded, that allegations of harm or abuse are thoroughly investigated and that the views of children in care are properly taken into account. They will report directly to the chief inspector of social services any significant evidence that children are not being properly safeguarded. The new children's rights officers will help to make sure that we root out abuse and deliver a better deal for children.
The new arrangements will provide real safeguards for some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Some of what we propose will require changes in the law; some will not. We are taking steps to toughen up the existing system. Councils have been warned that they must not neglect their regulatory functions between now and when the commissions for care standards are set up.
Small children's homes are not currently inspected. We shall invite them to ask to be inspected in the meantime, so that they can start to raise standards, where necessary. I shall advise councils not to place children in homes that have not been inspected.
The standard of social services varies not just between one area and another, but often between two units in the same area. Some first-rate services are provided, but too many are not up to scratch. That has been exposed by recent reports by the social services inspectorate, and in

543
particular by its joint reviews carried out with the Audit Commission. We propose to strengthen the role of the inspectorate and to put more resources into the joint reviews.
We also need to improve the standards of the social services work force. The present professional and training arrangements are not up to the task. We have decided to abolish the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work. We will replace it with a General Social Care Council. Its job will be to ensure the proper regulation and training of all the social care work force, not just social workers. One of its first tasks will be to develop codes of conduct and practice for all staff, which it and the commissions for care standards will then enforce. It will be given the power and resources to do its job properly.
Many of the most needy people require help from several agencies, including the NHS and other providers of social care. Sometimes the various agencies put more effort into arguing with one another than into helping the vulnerable people whom they are there to serve. We are determined to put a stop to that and we will change the law to make it easier for them to work together for the benefit of local people.
In that and many other aspects of the White Paper, we are making clear that things which are not being done very well at the moment must be done properly in future. Doing things properly does not necessarily cost more than doing things badly. Sometimes it proves to be cheaper as well as better, but the Government recognise that extra funds will be required to implement the wide range of improvements that we have in mind. Over the next three years, as a result of the comprehensive spending review, nearly £3 billion extra will be found for social services—£1.3 billion of that in the form of a modernisation fund to lead the changes that are necessary.
I have already announced that £380 million is to be invested in improving children's services. Today, I can announce that we will provide £750 million to finance the change of emphasis in social services to promote the development of dignity and independence for social services users and carers. An additional £185 million will be invested in mental health services provided by social services and we will shortly announce a more than matching increase in NHS funding for mental health. The modernisation fund will also provide an extra £20 million for staff training.
The extra funding must be spent on the improvements that I have outlined and I am putting in place arrangements to ensure that. The money is for change and improvement. It is being provided on top of general increased funding for social services and additional special grants for drugs projects and work on HIV-AIDS. Taken together, we have provided nearly £3 billion extra for social services over the next three years.
Those and dozens of other proposals in the White Paper are designed to help make sure that local councils, the NHS, voluntary bodies and commercial providers work together to help people live independent and fulfilling lives, increase safeguards for vulnerable people and deliver top-quality services across the board. The proposals in the White Paper will give us modern and dependable social services to match the modern and dependable NHS that we are creating.
544
I am confident that our proposals will command the support of users and carers, the staff and everyone else of good will.
Mr. Philip Hammond: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for his courtesy in letting me see it in advance. However, I cannot help asking myself why the Government chose today. The White Paper has been trailed since the spring and we are told that it has been ready since the summer. It was extensively leaked in September and the right hon. Gentleman has already had one bite at the cherry in his statement last month on children in care. Now, what a coincidence it is that he has chosen to release his rather predictably entitled White Paper on the day of an important debate on the Government's constitutional proposals—a debate that the control freaks and spin doctors in Downing street would rather not have had and are desperately trying to curtail.
I shall be as brief as the importance of the subject will allow. The Utting and Burgner reports were commissioned by the previous Government. We welcome any effective measures to protect the vulnerable—young or old—from abuse. However, inspection is about more than preventing abuse; it is about ensuring quality and we welcome the level playing field that will be achieved by the establishment of an independent inspectorate for local authority and private and voluntary sector provision alike. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the same standards will be applied identically to both sectors? Can he further confirm whether the inspectors will have power to investigate value for money? Will they be able to close down facilities that offer poor quality at a high cost?
Some local authorities persist in offering direct provision of residential care, which can be 40, 50 or 60 per cent. more expensive than comparable private sector provision. What will he do about the obscenity of high-cost, low-quality care, which some local authorities provide on a captive basis while many of the people who are assessed as needing residential care have to wait on a list to fill dead men's shoes?
Will the Secretary of State assure the House that inspectors will have no power of entry to individuals' private homes? Even the Government who brought us the beef-on-the-bone ban must recognise that a compulsory power of entry to an individual's private home on the sole grounds that he needs domiciliary care is a step too far. An Englishman's home must remain his castle, even when he needs support from social services.
As performance standards will be set and monitored by the commissions for care standards, will the right hon. Gentleman explain how local authorities and councillors will in practice be held accountable, as he said in his response to the Utting report that they would? Will he confirm for the record that the £750 million that he announced today is part of the £3 billion that he announced at the time of the comprehensive spending review?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, in many areas, private and voluntary sector providers are struggling to maintain quality, as local authority social service departments refuse to allow fee increases even at the rate of inflation? Will he require that private providers receive recognition for good practice, such as investing in increased staff qualification levels through premium payments?

545
In most cases, local authorities are not squeezing private providers because they want to. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that whatever he says today about raising standards will be meaningless if the revenue support grant settlement to be announced shortly further savages the budgets of many local authorities in the south-east, where residential care costs are high and rising sharply? Is he happy to see an increasing proportion of social services spending channelled under central control via health authorities, which further diminishes the responsibility of elected local government?
If the need for regulatory reform is so urgent, why has the White Paper been so delayed and why will there be no Bill in this Session? It is no good for the Government to tell us how important reform is; the Queen's Speech has just been delivered and we can judge the Government by their deeds, not by their words. Has not the Secretary of State been one of the losers in the great legislation lottery? The much-delayed White Paper is little more than his consolation prize.
Mr. Dobson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming our proposals to raise standards and to establish an independent inspectorate to secure those standards. The inspectorate's job will be to ensure that top-quality services are provided everywhere.
Cost-effectiveness will be dealt with as part of the general best-value approach that we will introduce to local government and for which we will be legislating in this Session, as was made clear in the Queen's Speech.
The inspectors will seek to ensure that services are of the same standard, whether they are provided—I thought that I had made this clear in my statement—by councils, the voluntary sector or the commercial sector.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned inspectors of people's homes. We have no such preposterous proposal—it is a manifestation of the fantasies that fill the minds of leading members of the Conservative party. Social services, including voluntary organisations, deliver services—for which the public pay—into people's homes. Some of those services are not up to scratch, so we shall ask people voluntarily to comment on the standard of the services that they are receiving. That is a very proper function for an inspectorate. Nobody will be given powers of entry, or anything daft like that. We want to make sure that where social services are provided to people in their own homes, those services are subject to inspection and checking. That has never happened in the past—something that has been seriously wrong with the system.
On the duties of local authorities and councils, the basic duty—to deliver top-quality services—will lie with the local authorities. That will be their job. We have issued advice to elected councillors on how they can better go about their job of making sure that proper quality services are delivered for children in care and children in need. There will be an inspectorate, but it will not be responsible for the delivery of top-quality services; it will be responsible for checking that others are delivering those services. Private providers should get on with their job of making the necessary provision to the highest possible standards, subject to the regulation that everybody will face.
On channelling money to social services through the NHS, I am glad that we did it. That was one of the reasons why social services and the NHS worked so well together
546
last winter, and I hope that they will do the same again. Frankly, I cannot go to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and say that we need co-operation from social services and the NHS to look after people properly during the winter, and then not deliver that. If that has interfered with a few rights, but has meant that a lot of old people have been properly looked after, so be it.
A lot of the powers will be provided for in the best-value proposals, which will be in the Local Government Bill. Some matching powers and duties will be established in the national health service Bill. We are determined to get on with all the improvements as quickly as we can. As I say, I hope that people of good will will welcome them, instead of fantasising about people jackbooting into other people's homes.
Mrs. Llin Golding: The Secretary of State's statement will go a long way towards helping the most vulnerable in society. I welcome the introduction of a children's officer. Needless to say, I think that that is a step towards a children's commissioner, for which many in this House have been waiting for a long time. May I ask that the officer be given facilities for publicity on television and radio? In the past, far too many people with knowledge of abuse have turned their backs and walked away from that knowledge. If there is publicity and an officer is appearing regularly on television and radio, people will have less excuse for saying, "We do not know who to talk to or go to."
Mr. Dobson: I very much welcome my hon. Friend's support, because she has played a prominent role for a long time in working to improve the standard of service provided for children, and in campaigning for a national children's commissioner. There are arguments for a national children's commissioner, and there are arguments for our proposal that it would be better done regionally. On balance, we have come down in favour of the regional option. Certainly, I want no one in future—either in social services or in the NHS—to have the excuse of saying, "Well, I knew things were going wrong, but there was no machinery to draw attention to the things that were going wrong." That is unacceptable—we will get rid of it.
Mr. Paul Burstow: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Liberal Democrats also want action to raise standards of care—wherever and whoever they are being provided by. We welcome the right hon. Gentleman's warm words today about the importance and value of social care workers, in whatever sector. People outside this House will welcome his comments.
The Secretary of State has talked a lot about Berlin walls between health and social care. Why, therefore, does the White Paper fail to put in place a single seamless inspection and regulation agency to cover all aspects of health and social care? Social services are increasingly in the business of rationing care through care charges. How can health and social care services provide a seamless service when the NHS is provided free and universally, but social services are charged for and rationed?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that, if we exclude the continuing commitment to fund community care over the coming years, the allocation from the comprehensive

547
spending review that he has announced today amounts to an increase of just 1.3 per cent. for social services? How does he expect social services to maintain existing care packages, let alone deliver his improvement agenda, when he has clearly failed to secure the resources needed if they are to do the job properly?
Will the Secretary of State also confirm that the modernisation fund that he has announced today will be allocated not on the basis of bidding, but on the basis of need? Where bidding comes into play, money tends to go to those who write the best statements and bids, and not necessarily to where it is most needed.
Mr. Dobson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his general welcome for what we are doing. I am in favour of breaking down Berlin walls, but the idea that there can be one all-conquering inspectorate to consider everything from the standard of liver transplants to the delivery of meals on wheels is a bit preposterous. I am a great believer in horses for courses, even for inspectorates.
As for allocation of funds, there will be a 3 per cent. increase in real terms next year, and I expect increases on roughly the same lines in future years. The extra money for care in the community has been provided by way of a special transitional grant, and it has been in transition for a long time. The additional number of people in community care who need to be cared for is rapidly falling. The grant will be included in our proposed partnership and other new specific grants. Adequate funds will be available. Let me make it clear that there is no point in providing additional funds unless they will be properly and efficiently spent, and unless there is an inspectorate to make sure that that is happening.
I want allocations to be related to need and I do not envisage that much of the money should be subject to a bidding system. There will, of course, be terrible arguments about the extent of need in different places. No doubt, Sutton and Cheam will prove to be a very needful place in one of our future debates.
Mr. Hilton Dawson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that no actions are more important to improving children's services than those of putting children's rights at the heart of the agenda and of installing the proposed commissioners? May I tell him that he is an absolute hero for doing that, as are his colleagues, the Minister of State, Home Office and the Under-Secretary of State for Health? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the children's rights commissioners will use the United Nations convention on the rights of the child as their template for practice and action?
Can he tell me what attention his Department paid in preparing the White Paper to the promulgation of the three-year qualification for social work? Does he agree that we must aim to ensure that all staff working in social work and social care are appropriately qualified? Will he assure me that the White Paper, or some future document, will include enabling procedures for staff who want to blow the whistle on low standards in their employing organisations that go against the grain of their training and of the Government' s worthy intentions?
Mr. Dobson: Again, I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome for our proposals and I know that it springs from
548
deep knowledge and professional experience over the years. I am reluctant to accept the role of hero—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."] In all fairness, I must say that the vast bulk of the work in the preparation of the White Paper was done by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), before he was promoted to his new job in the Home Office. I am grateful to him for all the work that he did, and I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), will follow him in the same spirit and with the same commitment.
I am concerned about qualifications for staff, especially social workers. Much social services provision is provided by people who are not social workers, and I want to ensure that they all have appropriate high-quality training, because that will help them to deliver appropriate high-quality services. On the subject of whistleblowing, there is now nothing to stop people blowing the whistle as long as they tell the truth.
Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the Secretary of State expand on his statement with regard to improving the quality of care in people's homes, especially adults who live at home with their parents? I ask the question because, last week, I was with a young man in his 30s who lives with mum and dad. When dad went into hospital, the young man sought the help of social services for someone to come and help to move him, to use the toilet and to get in and out of bed. Social services insisted that a hoist be installed. His preference was for two or three people to come in and help to lift him, and he finally got that by identifying a company that could assist himself. When standards of care in the home are improved, will the individual have a say and be able to express preferences within provision packages?
Mr. Dobson: We intend to do exactly as the hon. Lady suggests. My statement and the documents emphasise our desire to ensure that all services are provided so that those receiving them do so with the maximum dignity and independence. If we are to achieve that, the people involved will have to have a substantial influence on the services provided and that is our intention. That could be an issue for the inspectorate, but the aim of our policy is to ensure that the local authority, or whoever is responsible, treats people with dignity and in a way that promotes their independence. That should be a natural part of the process so that we do not have to rely on the inspectorate to ensure that it is happening.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I also warmly welcome the proposals. My right hon. Friend will be aware of a continuing inquiry into a children's home in Halifax, in which two of the perpetrators of abuse have been arrested. The independent inspection teams could have made a huge difference to hundreds of children's lives had they been in place during the past 20 or 30 years. Will the children's rights officers actively encourage people to come forward and speak out, anonymously if necessary? If that had happened in Halifax, much unnecessary suffering could have been avoided.
Mr. Dobson: I thank my hon. Friend for her welcome for our proposals. If the children's rights officers are doing their jobs, they will accept any sound information

549
from any source. If anonymity is required, at least at an early stage, they should be prepared to accept that unless remarkable circumstances prevent them from doing so.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Secretary of State aware that Southend-on-Sea council, which has a Liberal Democrat and Labour majority of one, has just decided to close three of our six old folks' homes, because we cannot afford them? We have an appalling problem with bed blocking at our local hospital, because the council cannot take the old people in, and we also have a deficit of £2.5 million in our social services budget. As the Secretary of State said, the people want to know the truth. How will the extra £3 billion be given to local authorities? Will it be included in the local authority support grant that will be announced later this week? Will it be in the form of a special grant, or is it one of those mystical things that might appear in three years' time? Does the Secretary of State appreciate that we have a genuine crisis which is not caused by inefficiency or politics and we need to know how the extra money will get to Southend?
Mr. Dobson: The money will begin to be provided next year—
Sir Teddy Taylor: Next year?
Mr. Dobson: Yes, next year. We are rather a long way through the current financial year. Money will be provided to Southend and everywhere else next year in grants for specific purposes. Although many of the additional funds that I have announced today will be provided in specific grants, others will be provided through the standard spending assessment and the grant formula that will be announced through the revenue support grant system. I make no bones about the fact that if we are to raise standards in the way that we want to, much of the funding must be provided through specific grants, and that is that.
Mr. Jonathan Shaw: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcements. The proposals for children's rights officers and care commissioners will be given three cheers in the welfare and social work professions.
My right hon. Friend mentioned small children's homes. For far too long, residential social workers have not received the training that they need. As long ago as 1948, the Curtis report said that training was required for people who undertake some of the toughest work, caring for the most vulnerable and violent children. Apart from the specific funds that my right hon. Friend has referred to, what funds will be allocated to improving training for residential social workers?
Mr. Dobson: As I said, there will be an increase of £20 million for training social services staff in addition to the £120 million that is already being spent. Some of that funding is not spent particularly well and it will be helpful if we can redirect funds so that they are better used.
One of the problems in the staffing of residential homes is that for the past 20 years, there has been an emphasis on care in the community being superior to residential care. That is not a party political point; it has simply been the social services fashion, accepted by almost everyone
550
with the exception of myself. That emphasis has resulted in a downgrading of the attention paid to residential care and the training of people who provide it, and residential care has become less attractive over the years. We want to reverse that process and pay more attention to residential care in future. It will, therefore, be one of the targets for our effort on improved training.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Faversham and Mid-Kent): As someone who has been fighting for a general social services council for at least 15 years, I welcome that proposal. However, I have two points to make to the Secretary of State.
First, the aging group of frail people who went into residential care with protected rights are now vulnerable to being moved into cheaper homes, which would be extremely painful and disruptive for them. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could tell me what he intends to do about those people.
Secondly, in the increased partnership between non-governmental organisations and social services departments, there is a serious danger that the local authority departments will try to make the NGOs like themselves in the way in which they deliver services. Having just come from the opening of a new facility in Kent for the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, I am conscious of the enormous importance of well-run NGOs continuing to innovate and pioneer services in ways that may be regarded as risky by local authorities.
Mr. Dobson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for our proposals for a general social care council. As I said in my statement, it commands the support of people of good will on all sides and no side. The real test of the treatment of aging and frail old people is whether the standard of care is maintained or—preferably—improved. That standard must be applied by whomever is responsible for their care.
I have always been acutely conscious of voluntary organisations' innovatory activities, and I want them to continue. Local authorities always face a dilemma because some novel ways of doing things might be an improvement, but some end up not working. Local authorities have an understandable desire at least to ensure that there is a very good chance that some new provision is more effective than the old one. Generally speaking, we want to encourage innovation, as long as it is not so maverick that it is predictable that it will go wrong.
Ms Helen Southworth: I very much welcome the report. I came into the Chamber to harass the Secretary of State about state sector boarding schools. I am, therefore, extremely pleased that they are included in the new protection, along with residential family centres, independent fostering agencies and small children's homes. That is extremely welcome, not just in my constituency, but across the country. Will regional children's rights officers' telephone numbers be made available in those schools and establishments? Will children have access to private telephones?
Mr. Dobson: I thank my hon. Friend for not harassing me. If she has not done so for the good reason that I do not need to be harassed, that is all the more welcome.

551
It was certainly right and proper to extend coverage to state sector boarding schools. We want to cover all aspects of the welfare of children, whoever provides it and wherever it is provided. That seems logical, and I am glad that she is in favour of it. We certainly expect regional rights officers to make themselves known through telephone helplines and all sorts of things. We are, of course, establishing national machinery to back that up. We are trying to provide private telephones. Indeed, many local authority homes, and some voluntary homes, already provide private access to a telephone, and we must extend that.
Mr. John Bercow: Further to the inquiry of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), will all funding for the new children's services grants be additional to existing Government expenditure? If the answer is yes, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm today what he failed to confirm in the House on 5 November: at no stage will local authority social services standard spending assessments be readjusted downwards to reflect the introduction of those grants?
Mr. Dobson: They will not.
Mr. Bill O'Brien: I join others in congratulating my right hon. Friend on his statement and thanking him for it. Local authorities, such as my own Wakefield city council, suffered for far too long under the Conservatives' unfair distribution of resources, which resulted in a reduction in the provision of elderly and child care in my area. The Tories cut resources allocated for that purpose. Following the launch of the community care charter, will my right hon. Friend extend it in due course to fire protection in old peoples' homes? Three people in my constituency perished 12 months ago because the home was not registered under fire services regulations. We must also deal with the question of elderly people who are denied services because they cannot afford them.
My right hon. Friend's statement goes a long way to ensuring fairness across the board in the provision of community care. There is much to be done to arrest the problems caused by the Tories. Will he consult his Cabinet colleagues on aids and adaptions in the community and care through the health service? I hope that protection can be extended so that we have a super community care programme throughout the country and old people are protected.
Mr. Dobson: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome for what we propose. Apart from what might be described as the social care and welfare side of the provision of services for old people or young people, or people who are suffering from one form of disablement or another, we certainly need to ensure that we are getting the basics right and that buildings and complexes in which people live are safe and sound. We must ensure that that is done by bringing together all the Government and non-Government agencies in the area to ensure that the very best is being provided.
As I said when we introduced our response to the Utting report on safeguards for children in care, the test must be to ask ourselves, "Would this place be
552
satisfactory for my aging parent or aging relative or relative suffering from disablement?" If the answer is no, people must set about improving things.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for coming to Bromley this morning to turn the first earth for the new hospital. I also have two questions for him. Does he expect the inspectorate system currently run by councils to be transferred root and branch to the commissions for care standards, or will the two systems run in parallel? Will the commissions for care standards have membership from the independent sector and from the NHS?
Mr. Dobson: The hon. Member is virtually unique among Conservatives in welcoming additional spending on the health service. I suppose it is only reasonable that she should welcome my conducting the sod-cutting ceremony for the building of a £150 million new hospital in her constituency.
We do not intend the two systems to run in parallel. As the commissions for care standards come into operation, local authorities will lose their functions. However, we are making it clear that they must carry out those regulatory functions until the care standards commissions are in place. That is the vital aspect.
We are considering the subject of who will serve on the commissions. We certainly do not want them to be exclusively representative of one group or another. The idea is that there should be ministerial appointments to each of the regional boards, and that they will then employ the professional staff who do the work. It is crucial that the membership of those boards commands the respect of the public and of those providing the services, whether they be in the public, the voluntary or even the commercial sector.
Ms Ann Coffey: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals to tighten regulation of children's homes. Specifically, I welcome the fact that small children's homes, which at the moment are unregulated, will be invited to offer themselves immediately for inspection. However, may I have his assurance that he will be very tough on those children's homes that decline to offer themselves for such inspection—and on local authorities that have placed children in those homes? As he will be aware, there is considerable concern, especially in the north-west, about standards in some of those homes.
Mr. Dobson: Children's homes with four or fewer children have not been inspected until now, but they will be inspected by law when we have introduced the new legislation. However, I am so concerned about the circumstances in some of those small homes—some are first rate, but others are not—that I am saying that I expect their owners to invite inspection by the existing local authority inspectors, so that they can start raising standards if they need to.
Another party to the process is the local authority or even voluntary organisation that is placing children in these homes. I shall shortly be saying to local authorities that they should not be placing children in such homes unless they have opened themselves for inspection.

553
Those homes that are doing a good job and providing a good service have nothing to fear from inspection. It is the ones that are not doing that that have something to fear.
Mr. Julian Brazier: May I welcome the proposals for proper outside inspection of children's homes, but ask the Secretary of State what powers the inspectors will have in respect of councils that are actively opposing children in care being adopted? Surely it is desperately sad that with more than 50,000 children in care, barely 1,900 were adopted from care last year, with some councils not allowing one such child to be adopted. What powers will the inspectors have in this area?
Mr. Dobson: We have already issued new guidelines on adoption with a view to trying to promote adoption and encouraging it. In fairness to those who are responsible, there are quite substantial ethical and practical problems about vetting potential adoptive parents. On one hand, we cannot blame the vetting organisation if something goes wrong and, on the other, say that it should not be taking as much time and care as at present. We want to make changes and we want to promote adoption, but it must be safe adoption. It should not lie with any local authority or anyone else to be handing over children to people unless they are absolutely certain that those children will be properly looked after.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Thank you. We shall be returning to this issue on numerous occasions. I intend to move on now.

Speaker's Statement
4.18 pm
Madam Speaker: I am now able to reply to the point raised with me on Thursday last by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who asserted that the contents of the Gracious Speech were available in advance to some Members outside the Government and not to others. He sought my advice on whether what he called a private coalition across the Floor, which allowed some of those party to it to continue to enjoy the full rights of Opposition, had been established.
On the first point, it seems to me that, until it has been delivered, the text of the Gracious Speech is not a document of which the House has cognisance. How far it may be made available at that stage and on what basis is not therefore a matter for me. It is a matter for the Government.
As for the second issue, my responsibility is to guide the House in enforcing its Standing Orders. I know nothing of private coalitions. I can only draw the attention of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield to Standing Order No. 14(3), which, for the purposes of allotting Opposition Days, defines an Opposition party as one
"not represented in Her Majesty's Government".
In this connection, I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention also to the fact that, on the Order Paper, there is an amendment to the Address standing in the name of the leader of the Liberal Democratic party.
Mr. Tony Benn: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for your statement. I ask you to keep an eye on this issue. You will recall that, when the so-called Lib-Lab pact was arrived at in 1977, the then Prime Minister made a statement, there was a debate that day and a vote. What I believe is the creeping coalition has never been put to the electorate. It has never been put to the House, never debated and never voted upon. However the Standing Orders may have been drafted, what I believe to be the creeping coalition has subtly changed relationships in the Chamber. I ask you, Madam Speaker, to keep an eye on this and perhaps to insist that Ministers make statements to Parliament on matters that concern the House itself.
Madam Speaker: I have not been a Member of Parliament for as long as the right hon. Gentleman, but I remember the occasion to which he refers. I assure him that I am interested, and that I shall keep my eyes and my ears open in respect of such matters.

Points of Order
4.25 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I seek your guidance as to the exact parameters of your ruling, given at column 208 of the Official Report on 25 November, on matters relating to debate on the arrest of General Pinochet? For greater accuracy, I have obtained a copy of Hansard and I shall read it to you.
Madam Speaker: I should like a copy of the Hansard, too.
Mr. Leigh: Shall I pass it to you?
Madam Speaker: On a detailed point of order such as this, it would have been nice to have had a little notice, so that I might give a correct reply.
Mr. Leigh: I apologise, Madam Speaker. At column 208, you said:
"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."—[Official Report, 25 November 1998; Vol. 321, c. 208.]
That followed a comment made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who quoted Lord Nicholls's judgment, that:
"The sole question before your Lordships is whether, by reason of his status as a former head of state, Senator Pinochet is immune".
My reason for quoting that exchange is that I attended the debate on Friday 27 November—again, I have to quote Hansard—where Mr. Deputy Speaker made a further ruling on your ruling, saying:
"No one has so far infringed the sub judice rules, but we are getting close. My clear ruling is that we may talk about relations between this country and Chile, as has been done, and we may talk about the possible effect on those relations of the decision whether Pinochet should be extradited. However, we cannot talk about any criminal charges".—[Official Report, 27 November 1998; Vol. 321, c. 454.]
We had quite a wide-ranging debate that morning, in which Pinochet figured several times. Indeed, during that debate I was allowed, at column 496—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now becoming rather tedious. Will he come to his point of order?
Mr. Leigh: My point of order is that, on Friday, we debated what General Pinochet had or had not done in Chile and what he was alleged to have done, but there remains some confusion as to exactly when we became out of order. There have been thousands of column inches in the press expressing views on the issue. Page 384 of "Erskine May"—
Madam Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to come to his point of order.
Mr. Leigh: Page 384 of "Erskine May" states:
"Successive Speakers have exercised their discretion to allow matters to be discussed, on which (although they fall within the strict terms of the sub judice rule) they have considered that no substantial risk of prejudicing proceedings would arise."
556
My point of order is this: because there have been thousands of column inches of debate in the national press, it seems rather restrictive that Members of Parliament, apparently alone in the nation, are not allowed to discuss the issue. As we move into an era where, under the Human Rights Act 1998, judges—especially the Law Lords—will be required to make more judgments on intensely political issues, will you consider using your discretion as Speaker to widen the sub judice rule so that we can have a proper debate in the House?
Madam Speaker: I appreciate—
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I think that I can answer the point of order. I do not want to have to go through any more tedious columns.
I have considered the matter carefully, and not only when I made my first statement. I am as concerned as any other Member of Parliament about the House's ability to debate the matter. I watch proceedings daily, I seek advice and listen to it, and I make my own decisions on the sub judice rule in accordance with what is in "Erskine May" and the practices of the House. I am convinced that the right time to lift the sub judice rule will not be until all legal proceedings are finished and the Home Secretary has been able to come to a conclusion on the matter. When that has happened, I am certain that the Home Secretary, in conjunction with the Law Officers, will come to the House and report properly; the House can debate the matter at that time.
I think that proceedings on Friday went according to plan. Had they not done so, whichever of the Deputy Speakers was in the Chair would have brought the House's attention to the infringement of the sub judice rule.
Mr. John Wilkinson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I seek your further guidance?
Madam Speaker: I have no further guidance to offer.
Mr. Wilkinson: My point of order is this: Her Majesty's Ministers—for example, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—have vouchsafed various comments about Senator Pinochet. That, I presume, is perfectly all right, and Members of this House can broadcast and write articles on the subject, although we cannot debate it. Is that the position?
Madam Speaker: That is the position. In this House, we do not have the luxury that the press and media have to debate and discuss this matter as we wish. We have rules, Standing Orders and procedures, which we follow. I, as Speaker of this House, must uphold those Standing Orders and those procedures, and I shall continue to do so.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your advice about the fact that Sir Gordon Downey is retiring today. My point of order in no way impinges on the way in which he has carried out his duties—it raises another point. His successor, Mrs. Elizabeth Filkin, is not to be appointed

557
until 2 February next year—a full three months away. You have kindly referred me to House of Commons Commission report No. 1143, which clearly sets out the duties of the commissioner and deals with the appointment of his successor, but does not say what is to happen in the interim.
I should be grateful if either you, Madam Speaker, or the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee could give the House an assurance that serious matters that may be referred to the commissioner in the interim—I am writing to him today on one such matter—will be seriously investigated, and that someone on the office staff will be available, and accountable to the Committee, in the interim.
Madam Speaker: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that a very senior staff member is responsible for those issues in the interim. The House of Commons Commission considered this matter most thoroughly when an appointment was made. As well as referring the hon. Gentleman to the House of Commons Commission report, perhaps I might refer him to the debate in this House on that precise issue that took place about two weeks ago. I do not have my diary with me, but the debate could not have been more than two weeks ago. I assure him, and every hon. Member here, that this issue will be taken care of in the interim.

BILL PRESENTED
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
  Mr. Secretary Prescott, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Michael, Mr. Stephen Byers, Ms Hilary Armstrong, Mr. Nick Raynsford and Mr. Jon Owen Jones presented a Bill to make provision imposing on local and certain other authorities requirements relating to economy, efficiency and effectiveness; and to make provision for the regulation of council tax and precepts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 5].
Orders of the Day

  Debate on the Address
  [FIFTH 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.

  Constitution and Parliament
  Madam Speaker: We now come to the main business, and I have had to limit speeches between the hours of 7 and 9 o'clock to 15 minutes. I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  4.33 pm
  Sir Norman Fowler: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Address, at the end of the Question to add:
  'But humbly regret that the Gracious Speech makes no mention of the Government's determination to remove the right of electors to vote for the candidate of their choice in European Parliamentary Elections; deplore both the Government's plans to turn the House of Lords into an enormous quango and also its intention to legislate prior to the conclusions of its own Royal Commission; and further urge the Government to accept the recommendations of the Neill Committee to introduce new rules for the fair conduct of referendums.'.
  In all conscience, many subjects in the Queen's Speech can be debated under the Home Office heading. On law and order, the Government say that they intend to be tough on crime, but they do not explain how that is to be achieved when the policy that they are set upon is to reduce the strength of police forces throughout the country. The inevitable consequence of their financial settlement is fewer police on the beat, although that was the last thing that they promised at the general election.
  On political asylum, the Government say that they will improve the appeal process, but they have done nothing to discourage the influx of bogus refugees in the first place. Rather than numbers reducing, this year they have increased. I say this to the Government: I do not believe that it is a solution to say that the backlog has been reduced by giving permission to stay to thousands of people who are evading the proper immigration procedures. We will want to debate those issues further, including the issue raised today in the Daily Mail of crimes which have been committed by bogus asylum seekers and illegal immigrants.
  In the same way—obviously, Madam Speaker, I take note of your ruling of a few seconds ago— we shall want to debate the case of General Pinochet. Even the most fervent Government supporter cannot claim the handling of that case by the Government to be a triumph. He was given a VIP reception by the Foreign Office; he was backed by the Ministry of Defence; he was arrested with the knowledge of the Home Office; and then he was publicly lobbied against by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—quite contrary to the rules of justice in a case where the Home Secretary is meant to be acting in a quasi judicial capacity. It is quite wrong that a fellow Cabinet Minister should have acted in that way. I hope that the Home Secretary will note that.
  Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was announced on Thursday that, with the agreement of both Whips, today's debate would be on the constitution and Parliament. "Erskine May" makes it clear that, once an amendment has been moved, the scope of debate is restricted by the normal rules of debate, which are that a Member must direct his speech to the question under discussion or to the amendment. The right hon. Gentleman has moved the amendment, so may I suggest that he concentrates his remarks on that amendment?
  Sir Norman Fowler: Certainly, Madam Speaker. That is what I was about to do.
  Those three issues show how things have changed for the Home Secretary in the past 12 months. Each issue has gone wrong, and for each issue the Home Secretary has direct responsibility. We still have the slogans—no one would accuse the Government of being short on slogans. Our concern is not about a lack of words, but about a lack of performance.
  The Government's proudest boast is about their flagship. They may have put their radical plans on transport into the long-term car park, and they may have buried their radical intent on welfare reform together with two reforming Ministers, but on constitutional change their plans are still shining bright.
  What are those plans? For European elections, they intend to introduce a system whereby power is taken from the people and given to the party.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Norman Fowler: I shall give way in a moment.
  On reform of the House of Lords, they intend to introduce an assembly of appointees and placemen: a giant, ermine-clad quango. On referendums, they simply dither about the way forward.
  Mr. Beith rose—
  Sir Norman Fowler: I shall come back to that point.
  The country faces the prospect of referendums on proportional representation and on the single currency. By any standards, those issues go to the heart of our democracy. It is vital that the rules under which referendums are conducted are fair to both sides. It would be a travesty if the Government, and the Government alone, were to control the publicity, and were the only recipients of public money for such a campaign.
  As the Neill committee makes clear, no Government can be truly objective in providing information for a referendum if they support one side of the argument. I am glad to see the Secretary of State for Wales, because we remember when he was the Minister of State, Home Office. We congratulate him on his elevation. There has been widespread criticism that the literature distributed to every household in Wales set out only the Government's case. The Neill Committee said:
  "We were disturbed in particular by the evidence we heard in Cardiff to the effect that the referendum campaign in Wales in 1997 was very one-sided."
  It added that
  "a fairer campaign might have resulted in a different outcome."
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael)indicated dissent.
  Sir Norman Fowler: The Secretary of State for Wales shakes his head, but those are not my words: they are the words of the independent Neill Committee.
  We expect the Home Secretary to give a clearer statement on policy than he gave in the debate on the Neill Committee's report. In particular, he should recognise that both sides of the argument should be

  561
  given a proper voice during a referendum campaign. We also hope that the Home Secretary will take this opportunity to announce a way forward in the debate on the voting system for the European elections.
  One of the refreshing things about the European elections debate was that, in spite of the number of times that we debated the issue, there were always new facts to illuminate the picture. The new fact this time will be last Thursday's European by-election in Scotland, and we all know the result of that. Despite having flooded the area with senior Ministers—and despite the Prime Minister's having lectured Scotland on its duty to the Prime Minister—Labour was pushed into third place.
  Why was that? I do not want to rub salt into the wound—[Laughter.] Certainly I do not. I am a generous and kind man. Let me put the point as kindly as it can be put: one factor was that the electorate did not quite take to the candidate, Mrs. Walker-Shaw. In particular, they were understandably concerned about her claims to have been born in Scotland. At one stage, she told a reporter that she had been born in Aberdeen; but, unhappily for her, a Sunday newspaper found a copy of her birth certificate, which recorded that she had been born in Staffordshire. Mrs. Walker-Shaw then issued a statement regretting that she
  "went over the top in my answers to repeated questioning by a reporter".
  She said that what she really meant was that she had been conceived in Aberdeen.
  Not surprisingly, the North-East Scotland constituency was by now becoming just a little sceptical about the position. Most commentators agree that the performance of the candidate had a direct bearing on the vote. Incidentally, help may be at hand for her: she is high on Labour's list of candidates for the European elections in June, and it will not be necessary for her to go into the complications of her birth certificate for that purpose.
  The example that I have given demolishes the case made by the Home Secretary in debate after debate. He has argued that the candidate does not matter, that people vote only for parties and that, if a donkey were put up for election in Blackburn, the electorate would still vote Labour. Those claims have been proved to be nonsense. The fact is that Labour did not expect to come third. It did not plan to come third. It said—it span—that it was neck and neck with the Scottish National party. One of the reasons why it did come third was the electorate's view of the candidate.
  Not even that is an end to the matter, however. My example illustrates another defect in the system of voting that the Government are introducing. Under the Home Secretary's system, by-elections themselves are on the way out, so if an MEP dies or, say, a Labour MEP becomes disillusioned with his party and resigns, that will normally not be followed by a by-election: the public will simply get the next candidate on the party list. The Minister for Arts, who was then a Minister in the Home Office—I am glad to see that he is present, ably defending the Home Secretary as always—explained the reasoning thus, during the Committee stage of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill:
  "There is a difference between the utility of by-elections for this Parliament and their utility for the European Parliament. The purpose of the regional list system is to provide an element of
  562
  proportionality … A by-election would disturb the element of proportionality that the regional list system brings to the result of the election."—[Official Report, 5 March 1998; Vol. 307, c. 1247.]
  To those who say that no serious issue is at stake in the reintroduction of the European parliamentary legislation on Wednesday under a guillotine, I say, "Look at what is proposed." What is proposed is this: no opportunity for the public to vote for named candidates, party-only ballots, no administrative inconveniences such as by-elections and, of course, no constituencies.
  Mr. Beith: Eighty per cent. of the electorate decided that a European by-election was not a particularly useful thing in the north-east of Scotland, and therefore did not vote. Could that be because the present system, to which the right hon. Gentleman wishes us to return—and to which we shall return, if he succeeds in blocking the Bill—provides no opportunity for any elector to vote for a different candidate from the party of his choice? How can a right be taken away from people who do not have it under the present system?
  Sir Norman Fowler: I thought that the Liberals were in favour of the open list. They have been arguing for it over the past month. Now they are arguing in favour of the closed list. Before a Liberal spokesman contributes to the debate—I do not know which of the terrible three on their Front Bench will do so on this occasion—the Liberals should decide what their policy actually is. We know about the dark rooms, and the tablets, and all that; could someone now define exactly what the Liberal party is up to?
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Surely that is too much to expect from the Liberals.
  Sir Norman Fowler: True.
  Mr. Kevin Barron: The right hon. Gentleman has argued that people vote for individuals rather than parties. Does he agree that the Leader of the Opposition sits in the House because he deserted South Yorkshire? Not enough people there vote for the Conservative party, so he had to go to North Yorkshire, where people do vote for it.
  Sir Norman Fowler: There are a good many embarrassed faces among the hon. Gentleman's colleagues. A good many people have been dodging around the country over the years. I note that the Home Secretary is keeping quiet.
  Instead of the constitutional reform that the Government promised, they are giving us constitutional reform that involves regional lists of candidates drawn up by party bosses. The effect will be that the elected MEP answers not to the public, but to the party. That is the basic defect of the system. [Interruption.] I would be delighted if a Labour Member were to make a speech in favour of closed lists. [Interruption.] In that case, it will be almost a maiden speech.
  Finding Labour Members to defend the closed list has been a difficult task, as has been evident to anyone who has attended our debates regularly. However, when I made the point in a letter to The Times last week, a Labour Back Bencher—the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer)—came out of the woodwork.

  563
  He made a rather odd claim about the position, and about individual lists; but what was most intriguing about his letter was his claim that he wrote as a Back Bencher
  "who was not able to speak in the debate".
  "Not able to speak in the debate"? We have debated the issue four times. Was the hon. Gentleman bowled over in the rush to defend the Government? Was competition among those who wished to speak up for the closed list so fierce that Labour Members had to climb over each other to get at the Opposition? That is not my recollection. It did not look like that from the Opposition Benches—or, I suspect, from the Government Benches.
  The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton)—who has obviously been allowed time off for good conduct—was prevailed on to speak twice. He made interesting speeches—we journalists must stick together—and his case on the closed list was only slightly dented by his admission that he actually supported the open list. Another Labour Member who spoke was later heard to say, "I did it yesterday; they can get someone else to do it today."
  The fact is—as everyone knows—that Labour Member after Labour Member has attacked the closed list. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn); the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell); the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody); and the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) have all attacked it. Perhaps above all, the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) has attacked it. He has said:
  "The closed list system allows fixers to get their way, which is the real reason why I oppose it."—[Official Report, 10 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 229.]
  The only Members of Parliament who appear to have any enthusiasm for the closed list are the Liberal Democrats, who, until a few weeks ago, were strenuously arguing for the open list. That will come as no surprise to any hon. Member on either side of the House who has watched them in action over the years.
  Mr. John Bercow: My right hon. Friend is right to remind us that, in any battle between principle and expediency, among the Liberals expediency always gains the upper hand without much delay. Does he not think, however, that the reason for the Liberals' tergiversation in recent weeks is simply that, when they supported the open list, they believed themselves to be nominally part of the Opposition? They are now supporting the closed list in recognition of the fact that they are snivelling and sneaking up to the Government these days.
  Sir Norman Fowler: I am a generous man. I would not dream of putting it in such emotive terms, but the point that my hon. Friend makes is that the Liberal Democrats are deeply schizophrenic. That is one of their characteristics.
  Ms Oona King: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Norman Fowler: I do not think
  that Iwill give way again. Let me go on.
  564
  Whatever we disagree on, let us not have any of the nonsense that the closed list was a manifesto pledge of the Labour party. The Home Secretary implied that the public should have known that the closed list was what the Labour party intended all along. That case was destroyed by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who said that he had absolutely no idea that it was a manifesto pledge, and for good reason. It was not a manifesto pledge; it cannot have been. If the closed list were a manifesto pledge, why did the Home Secretary announce on Second Reading that he was considering a different system? It was the Home Secretary who set the hares running on the issue and he cannot now row back from that.
  This is an important constitutional proposal. It is precisely the sort of constitutional proposal that any self-respecting second chamber should challenge. The suspicion is developing that it is not only that the Government want the hereditary peers out; they also do not want an effective second chamber.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Norman Fowler: I will not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
  I agree again with what the right hon. Member for Chesterfield said on that point. As a replacement for the House of Lords, the Government are offering us another form of closed list: a closed list of appointees and placemen. That is the only proposal in front of the House. If some people have their way, that is exactly how it will remain.
  That point was put well by Steve Richards, political correspondent of the New Statesman, not exactly a Conservative central office publication.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): How does the right hon. Gentleman know?
  Sir Norman Fowler: If the Home Secretary wishes to challenge that proposition, I invite him to the Dispatch Box.
  Steve Richards said:
  "In the House of Lords some of our peers are having a ball. They sense they have won the argument. They know they are privileged and want to hold on to those privileges for as long as possible … I am not referring to the hereditary peers … no the peers who are looking very pleased with themselves are those who have been appointed by Tony Blair over the last eighteen months … the appointed peers are perfectly happy about the short term battle to abolish the hereditaries, but I do not detect any great demand among them for further reforms which would threaten their own positions."
  That is the point. The Government are proposing an appointed quango; there is no doubt about that. No one knows where they will go next—there is no doubt about that because they have no idea where they will go next—but one thing is certain. They will come under no pressure from their appointees and their placemen, who are very content with their lot.
  According to The Guardian on Saturday, the Government now intend to go further down the appointed road: they have an emergency plan to create 50 new Labour and Liberal Democrat life peers in one day in

  565
  January. Therefore, we now face the prospect of an influx of Labour life peers, which will make Lloyd George's efforts look like a modest sideshow.
  Therefore, life has never been more full of hope for would-be life peers. Last time round, the Home Secretary had his special adviser appointed a life peer. I warn those sitting in the civil service box that, this time, it might be their turn. We face the prospect of the Government scouring the highways and byways for candidates for the House of Lords. Indeed, perhaps we now know what the former Secretary of State for Wales was really up to on Clapham common: he was on a recruiting drive.
  What is utterly absurd about the Government's position is that the legislation is being introduced before the White Paper and before the royal commission. That is the scandal. It is a nonsensical proposition. The sensible way—the only way of making progress—is for the Government to set out their proposals for reform and then to legislate.
  Maria Eagle: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Norman Fowler: I will not, if the hon. Lady does not mind.
  However, that puts the Government into a deep difficulty. They have no idea of what comes next. The Government do not know, the Home Secretary does not know and the Prime Minister certainly does not know.
  Evidence of that comes from an interview that was given by Lord Richard, who until the reshuffle was the Government's leader in the House Lords. Asked what the Prime Minister's vision of the future was, Lord Richard replied:
  "I have no idea what the Prime Minister's views are. I have not talked to him about it. I don't think his mind has been engaged on this in any concentrated way".
  Therefore, for the first year of the Government's period of office, the Prime Minister did not speak to the Leader of the House of Lords about his flagship proposal to change the House of Lords. Indeed, Lord Richard questions whether there will be a second stage at all.
  More guidance is given by the Minister for the Cabinet Office, the enforcer-in-chief, in a remarkably detailed speech that he gave, evidently, in his constituency. Reviewing second chambers in other countries, he said:
  "In some members are directly elected. In others elections are indirect. Some are appointed on the basis of their talent and ability."
  As far as I know, among western democracies, there is just one parliamentary chamber that is wholly appointed: the Canadian Senate. We are fortunate to have an up-to-date survey of the appointed upper house in Canada, which was carried out by the constitution unit. According to Meg Russell's report:
  "The appointed nature of the Canadian senate coupled with the use of political patronage in appointments means that it has little respect amongst Canadians. Its work is largely ignored and even ridiculed by the media and political commentators."
  So there we have it. That is the precedent for the Government's second chamber.
  Mr. Straw: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman could explain how the hereditary peers got there.
  Sir Norman Fowler: The point that I am making is this: if the Home Secretary wants to put forward a case
  566
  for reform, let him put forward a case for reform, but the fact is that he has not. He is giving us his special adviser, appointed to the House of Lords. [Interruption.] It is no use Ministers trying to shout in support of the Home Secretary. Everyone knows that that is the case. That is the precedent for the Government's second chamber. Again, it leads to the conclusion that here are a Government who do not want to be checked by any sort of independent second chamber.
  The Government have had to be pushed into even giving the appearance of going beyond an appointed chamber. We Conservative Members set up our own inquiry. We have set out the principles on which that inquiry will operate. The Government are now to set up a royal commission. Why have the Government done that? The answer was given by the Minister for the Cabinet Office:
  "If we hadn't have promised a Royal Commission the Tories would have tried to attack us for not consulting people".
  That does not sound like a Government who are committed to sensible reform. Not only have the Government been forced into a royal commission; they have also introduced legislation before that royal commission has had the opportunity even to take any evidence. That cannot make sense as a way of approaching the constitution.
  What we know for certain is that we are being offered not an independent second chamber, but a chamber that depends on appointment and Government patronage. I do not believe that the British people will have any time for such a body. I do not believe even that many Labour Members will have time for such a body. It is a constitutional disaster and it should be rejected.
  4.59 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I am delighted to respond to this debate on the Government's programme on the constitution and Parliament. I am sure that any hereditary peers who listened to the speech by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) will realise the strength of my advice that they should throw in the towel.
  Before I deal with the detail of today's debate, I should make a brief but wider observation. As Madam Speaker said, it is for the official Opposition to choose the subjects for the debate on the Loyal Address. I was intrigued by the fact that the Opposition did not want to debate home affairs issues that go wider than the subjects of this debate—as has been the usual practice of both Conservative and Labour Oppositions—but, having heard today's Question Time, I know why they wanted to avoid it. Today, we discovered the hollow words of the Opposition on, for example, police spending, which will rise in real terms. We know that the shadow Chancellor has said that that spending is reckless; therefore, the official Opposition are committed to it being reduced.
  I am not at all surprised that the Opposition did not want to discuss asylum and immigration. We are putting right—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. As the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) alluded briefly to those matters before Madam Speaker made her ruling, I am prepared to allow

  567
  the Secretary of State also briefly to mention them. However, I would be grateful if he would return very quickly thereafter to the subject of today's debate.
  Mr. Straw: My final point is that I am not surprised that the Conservatives did not wish to debate asylum and immigration. Through our immigration and asylum Bill, we want to put right the shambles that we inherited.
  I shall now come directly to the subject of today's debate—the constitution and Parliament. Implementation of any constitutional programme has to be detailed and thorough—although sometimes the provisions must also be complex. Our vision is a simple one: to strengthen the nature of British citizenship, to give the British people a chance to exercise more control over their own lives, and, simultaneously, to show greater responsibility to their fellow citizens and to the wider community.
  Why do we need such change? First, we need it because since the war Britain has become too centralised in its government. That process—as I conceded in a lecture that I gave last Thursday—occurred under Governments formed by both parties. However, the process accelerated under the previous Administration, to a point at which public confidence in the very processes of government reached an unacceptably low ebb.
  Secondly, we need change because—as a paradoxical consequence of our otherwise enviable history in securing constitutional change peacefully and incrementally—we in Britain have a less explicit understanding of our rights and responsibilities than do citizens of other countries with more turbulent domestic histories than our own.
  Thirdly, we need our constitutional change programme because it is an integral part of the Government's overall programme to improve our society and to increase the opportunities for individuals and for families within it. Full citizenship requires both freedom from and freedom to—freedom from fear, from crime, from ignorance and from disease; and freedom to exercise positive rights and duties.
  Our vision of strengthened citizenship lies behind all that we are doing—on human rights, on freedom of information, on higher standards of public life, and on transfer of power to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and to London. Yes, it lies also behind the long overdue reform to end the greatest offence to the very idea of democracy in the 20th century—the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: I have been listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's speech. When he started it, he said that the hallmark of the Government's proposals was that they were detailed and thorough. Could he explain what is detailed and thorough about reforming the House of Lords by getting rid of hereditary peers without putting anything on the table about ultimate reform of the other place?
  Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall deal with that point, and then happily give way to him again.
  Of all the changes that we are making, the one that will probably have the greatest long-term significance is the Human Rights Act 1998, which received Royal Assent
  568
  last month. The Act will help to develop in the United Kingdom a human rights culture and a society in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals are properly balanced. We have already implemented one important provision of the new Act, section 19, which requires the Minister in charge of a Bill to make a written statement about the compatibility of its provisions with convention rights.
  We shall bring into force the Act's main provisions as soon as we reasonably can. A major programme for training courts and tribunals is being developed, and we are having public authorities review their procedures on compliance with convention rights. Implementation involves a great deal of work and I shall make an announcement on a timetable for full implementation as soon as I am able to do so. Meanwhile, I have established a task force, chaired by my noble Friend Lord Williams of Mostyn, including representatives of non-governmental organisations and key Government interests who will help to keep up the momentum of implementation.
  The Government's programme of constitutional reform aims to involve people more closely in decisions that affect their lives, not only by changing institutional structures but by modernising the way in which our institutions work. The result will be greater openness, greater accountability and greater contact with individuals and organisations outside Government.
  A key element of the new relationship between Government and governed will be a freedom of information Act. When we publish a draft freedom of information Bill, early next year, I look forward to a thorough and informed debate on its proposals.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: Will the Home Secretary be more specific on what he means by early next year? Is it by the end of January, for example?
  Mr. Straw: I wish that I could be more specific. I hope—I say "hope" because of the complexity of the Bill's provisions and the need for parliamentary draftsman to have sufficient time—that it will be by the end of February, which would be sufficient time. I realise that the hon. Gentleman takes a great interest in the matter. Once the Bill is published, it will, among other things, go before the Select Committee on Public Administration—of which he is a member, and which undoubtedly will seek to interrogate me extensively on its provisions. Subsequently, subject to business managers, there will be a full debate on the Bill in the House.
  Freeing information about public services and authorities has to be matched by the protection of information held about private individuals. On 16 July, the Data Protection Act 1998 received Royal Assent, implementing a European Community directive agreed by the previous Government.
  The Registration of Political Parties Act 1998 received Royal Assent on 19 November, and provides for establishing a register of political parties. It will, among other things, prevent what has become known as the Literal Democrat problem, where candidates purposely use misleading titles to deceive voters and thereby pick up votes. The Act will prevent the deception of voters by Literal Democrats or others.
  That Act is but one part of a programme to improve public confidence in the functioning of political parties and to sustain high standards of conduct in public life.

  569
  Allied to that action will be publication, by the summer recess, of a draft Bill to implement the main findings in the Neill committee's report on the funding of political parties. The House will recall that, earlier this month, we were able to debate that committee's report. I was greatly encouraged by the large amount of cross-party support for its recommendations.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: The Home Secretary says that the proposed new legislation will implement the committee's main findings. How can he possibly justify suggesting that when he has rejected the committee's most important finding, on referendums?
  Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman reads the record of the debate, he will see that I did not reject that finding. I made it quite clear that I was far from rejecting it. I make it clear to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield that, in the debate, I raised issues not about using public money in referendum campaigns—there should be evenness in funding—but about practical problems, most likely in a referendum on the single currency, of Ministers' access to official advice on, for example, possible turbulence in the markets. That is exactly the point that I made when we debated the matter about four weeks ago.
  It seems to be a matter on which we should be able to reach sensible agreement on both sides of the House. There will be a substantial period during which there can be proper consultation with the Opposition, and it is plainly in the interests of all concerned if we can move forward on the matter on the basis of agreed proposals.
  Mr. Bercow: If the Home Secretary is saying, on behalf of the Government, that he is in favour of fair funding for referendum campaigns, will he take this opportunity publicly to rebuke the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who made it clear in a recent television interview that he did not support such a proposition and attacked the Neill committee recommendations on the issue?
  Mr. Straw: I know of no such suggestion by my right hon. Friend. I draw to the attention of Conservative Members my words of 9 November:
  "We are talking not about spending money, but about having access to advice to which they"
  Ministers—
  "would not have access to during a general election campaign."— [Official Report, 9 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 58.]
  Everyone must recognise the difference between a referendum campaign and a general election campaign: a general election campaign takes place when a Government have finished their work and are seeking re-election; a referendum campaign takes place while a Government are in office.
  I am delighted that we have been able to make such swift progress on devolution. The people of Scotland and Wales will be able to vote for Members of their new Parliament or Assembly just days after the second anniversary of the election of this Government.
  The effect of devolution in Northern Ireland will be equally profound. Words such as "historic" and "momentous" are bandied about all too freely, but they
  570
  are perfectly apposite to describe the Good Friday accord. Peace in Northern Ireland is a goal for which successive Governments have been striving for many years.
  For the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies and the Greater London mayoralty and authority, we have developed voting systems that are tailored to the functions and geographical spread of the institutions—as we have, famously, for the European Parliament. On Wednesday, we can debate the finer details of the closed list system for the sixth time in a month.
  We have all been elected on a closed list. There is no better example than the 12 lackey Members—there are many more—who went on the chicken run. In none of the constituencies concerned—Southend, West; North-East Hampshire; Mole Valley; Worthing, West; Stone; Charnwood; Bromley and Chislehurst; Surrey Heath; Hitchin and Harpenden; North-West Cambridgeshire; Mid-Sussex; and North-West Hampshire—were the voters given a choice in who should be the Tory candidate. The candidates were parachuted in by Conservative central office, or the Members parachuted themselves in, scared stiff—rightly—that they were going to lose the seats from which they were fleeing. The idea that the voters had some additional choice is preposterous.
  Mr. Brazier: The Home Secretary has passed quickly over the genie that has been uncorked by devolution. What will the Government's attitude be should one of the first acts of the new Scottish Parliament be to exceed its remit and call for a referendum on the independence of Scotland?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are in danger of straying outside the terms of the motion. I would not want the Home Secretary to be tempted to do so.
  Mr. Straw: I have been trying to stick to the spirit of "Erskine May". The subject of the debate is the constitution and Parliament; the detail is about the Neill committee and House of Lords reform. The hon. Gentleman should read the White Paper on Scottish devolution, which sets out the answer to his question. As for the best electoral system for this House, we had a full debate on the Jenkins report earlier this month.
  The topic that has generated the greatest heat from the Conservatives, if not very much light, is reform of the House of Lords.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am afraid that I have not had the pleasure of hearing all the debates on the closed list system. Is that the full extent of the Home Secretary's defence of it? We are used to Members of Parliament and candidates exaggerating their personal vote in elections. The right hon. Gentleman's proposition is that it makes no difference to the electorate who stands. I would not normally choose an example from the Labour party, but does he remember when the Labour party chose Peter Tatchell as its candidate in a by-election in south London? Surely that was the single reason why a safe Labour seat went to the Liberal Democrats. It has stayed in the hands of the Liberal Democrats ever since. The electorate begin with a political loyalty, but it is preposterous to say that they do not want to know which individual is expected to represent that party locally.
  Mr. Straw: Of course I remember the Bermondsey by-election at the end of January 1983. The right hon. and

  571
  learned Gentleman does the Labour party too much credit suggesting that the only reason that we gained fewer votes than the numbers who turned up to Labour party public meetings was the candidate. The Labour party had a few problems of its own, as those of us who sought to canvass in that bitter January remember all too well.
  I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not present during the many hours of debate on the closed list, the reports of which I have here, because I have no doubt that he would have lightened the atmosphere. However, he has made my point. Mr. Peter Tatchell was on a closed list of one. The voters were faced with a simple choice. If they did not like the candidate, they did not vote for the party. We got a clear message. The same will happen with closed lists for the European Parliament. If people do not like the candidates, they will not vote for the party and we shall have to accept that. That is a necessary consequence of closed lists. I do not resile from that.
  There are two fundamental objections to the present position of hereditary peers in our Parliament. The first is that they are hereditary—an idea that is as absurd as it is offensive. The hereditary principle is seen as preposterous—[Interruption.]
  Mr.Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not know whose electrical device is making a noise. Can it be identified and turned off at once? Madam Speaker gets extremely annoyed when such things happen in the Chamber. Hon. Members on both sides must either leave their devices outside the Chamber or make sure that they are switched off before they come in.
  Mr.Straw: Had the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) been present in our debates, he would know that every time that I have spoken I have been interrupted by a mobile telephone or a pager.
  Mr.Kenneth Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that I am a bleeper-free Member of Parliament.
  Mr.Straw: Would that I were.
  I was saying that the hereditary principle is seen to be preposterous and risible when it is applied to any other walk of life. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has graphically put it, imagine inquiring of the pilot of an aeroplane about whom one was a little worried what his qualifications were and being told, "It was my grandfather who acquired the pilot's licence. I inherited it." Or imagine lying open-mouthed in the dentist's chair as the dentist drilled into the gum instead of the teeth. That would raise questions about his skills. Imagine if, when asked to produce his certificate of competence, he brought out one awarded in 1860 to his great great uncle William, but said not to worry because the skills had been transmitted through the genes.
  I found it extraordinary that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield criticised the second chamber in Canada on the ground that everybody there was appointed. That is true, but they are appointed on their own merits, not on the merits of their long dead ancestors.
  572
  Labour Members are not the only ones to have taken the view that there can be no place for hereditaries in the House of Lords—a succession of Conservatives have done so. A former Conservative Home Secretary, now Lord Baker of Dorking, said in the House of Lords on 14 October, almost as an aside, that the position of hereditary peers was one
  "which no one can defend".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 October 1998; Vol. 593, c. 977]
  In a pamphlet published in 1981, the former blue chip group of new Conservative Members said:
  "Hereditary peers no longer command enough respect from the nation as a whole to justify their exercise of legislative power".
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?] None of them is here, but some are in the other place. The four authors include three former Ministers—William Waldegrave, Tristan Garel-Jones, and Ian Lang. The fourth was then plain Robert Cranborne, now Viscount Cranborne, Leader of the Opposition in the other place.
  Another Tory—at that stage a young Tory—told the Conservative party conference in 1980 that hereditary peers were "silly". That young Tory was one William Hague. I accept that we can all change our minds over an 18-year period, but when we do we owe an explanation. If hereditary peers were "silly" in 1980, what has changed since then to alter the right hon. Gentleman's opinion today?
  Mr.Grieve: The Home Secretary makes a great attack on the hereditary principle and I accept that there may be mixed views on it. However, in attacking the hereditary principle, would he care to reflect on the British jury system? Are not the vast majority of people who serve on juries summoned to do so because they happen to be descended from British citizens and therefore qualify for that purpose at the age of 18? It is a random selection sample which is not based on qualification. I would be grateful for the Home Secretary's comments on that point.
  Mr.Straw: I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Gentleman, but he does not do himself credit on this occasion because there is a world of difference between people being chosen wholly at random and the composition of the other place.
  Mr.Laurence Robertson: The Home Secretary referred to dentists. As I have just returned from the dentist, I hope that he will forgive my lack of verbal dexterity. Does his dislike of the hereditary principle extend to the monarch?
  Mr.Straw: No.
  Maria Eagle: The Queen does not legislate.
  Mr.Straw: My hon. Friend is right. There are overwhelming arguments for constitutional monarchy. Every other country with a constitutional monarchy does not have hereditary peers with legislative power.
  Mr.Gerald Howarth: The Home Secretary has not answered the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson). If the Home Secretary is adamant that the principle of hereditary succession is, in his words,

  573
  "risible", he will have to defend the position of the monarch rather better as many of his right hon. and hon. Friends will make their next target the removal of the hereditary principle as applied to the monarch and he will be caught out by them.
  Mr.Straw: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that we can speak rather better for what we believe than he can, and what he says is untrue.
  Mr.David Heath: Has the Home Secretary considered the position of the 12th Earl of Dunmore, Viscount Fincastle and Lord Murray of Blair, Moulin and Tillimet—who is one person—who did the other place a great service the other day by attending and speaking in the debate despite the fact that he has always lived in Tasmania, where he has now returned? Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that there is any reason why that person should be legislating on behalf of the people of Britain?
  Mr.Straw: No, I do not. However, it is consistent that the Conservatives, who gave votes to people living abroad, should rely for their majority on a very long list, which I shall not read out, of about 50 peers who live abroad and certainly would not serve on a British jury.
  The first fundamental objection to the position of hereditary peers is that they are hereditary. The second, which the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield missed altogether, is that they give one political party—the Conservative Party—an in-built 3:1 majority in the Lords, regardless of which party has the most popular support in the country.
  Fifty years ago, a party leaders' conference on the future of the Lords agreed a memorandum that was signed for the Conservative party by the late Anthony Eden. Although there was not consensus on every aspect of reforming the Lords—hon. Members can read the full text in the Library—it was agreed that no one party should have a permanent majority in the Lords. That was in 1948, but one party does have a permanent majority. What exposes the Conservatives' complaints about our two-stage process as utterly hollow is that in the intervening period since 1949 they have done absolutely nothing to change that in-built majority. We know why—it has not suited them.
  We all acknowledge the important work of the other place as a revising Chamber, but that function requires neither hereditary peers nor an in-built 3:1 Tory majority. We also know that when push comes to shove, the Conservative party has always been ready ruthlessly to exploit that majority in its favour.
  On any basis, the poll tax was an issue of rather greater significance and popular controversy than the question of closed lists for the European parliamentary elections. As many of us recall, it was opposed by so many Conservative Members that the then Government's majority fell from more than 100 to just 23. What role did the 3:1 in-built Tory majority in the Lords play? Was it to stand up for the democratic will and to challenge the ambiguity of the Conservatives' 1987 manifesto commitment? No, it was not; it was to drive the Bill through regardless of the arguments.
  The Conservatives' use of their in-built 3:1 majority has differed when Labour Governments have been in power. In an average Session when the Conservatives
  574
  have been in power, there have been 13 defeats of Government business in the other place. In an average Session when Labour has been in power the figure has been five times that—on average 60 defeats, including the recent decision in the other place to override the elected will of this democratic House on five occasions in respect of the European parliamentary elections, forcing us now to use the procedures of the Parliament Act 1911.
  I pose this question to Her Majesty's Opposition: if, by some freak of nature, the vast majority of hereditary peers had been overwhelmingly Labour or Liberal Democrat supporters and the in-built 3:1 unelected majority had been against their party, not in favour of it, would the Conservative party have been quite so relaxed about the reform of the other place? Of course not. The smile on the face of the shadow Home Secretary speaks for itself.
  Mr.Donald Anderson: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the recent record of the other place, including the poll tax. Would he care to comment on the constitutional propriety of the briefing to Conservative peers and Members at the time of the Queen's Speech that they should give zero tolerance to the Government's programme over the next Session—when the Government were elected with a massive majority?
  Mr.Straw: The best comment that I can make is that that would be unwise for the Conservatives. They are paving themselves into a corner in choosing out of all the issues in the home affairs brief to concentrate on defending the hereditary principle when we have just had an admission—albeit through silence—that they recognise that they have never taken any action to reform the House of Lords because it gives them a convenient 3:1 majority. In many ways, I am delighted that they should draw public attention to such an issue.
  Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr.Straw: No, if the hon. Lady will excuse me.
  On the issue of the manifesto, two years ago Viscount Cranborne—now Leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords—made a keynote speech on the constitution. It is worth re-reading, not least for its quaint assertions. He claimed that the "hereditary peerage"—more than half of whom went to Eton—
  "are coming to represent the common man in Parliament".
  I tell the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that I do not think that half the members of the average jury will have gone to Eton.
  The noble Viscount made an important admission in his speech. He engaged in an argument about our two-stage proposal, which had been well aired. He said that
  "we should examine what Labour is proposing and test the justifications they give for their policy. It will then be for an informed electorate to decide".
  At the general election, an informed electorate did decide. Our commitment to a two-stage process could not have been clearer. We said in our manifesto:
  "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."

  575
  By continuing to say that they will refuse to accept the will of the electorate on the two-stage process, the Tories put themselves in an entirely false position. As we have heard today, they have used the reverse of that argument on the European Parliamentary Elections Bill.
  Mr.Andrew Tyrie: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr.Straw: No.
  The Opposition justify what they are doing on that Bill on the ground that the provision of closed lists was not included in our manifesto. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield is right about that—we were committed to a proportional list, but we did not specify which kind of list. However, by using that argument, he is also saying that the manifesto should be treated as gospel and that, where it is detailed, there can be no doubt that the Government should be allowed to secure their business. If the Salisbury doctrine is to have any meaning, that must be the minimalist interpretation of it, but we are now told that both it and our manifesto are to be ignored. That is undemocratic and unconstitutional; it will not remotely impress the British people.
  The Government believe that a second chamber can and should play a most important role. We value its wisdom and its work as a revising Chamber, as I hope we showed when we accepted a number of its amendments to two key Bills—the Crime and Disorder Bill and the Human Rights Bill. However, we believe that we must have a second chamber whose members sit in it by their own right, not by virtue of the acts of their ancestors.
  In 1958, one of my distinguished predecessors as Home Secretary, Rab Butler, spoke on Second Reading of the Life Peerages Bill to introduce life peers into the other place. He said that the Bill
  "would make it possible to offer life peerages to people of distinction in the public service, people who could represent some aspect of the nation's life with particular authority … men and women who will strengthen it"
  the House of Lords
  "by their knowledge of affairs and their experience and widely varied interests, political, scientific, economic, cultural and religious."—[Official Report, 12 February 1958; Vol. 582, c. 407–08.]
  We have always believed that life peers add great quality and diversity to Parliament, but we question why those who do not bring those values to Parliament on their own merits should be allowed to continue to sit in it. There is a world of difference between people who are appointed to a position on their own merit and people who are appointed to a position on the merits of their forebears.
  Mr.John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr.Straw: I have given way many times and I need to come to a close.
  As the Gracious Speech made clear, we intend to legislate in this Session to remove the sitting and voting rights of hereditary peers. We also intend to establish a
  576
  royal commission and then a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider the longer-term future of a second chamber.
  We shall be publishing a White Paper setting out our proposals, including those for a new system for the appointment of life peers. We have made it clear that under the new arrangements, contrary to the wild and inaccurate assertions of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, prime ministerial patronage will be reduced. We will seek to ensure the maintenance of a substantial Cross-Bench element in a second chamber, so that no party has an absolute majority—we shall be implementing the agreement between the parties that was signed in 1948. Even when we have done that, the Conservative party will continue to be the largest party in the other place. What more does it want?
  We have made significant progress in our task of giving the constitution of the United Kingdom a radical overhaul. We look forward to further accomplishments in the Session ahead.
  Mr.Tam Dalyell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr.Straw: I am just coming to an end.
  Much of the work on which we are now engaged—on standards in public life, on devolution and on the strengthening of local government—could and should have begun under the previous Administration. Prejudice and indecision prevented them from acting, and prejudice and indecision are the hallmarks of their opposition today.
  The Conservative party's opposition is exposed as the hollow, opportunistic sham that it is by the fact that, although it huffs and puffs against the changes now, it will not—I guarantee—be pledged at the next election to abolish the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly, to repeal a freedom of information Act or the Human Rights Act 1998 or even to reinstate the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords.
  Her Majesty's Opposition know that they have manoeuvred themselves to the wrong side of the argument. They know that the British constitution needs modernising and we know that we are the party and the Government ready and able to deliver that modernisation.
  5.36 pm
  Mr.Kenneth Clarke: The Queen's Speech and the Loyal Address at the beginning of a Session—especially the second Session of a Parliament—give a clear impression of the Government's priorities. This Government have, beyond doubt, decided to give the largest part of their legislative time to the abolition of the sitting and voting rights of hereditary peers—we know perfectly well that that will occupy a great deal of the legislative programme.
  I shall not talk about all the other measures—some of which I agree with, some of which I anticipate and some of which I propose to oppose—that have been squeezed out. For some reason, the Labour Government have, in their second parliamentary Session, decided to make the abolition of the voting rights of hereditary peers the priority of the House of Commons.
  I believe that the most important issue for the public in 1999 will be the British economy, especially when unemployment rises by hundreds of thousands.

  577
  However, that will be debated tomorrow and my views on economic policy and mismanagement are well known. I wonder why the Government have made the centrepiece of their proposals this extraordinary attack on the hereditary peers, whom I will not defend—that is not the issue, as I shall make clear.
  All that the Bill will do is remove the voting rights of hereditary peers. It is a more democratic and peaceful version of a policy that a former and more autocratic Government might have adopted—perhaps a few aristocrats' heads would have rolled in the baskets to relieve the starving masses of their problems. The political theatre of the House of Commons will be concentrated on the supposedly crucial matter of removing the voting rights of the large body of hereditary peers, but I do not think that that will work as a diversion.
  The debate is about the constitution and Parliament, a subject that the Home Secretary seemed seriously to tackle in the first part of his speech. He launched into an interesting academic lecture, although he rightly decided that academic lectures—he has given a few good ones in his time—are not best given on the Floor of the House. He tried to cloak the matter with the dignity of a thought-through philosophy on the constitution and Parliament, the proper relationship between the citizen and the state and the checks on autocratic Governments.
  The Bill addresses nothing of the kind. The Government do not work in that way. To say that the debate has anything to do with the long-term development of the British constitution is to elevate it above its true importance. The Prime Minister shows what he thinks of the constitution of the House of Commons—he does not believe that the House is important enough for him to attend or to take much interest in its proceedings. He throws the House Bills such as this one to keep the more difficult of his Back Benchers happy in fighting out old battles about hereditary peers.
  The Government are embarking on a lot of constitutional reform, but they are doing so for short-term, party management reasons. They give ad hoc reactions to this and that crisis, but they neglect all the serious constitutional issues.
  With hindsight, I believe that the Government of whom I was a member for so long were mistaken in becoming so immovable on the constitution. We should not have allowed ourselves to be put in a position where we seemed to be defending the constitution for every part of the United Kingdom as though it could never change. The benefit of having an unwritten constitution is that it evolves and changes. In the recent debates on devolution legislation, we accepted some of those errors, and that some of the changes—such as the creation of a Scottish Parliament—were permanent.
  On devolution, the present Government made the error that they are now making on a bigger scale on the second Chamber. On Scottish devolution, we said, "We give up. We were wrong." We now wish to persuade the Scottish people that we accept that they will have a much greater role in governing their part of the UK in future, and that the Parliament is permanent. We will try to rebuild the Scottishness of our party in the Parliament.
  The Government would not address the big issues—and the big, difficult issue is the West Lothian question, the existence of which was not even acknowledged by the Government. There is no answer to it in the arrangements
  578
  that we have and, one day, it will explode. The Government instead argued about which Scottish Members of Parliament should be on the fixed list that they were proposing for the electoral system. Their aim was to beat the Scottish National party. I am not sure whether I hope they do or not; I suppose that, for the sake of the Union, I hope they do. However, the matter was totally misjudged, and we are left with a funny piece of the constitution that will have to be addressed—exactly the problem with House of Lords reform.
  This is the first time that I have made a speech on the other place in all the time that I have been in Parliament. That is rather surprising. I have been here for a few Parliaments now—as long as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). I always assumed that if I carried on being elected by my constituency, it would not be long before I was voting for the abolition of the voting rights of the hereditary peerage—because of the easy arguments made by the Home Secretary. Those rights were nearly abolished shortly before I was elected, by all-party agreement.
  I hesitate to give the exact number of years later, but I am genuinely surprised that we are only now discussing the removal of the voting rights of hereditary peers. If, at any stage, any Government of any complexion had asked me to vote for the removal of those voting rights, I would have voted in the Aye Lobby—if it was in the context of giving this House the opportunity to decide what sort of second chamber we should have. That is the point that the Home Secretary did not address. I never imagined that any Government would be daft enough to say that we should vote for the abolition of the sitting and voting rights of hereditary peers but not consider any other aspect of the second Chamber, or the consequences that that will have for the constitution.
  Fiona Mactaggart: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Maria Eagle: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr.Clarke: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who is obscuring the view of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle).
  Fiona Mactaggart: How kind.
  If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that nobody ever thought that any Government would be "daft enough" to undertake reform in two stages, could he perhaps explain why, when the Conservatives were not doing so well during the election campaign, they did not use as a major campaign item, designed to get more votes from the masses for their proposals, that part of the Labour manifesto which quite explicitly stated that this would be a two-stage process?
  Mr.Clarke: I did not think that the issue was worth a vote to anybody at the election—my constant regret when I speak on constitutional issues. Members on both sides of the House had to rush away to find exactly what was said in the manifesto at the last election. However, the idea that the Labour majority was based on the commitment to get rid of the votes of the peerage is somewhat exaggerated.

  579
  I cannot remember the last time anyone raised the issue with me, but I have made no secret of my views over the years. I always assumed that, eventually, we would address the question of the second Chamber—a substantial question.
  First, one must ask whether we should have a unicameral Parliament or not. I have wavered on that over the years. In the past, I have almost fallen into the trap into which Ministers in the present Government have fallen: when the House of Lords was booting my Bills about, I wondered whether it might not be a good idea to have just a single chamber. On balance, I am against that.
  We have a second chamber for the reasons that every other democratic state in the world usually has one: because it can provide some practical constraint on the occasional tyranny of the elected majority; because it can provide a check and a balance; because it can assist in drafting; and because it can occasionally cause a pause for views which are, in the instant, unpopular, but can be reflected upon as preserving minority and wider interests. Those are important issues. That is what the second Chamber is for.
  It is not just a question of which party has the most seats at any given time, which is what the Home Secretary concentrated on. That part of the argument is obvious to the public, and the Home Secretary will not deal with it. He attacks the voting rights of hereditary peers—fine, I will not in any way defend them. He has already recounted how countless Conservatives have no intention of defending the voting rights of peers. However, he ignores the second part. What is the legitimacy of the body that we will leave once we have removed those voting rights?
  If—in a healthy parliamentary democracy—we are to have a second chamber, it must have proper powers and a broad consensus of opinion behind it to give it the legitimacy to exercise those powers. There are many features of modern politics—most, but not all, down to this Government—which make the need to address the reform of the second Chamber more important than in the past. I fear, and I have no doubt, that the House of Commons has diminished in importance as a focal part of national debate for a variety of reasons.
  I am a complete reactionary on this matter—I always was in government—but I think that a lot of the things that were done in the name of the reform of parliamentary procedure have weakened the ability of smaller groups of hon. Members to inhibit the progress of Government legislation. I never approved of the Jopling reforms, and I am afraid that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and I were at one in our reaction to Parliament stripping itself of half of its effective ways of gently frustrating and delaying the Government and of bringing home to Governments the consequences of their actions. I knew that we would suffer from that when we were in opposition.
  The power of the mass media has changed. I am not going to attack the media, but the fact is that the relationship with the media now dominates politics in a way that Parliament does not. Governments play to the media more than they need to—this Government more than most. The power of Alastair Campbell far exceeds that of the Leader of the House. Agenda setting is dictated
  580
  by the way in which issues are presented. That means that there is all the more reason to look at parliamentary democracy, and at the checks and balances that two Houses of Parliament can impose on the Government. Single-issue lobbies are more powerful than ever. Commercial interests, as we know, can intrude on the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the process of government far more than in the past.
  No task could be more serious than to look at the second chamber and ask what powers it requires, and I have touched on most of them. I can only give my personal opinions—they are my tentative opinions. The agenda has been forced, and I will wait for the royal commission. No doubt in the intervening time my views will become more crystallised.
  I am driven to the conclusion that legitimacy will depend on having an elected element. Once we have changed the second Chamber, drawn it to the public's attention and said that it will not be what it was, the average intelligent member of the public will say that it cannot have legitimacy unless it has elected people. The people give legitimacy to Members of Parliament, and should be electing people for the second Chamber.
  When we get on to voting systems, my eyes usually glaze over. However, Liberals will love debating the electoral system, the time scale of elections and whether members of the upper House should be elected for a longer term. In a senate or a second chamber, that matters. We will need something with legitimacy that is detached from the first chamber, and elected by a different method. The matter must be discussed, and as broad a consensus as possible reached, before we move on.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who no longer represents West Lothian—it has been renamed.
  Mr. Dalyell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he would wait for the royal commission. Does he recollect Michael Foot's adage that a royal commission can be like a broody hen sitting on china eggs? It may be a very long time before this particular royal commission reports. I was the late Dick Crossman's Parliamentary Private Secretary during the last attempt at Lords reform, and I know that it is a complex mire.
  Mr. Clarke: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. This is one of the issues on which I also agree with my late boss, now Baroness Thatcher, who hated royal commissions. I hate them, too. They are a dreadful idea. They used to be set up only so that the Government could get rid of a subject on which they had no opinion and did not want an opinion. Usually, a raft of royal commissions is set up towards the end of a Parliament. Then, Ministers can go through an election refusing to answer questions about the subject, saying that they are waiting for the royal commission to report. After their re-election, they receive the report and put it on a high shelf where it can gather dust for a year or two while nothing actually happens.
  To be fair, a few royal commissions have produced dramatic results, but it has been usual in the past for the most cynical Prime Ministers—Harold Wilson and people

  581
  like him—to set up royal commissions when they wanted to get rid of a subject rather than because they wanted to do something. They wanted to get Parliament to shut up, and to stop demanding that something be done.
  The royal commission could take a very long time, which is why we should let the two Houses of Parliament form a respectable group, or let the parties put together a group committed to coming up with some proposals on a time scale.
  In a two-chamber system, the first House must obviously have primacy. The House of Lords should not be allowed more than a fixed delaying power. It should have drafting power, but its power to delay is very important. It should have no power over taxation, public expenditure or war and peace; indeed, no body in Europe outside Parliament should have such power either, but I should not be diverted from my task and into that point.
  All those are big issues, but not one of them is addressed by the Government. In my opinion, the country needs a modern second chamber that can carry out some of the functions to which I have referred. The Government have raised a big issue. Modern government needs checks and balances more and more, a point not dealt with by the Government.
  Even worse, the Government have given their case away by saying that they will set up a royal commission. They accept that there are big issues that ought to be addressed. They accept that Governments require checks and balances, but not the current Government. Some day in the future, a modern second chamber will address all the problems, but not under the Blair Government, and not now during their period in office. Apparently, the Government are so superior that they will sail on for two or three years without addressing the issues, except through discussion by the great and the good on a royal commission.
  Mr. Straw: I am listening with care to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, but his point is a parody of our position. We believed that there must be a two-stage process because of the history of the difficulty of reforming the other place in the face of its built-in 3:1. Another reason is the history of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own party. At every stage, attempts to go for comprehensive one-stage reform have faltered. That was our experience in 1910–11. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that getting rid of the hereditaries will at least deal with the most objectionable part of the composition of the other place?
  Mr. Clarke: The Home Secretary comes close to my case. Change was temporary in 1910. It has not been addressed since because it is difficult for the Government of the day to go for comprehensive reform. For 88 years Governments have decided that they cannot address the problem of the hereditary peerage. No Government have previously believed that the peers can simply be swept away without the big questions being addressed. The Home Secretary thinks that I am parodying his case, but the Blair Government appear to believe that they can be trusted to sail on safely with a second chamber entirely appointed by the Executive, or by a method chosen by the Executive.
  Perhaps the Home Secretary can address my fears to some extent. He did not make it clear whether he thought that an appointed second chamber would be a temporary
  582
  expedient, or whether it might be permanent. He did not rule out its being permanent. He did not accept that it would necessarily take a royal commission to decide that. Is it temporary? Or is the Home Secretary contemplating that it might be permanent?
  The Home Secretary talked about improving the method of appointment. He talked, too, about the absurdity of a chamber in which people have inherited their right to vote, and I agree that that is absurd. It is, however, a pretty close second in terms of absurdity to suggest that a democracy such as ours should have a second chamber in which everyone has been appointed by the Executive, as if that were some strengthening of our political system.
  The Home Secretary will have difficulties with such a chamber. As has been said, its Members will acquire their own sensitivities. He will find it difficult to canvas the idea that there might be an elected element to the second Chamber because the people who will oppose that idea will include all the great and the good—our old friends from both sides of the House—who, having put on the ermine, will think it extremely important that they should see their terms out. They will not be anxious to have elected successors.
  Mr. Wilkinson: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a most important point about the legitimacy of the other place. Will he have the courage of what I hope are his convictions and say that we need a senate if the checks and balances to which he has alluded are to carry the support of the country? So long as the upper chamber is properly defined and its powers limited, surely a senate would meet the case? Otherwise, we would face the danger of having appointed senators for life, and they are not popular these days.
  Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. I do not mind whether we call it a senate or a House of Lords. My views on that are not firm, but the form of the chamber should be debated and contemplated before we make a change. I do not think that the Bill should be allowed to proceed without any further indication on such matters.
  Maria Eagle: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Ms Oona King: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall take a final intervention, and I believe that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) tried to intervene earlier.
  Maria Eagle: I have listened carefully to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech, which is, as usual, thoughtful. Will he explain why abolishing the hereditary peerage as a first stage would preclude any of the debate to which he has referred, and why a House of Lords consisting only of the life peerage would be any worse than what we have?
  Mr. Clarke: If the Government would commit themselves to abolishing the voting rights of hereditary peers at the stage at which the House has agreed a replacement for the second Chamber, they would be in

  583
  a respectable position. Constitutional conventions would mean that they would get their way, and the Salisbury doctrine should certainly be maintained. They would have embarked on major reform that would eventually end hereditary voting rights, but only once we had protected the rights of the citizen—that is what really matters, as the Home Secretary said—and of individuals who may belong to unpopular minorities, including those who belong to parties that are for the time being out of office. There must be checks and balances in the constitution to ensure that an overmighty House of Commons—or a Commons that is too weak and that is governed by a party management more interested in the media than in parliamentary democracy—cannot sweep Members along in its response to pressures of the moment.
  In conclusion, I undertake that, if I am still a Member of Parliament, I shall vote for the abolition of the voting rights of hereditary peers, as I would have done at any time since I entered the House, if it is part of a Bill that gives the House of Commons the chance to decide what form of second chamber—a senate or a House of Lords—we are to have in a modern constitution. It is a farce to say that people such as me are defending earls from Tasmania and hereditary voting rights. I have never been interested in the slightest in defending such things.
  However, the Bill is a piece of gesture politics that will take up an inexcusable proportion of the coming Parliament's legislative time. If it is swept through as it stands, it will be yet another example of so-called constitutional change by the Government which will do lasting damage and which will reduce yet further the role of parliamentary democracy.
  6 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: I was excited when the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) tempted me to think that he would join us in the Lobby, but he spoilt his commitment to do so with a number of caveats that will not be satisfied. That aside, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is making a fundamental mistake if he thinks that the Government's approaches to the constitution are short term or ill thought out: they are not, and they will be remembered for many years to come as very significant to change in this country.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman made an important point when he suggested that the previous Government—of whom he was a member under Lady Thatcher—mistakenly believed that the constitution should not change at all, because a high price has been paid for that belief. I have been a long-term supporter of Scottish devolution—and, indeed, devolution for Wales and the English regions—and I watched as the Scottish people became more and more angry with the Government in London who seemed to be disconnected from Scottish interests. The result was the collapse of the Conservative party in Scotland, which has done the Conservatives no good and the Scottish National party much good. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that that is the case and I am sure that he also knows that, if the Tory party is ever to recover, it must recover in Scotland. It must address the needs of people in Scotland, and that is why I agree with my right hon. Friend the
  584
  Home Secretary when he claims that the Conservative party will not repeal any Act that gives extra powers to Scotland.
  The Government are showing considerable courage and a well-thought-out strategy for change in three main areas. The first is the national and local impact of constitutional change; the second is the international aspect, including human rights legislation; and the third is the modernisation of Parliament itself. The three are linked, and it is important that we recognise that.
  It has become clear that the British parliamentary system, which has been very successful over the centuries and has been copied by many other countries, has become rusty and archaic. It is a tragedy that we did not modernise it earlier. The most obvious area for change is the House of Lords, because even people such as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe have acknowledged that it is indefensible for the hereditary peers to vote, and to vote in such numbers as to overturn the majority will of the House of Commons. That is unacceptable and it must change.
  I part company with the right hon. and learned Gentleman and most of his party over the lack of confidence that they show in the ability of this place and the country to modernise our constitution as we have done in the past. In relatively recent times—for example, the post-1945 period—we have written constitutions for other countries that have been remarkably successful. Those countries include not only Commonwealth countries, but Germany. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is, I understand, an admirer of the way in which the German constitution works, but it was largely written by the British. It was structured so that the second chamber was partly inclusive of local government structures, so that an authoritarian Government could not abolish local democracy as had been done in the past and—I have to say—as the previous British Government did in some ways. That was an abuse of centralised power and that is why we have to reverse what they did. If we have been so successful in writing other countries' constitutions, why does the Conservative party lack the confidence in the British people and Parliament to modernise our own?
  Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman said that the Government's plans were well thought out. Is not the difficulty with the reform of the House of Lords that we are being asked to embark on a process when we have not been given the benefit of the Government's thoughts on the outcome of the proposals? We are being asked to replace an eccentric and bizarre institution—albeit an institution with some real strengths—but we will not have an opportunity to debate or consider the likely outcome of the change and how practical and beneficial it will be.
  Mr. Soley: The essence of that argument, which has been put time and again by the Conservative party, is, "We want to see an exact plan. We know that no one can draw up an exact plan that gets everyone's agreement to every dot and comma, so the change will not happen and we can carry on having the hereditary peers to give us our built-in Conservative majority." That is the argument, but it flies in the face of this country's history. To use a Conservative phrase, we don't do it that way. We build up change, and that has been a successful approach. The House of Lords dominates the argument to a degree that is not wholly desirable.

  585
  The other area of our constitution that must be modernised is local government. Devolution to Scotland, Wales and, I hope, London and the English regions is important. The roots of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe are in the north and he will remember that the most successful time for this country, economically as well as politically, was the last century. That was the time when our local government was most adventurous, assertive and politically and economically active. The great cities of the industrial revolution—Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow and Liverpool—fed the wealth of Britain and helped to create a local structure of rights and responsibilities that we undermine at our cost.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman will also know that many great Conservatives came out of that system, but the Conservative party has lost its confidence to the extent that it no longer believes in what it achieved in the past. It is time that it looked back to its roots to see where it should go in the future.
  Mr. John Maxton: My hon. Friend may recall that the predecessors of the Conservative party opposed a Bill to give Manchester—by that time, the second or third largest city—any Members of Parliament at all.
  Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend will understand that I am not defending everything that the Conservative party did in the 19th century. I suggest that the Conservative party has forgotten that a better and more appropriate system of local government was achieved at that time, and it does so at its peril.
  Local government is important, and it is currently undervalued. We must address our responsibility for that, because Members of Parliament sometimes behave as though they are super-councillors. We must give power back to local authorities and we must give power to the regions.
  One of Germany's greatest success stories was based on the economic development powers of its regions. Like almost all the other European countries, Germany has successful regional development, which we do not have here. The English regions do not enjoy the benefits that many of the European regions enjoy, but with devolution to Scotland, Wales and the English regions, we can start to do so.
  When the Conservatives removed powers from London government, they left a big hole. No sensible decisions could be reached by 32 London boroughs meeting together. When they tried to decide which borough should have a waste disposal plant, none of them wanted one. If a city does not have a basic planning mechanism to underpin economic efficiency, why should anyone be surprised if that city becomes unattractive? For example, Frankfurt and Brussels argued that London should not be the home of financial institutions because it had a poor environment and economic infrastructure. One of the reasons for that is the lack of an effective government for London.
  I shall turn briefly to the international aspects of constitutional change. Many changes are so dramatic and fast that they have an impact on our constitution beyond what we envisage when they occur. Britain's incorporation of the European convention on human rights is a significant step forward. Conservative Members
  586
  should remember that that document was drafted by British jurists. It is curious that we gave the document to Europe and were the first to sign it, but did not incorporate it into our legislation. That is another classic case of the British saying, "Do as we tell you, not as we do."
  That process left a number of holes in our system, which had worked well in the past. One cannot continue with a system that was built on the assumption that one could do anything that was not against the law, without recognising that the way in which the world has changed necessitates building into that system certain defences of basic human rights. That is why I welcome the change made by the Government.
  I welcome also the signing up to the International Criminal Court, which reflects this place at its best. You would rightly check me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I began to talk about a recent case, but an historic, watershed decision was made by the Law Lords last week. That is curious because it fits so precisely with our past. One has only to walk through Westminster Hall to realise how, 400 years ago, this country was separating the political from the legal.
  We advance the rule of law through a process of passing Acts of Parliament in a democratic structure. What happened last week was another step on that road which was very welcome and of which we ought to be proud. Whatever one thinks the outcome should be in that case, the process says that dictators such as Saddam Hussein and Milosevic should no longer be able to commit crimes and assume that they can never be called to account for them. That is one of the most important ideas growing throughout the world, and we should be proud of our part in its growth. The process started in Nuremberg in 1945, but it has moved on. We need to move it on again. Dictators who so appallingly disfigure the face of the 20th century with their torture and genocide can no longer assume that they can simply walk away. The International Criminal Court is part of that process. It has implications in that it limits our freedom to operate in other areas but it is important.
  My final point, which is linked with the overall approach to the constitution, relates to the reform of Parliament. I speak as a member of the Modernisation Committee. I know that some of my hon. Friends are at times frustrated because the progress does not seem to be as fast as they would like it to be. It is important that we carry the other parties with us in reform as far as possible.
  I, and many other Members, have thought for many years—hon. Members elected in the last election simply embellish our views—that Members of Parliament are no longer as effective as they used to be. Modernisation must therefore make Members more effective. We recognise that a delicate balance must be struck because Parliament is not the same as Government. Effective Members of Parliament may not always be good news for the Government, but it is important that we become effective because we have lost confidence in ourselves.
  The House of Commons arranged for Members of Parliament to report back to it on the Jamieson raid at the turn of the century and on the Clerkenwell riots in the 1830s. When we have had cases such as arms to Iraq or the Brixton riots, we have arranged for the inquiry to be conducted by a judge or a civil servant. I mean no disrespect to those people but the House ought to have a little more confidence in its ability to deal with such

  587
  matters itself. That is one of the reasons why I welcome the commitment in the Queen's Speech to a freedom of information Bill, not only for its own sake—although several correspondents have said that the Government were not planning to introduce it—but, more importantly, because the Queen's Speech said that there would be pre-legislative scrutiny in this House and the other place. There is much talk about stripping away the powers of the House of Lords, but hon. Members must recognise that we are giving the other place additional important duties.
  There is an agenda of linked proposals which combines reform of Parliament with the reform of local government and of our national constitution in a way that very much fits, as I hope I have shown, with our history and our hopes and aims. If we achieve that, the Government will be remembered not only for years but for decades to come, and they will have changed the face of this country.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: I follow the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) in recognising that the House and the country have tended to innovate step by step in constitutional matters. The hon. Gentleman described that as the way in which we do things and sought—in vain—to enlist the support of Conservative Members. Although he is right in his historical description of how we have proceeded, he will agree that the period of the outgoing Conservative Government was marked by their negativism and hostility to constitutional reform.
  That was a period of stasis for which the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), as one of the most senior members of that Government, bore a heavy responsibility. He cannot shrug his shoulders and say, "Well, I know better now." He did immense damage in delaying the implementation of devolution in Scotland when the settled will of its people had been established before his Government took office. He cannot just say, "Perhaps we should not have disposed of the government of London without any proper authority to do so and left Britain's capital city without a representative government."
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot use his arguments of letting the good be the enemy of the best to carry the support of the House for a further period of know nothing, do nothing on constitutional reform. He may be semi-detached from his party and not carry a great deal of weight with its members. His speech was markedly different from that of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), the official spokesman for the Opposition, who showed no regret about the past. In that, I suspect, the right hon. Gentleman was more honest than the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe because the right hon. Gentleman will continue as the Conservatives governed in the past. He saw fit only to make narrow criticism of the contents of the Queen's Speech and to make fun of attempts to reform the indefensible upper Chamber.
  The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush did the Government less than justice on the broad scope of the constitutional reforms that were adumbrated in the Queen's Speech. There has been no point in history
  588
  when a Government have proceeded with such a massive agenda for change as this Government have. The change is belated. That is not a criticism of the Government; reform-minded parties have not been in government for a long time.
  Change is overdue and the fact that it has been proposed with the consent of such a large part of the British electorate is due to the awareness—contrary to what the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe said—that the economy is not always uppermost in people's minds. He left office as Chancellor of the Exchequer with a healthy economy for which he can claim a good deal of responsibility, But his party was swept out of office because the stench of corruption made the British public recognise that a change of system was more important than their short-term economic position. He would do well to learn from that lesson rather than read the Government a new one about how they should let the upper House well alone.
  Mr. Grieve: Recent opinion poll soundings suggest that more than 60 per cent. of people polled think that it is highly undesirable that the Government should embark on reform of the House of Lords without identifying stage two. How does that square with the right hon. Gentleman's view that there is an overwhelming desire for the upper House to be reformed along the lines that the Government have proposed?
  Mr. Maclennan: Two parties, which not only recommended reform of the upper House but precisely the way in which it should be reformed—as reflected in the Queen's Speech—commanded the support of 64 per cent. of the electorate at the election. I do not believe that the minds of the British public have been changed dramatically on that or, indeed, any other matter in the interim. The Government are entirely entitled to proceed on the assumption that they have the electors' support for this measure.
  Mr. Tyrie: What are the Liberal Democrats really getting for selling their souls in the Lobby on this issue? Do not they realise that Labour's manifesto commitment on Lords reform is clearly self-contained and not dependent on any further reform? The Liberal Democrats are committed to a democratic upper House, but the likelihood of their getting it is entirely dependent on whether Labour ever delivers stage two—and the likelihood of that is very slim.
  Mr. Maclennan: The likelihood of our delivering constitutional reform which modernises Britain's system of government is enhanced by the extent of the agreement that was reached prior to the election between the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party, which has been sustained since the Government took office. That has resulted, as I have said, in an unprecedented programme, which is being implemented with deliberation and, indeed, rapidly by comparison with any previous episode in our history.
  Although we share the Government's views on the appropriateness of their proposed programme, there is not an identity of view about the end point. That stems from a somewhat different approach to constitutional reform generally, and to what is desirable. Although the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush, in his

  589
  thoughtful speech, rightly recognised the step-by-step approach, it is time we acknowledged that we should be seeking to establish new fundamental principles in our constitutional settlement—principally the notion that constitutionalism is a safeguard for the rights of citizens. The constitution should rest on the sovereignty not of this House, but of the British people.
  That is not a purely theoretical matter, for this House is capable of acting with authority in a majoritarian fashion in disregard of the rights of minorities. The rights of minorities can best be protected by a fundamental constitutional law to which the courts can pay proper attention when Parliament, for whatever reason, is unwilling or unable to do so. I know that such an argument appeals not at all to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, as his remarks about the position of asylum seekers showed. He is prepared to trade their interests for some column inches of headlines in the Daily Mail. We should be more sensitive to the rights and needs of minorities than Parliament is often able to be.
  It may be said that, in enacting the Human Rights Act in the previous Session, we have moved a long way towards blunting the sharp edge of the old doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. However, hon. Members will remember that the Government were at pains to state in introducing the Bill and, indeed, in designing it, that it was not intended to limit parliamentary sovereignty; and that, where a clash occurred between the interests of minorities and the will of Parliament, the latter would prevail. That is why I unashamedly advocate a fundamental written law of the constitution. We shall not arrive at that point in one big step. The process, however, has been given a great fillip by the scope of reforms embraced by the Government and well begun.
  One of the disadvantages of the piecemeal approach to reform is that it is capable of producing some incoherences. I fear that that has indeed been the consequence of proceeding with the decentralisation of government by route of devolution rather than by the introduction of a federal solution, to which my party is firmly attached. I predict that problems will become substantially greater unless the Government proceed, as they have said they may in due course, towards establishing a regional dimension in England, with powers for regional assemblies not merely to supervise the regional development agencies, which they are in the process of establishing, but over all the functions of government that were grouped together by the late Conservative Government in regional Government offices; these should be brought under the supervision and control of regional assemblies.
  Such balanced home rule all round has long been an objective of my party, and clearly distinguishes it from the Labour party—in government and before—which has tended to yield decentralisation only under pressure from a particular part of the country.
  The coherence of the settlement must be objective, notwithstanding the fact that different parts of the reform are proceeding at different speeds. I particularly draw attention, not only in the light of the significant judicial events in the House of Lords last week, to which several hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, have referred, to the fact that the political importance of the judiciary has never been more evident. It is important that, in the ultimate constitutional settlement towards which we strive, the independence of
  590
  that judiciary should not depend, as it does today, on the independent-mindedness of the judiciary in which we have certainly been able to trust, but on the independence of its appointment and on constitutional safeguards.
  That is not a matter of theory either, as is demonstrated by the provision of the Scotland Act 1998, which, until tackled, would have allowed the Scottish Parliament to remove judges on a motion without cause given. That is not only against the traditions of the Bill of Rights but a dangerous step. I believe that it was an attempt to subordinate the judiciary to the Executive—an attempt which it is right to resist. If we are to have in our constitution the checks and balances to which the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe paid lip service, they demand more than the conventions on which these things have rested hitherto, because it is clear how frail those conventions are when they come into conflict with the interests of parties seeking power.
  There have been conventions in respect of the use of power by the upper House. There has been a convention—known as the Salisbury convention—that the upper House will not overturn, or prevent the passage of, legislation that has been foreshadowed in the manifestos of incoming Governments. That convention has been rudely shaken by the actions of Lord Salisbury's grandson and his colleagues in the other place, in respect of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill. We cannot place any weight on such conventions in the face of such casuistry as has been shown in the discussion of that measure.
  The Bill, as was its intention, would have clearly imported into our law the principles that had been foreshadowed in the manifestos of the Government and, incidentally, of the Liberal Democrat party.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maclennan: Let me finish the point.
  The Bill clearly set out that there would be a move to a proportional system for elections to the European Parliament. The precise detail of the system was not a matter on which the Labour party or we had given a firm or final view, but the fact that a specific system was not favoured has been used by the upper House to defeat the clear and, I believe, authorised view of the Government that they have a mandate to introduce that legislation—and soon.
  Does the hon. Gentleman still wish to intervene?
  Mr. Lansley: I am afraid that further explanation did not remove my question. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Government, in pursuing their mandate for a proportional system, did not say what type of proportional system it would be; and that, in that respect, the House of Lords, far from departing from the Salisbury convention, was within it? It was, in fact, exercising precisely the role discussed in this debate—that of causing the House of Commons to be checked and to consider again, and to consider in favour of a system of elections for the European Parliament that was manifestly preferred in debate, as opposed to what was insisted on by the Government Whips.
  Mr. Maclennan: The House of Commons and the House of Lords have considered this matter several times.

  591
  In opposing the measure, the House of Lords is abusing its position. There is no doubt in my mind that it is a violation of a long established convention; and it is good reason, and could be described as the occasio belli for the war against the hereditary peers that is about to break out—alas, for I would have preferred them to be removed by something other than outright war.
  It is highly questionable whether it is appropriate for the Leader of the Opposition to seek to unleash those forces—once again, in defiance of the undertakings given by the party in government to the electorate before the general election. Nothing could have been clearer than the Labour party's commitment to reform the House of Lords in two stages, and it was right to take that view, for there is no conceivable reason why the hereditary peers should have any say whatever in the shape, functions or membership of the House of Lords that will replace them.
  Mr. Wilkinson: If it is such a monstrous outrage to unleash these savage, slavering, old Etonian, ermine-clad, hereditary dogs of war in the other place, why do the public at large not appear to be incensed? I do not know whether I am unique, but I have had no letters of protest at what the hereditary and appointed peers have done in the House of Lords in postponing the passage of the Bill to this Session of Parliament—in fact, to the contrary. I have had letters to the effect that it is very good that we have had a chance to think again about the matter.
  Mr. Maclennan: I believe that the hon. Gentleman, like many of his hon. Friends, lives in somewhat cloistered circumstances. Normally, the spectacle of their ermined Lordships opposing the will of the elected House of Commons may be regarded as simply ridiculous, but if it is sustained, it will be regarded as wholly unacceptable, and reason enough for the Commons to insist upon its will being done.
  Mr. Grieve: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to tell the House the extent to which he has received representations from his constituents criticising the decision taken by the Lords to reject the legislation on closed lists?
  Mr. Maclennan: Well, I have certainly had representations about it, but my view is well known, and it is evidently shared by many people, in my constituency and elsewhere.
  I have to tell the Home Secretary, although he is well aware of my view, that I believe that the Bill would have had an easier passage in the upper House if he had accepted the system of election to the European Parliament that my right hon. and hon. Friends suggested, which would have provided for a mixed system, a semi-open-list system, allowing members of the public to vote for the party or, if they so chose, to alter the order in which the names were given in the published list—the Belgian system of election. The Home Secretary would have been wise to take that route, but the fact that he has not will offer me no comfort if, ultimately, the House of Lords seeks to overrule the clear and repeated wish of the House in this matter.
  Perhaps more notable than the matters that have been considered regarding especially the future of the upper House are the omissions from the Queen's Speech in the
  592
  field of constitutional reform—or at least the shy way in which intentions have been expressed, with hints that we may see more later, although not just yet. The Home Secretary spoke of the freedom of information legislation. That is a vital piece of the constitutional package, and it is disappointing, in view of what was said by the outgoing Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster as to its state of preparedness, that we are promised no more than a draft Bill.
  I know that the Government have it in mind to introduce several Bills in this Session and carry them over into the next. We have heard that they may do that for the financial services Bill and the electronic commerce Bill. Will the Home Secretary give thought to the possibility of introducing that freedom of information Bill in this Session, with a view to carrying it over into the next, to make certain that it is enacted as soon as possible? The delay was defended in the Gracious Speech in the name of open government, and of giving the House an adequate opportunity to discuss the measure. We view that with little sympathy, and wish to express our concern that the timetable is slipping.
  A case for similar treatment could be made for the enactment of the proposal of the Neill committee on setting up an election commission. That would be a suitable matter for introduction in this Session of Parliament, although time might prove a little tight to allow it to be enacted before the next Session is complete. In a programme of constitutional reform as substantial as that which the Government have embarked upon, momentum must not be lost. There will always be reasons for delay. To be candid, it seems that in respect of the election commission the Opposition have a fair point in saying that they must have some assurance from independent, outside sources that the conduct of referendums is fair. I hope that the Government may feel able when replying to the debate to give an indication of their thinking on that point.
  The Opposition have chosen to confine their discussion, in terms of their amendment on the wide constitutional issues, to three matters. The programme that the Government have embarked upon goes very much further than that.
  I hope that I may be forgiven for concluding my remarks by returning to an issue that is of great importance, which is the report of the Jenkins commission. It seems highly desirable that the Government's clear undertaking to hold a referendum be fulfilled as soon as possible. I well understand their desire to see how the elections pan out in the spring, with new systems of election in place, but I hope that it will be possible shortly thereafter to take the first necessary steps giving effect to the undertaking to enact a Bill that will enable referendums to be held, and enable the people to decide on a fair voting system for the House in future.
  6.42 pm
  Mr. John Maxton: First, I congratulate the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) on a thoughtful speech about the constitution. I agreed with a great deal of it. I agreed particularly when he said that the present Administration is one of the most radical reforming Governments of the 20th century in terms of the constitution. Indeed, it might well be said that it is

  593
  probably one of the great reforming Governments of the constitution of any century. The Government have gone further in changing our constitution than any Government that I can recall. I congratulate my right hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench on that.
  I chaired a short part of the Scotland Bill Committee, which meant that I was not able to take part in any of the proceedings on that Bill at any stage. Therefore, this is the first opportunity that I have had to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who I know cannot be in the Chamber this evening because he happens to be in Scotland with Her Majesty the Queen opening the new museum for Scotland. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the skilful way in which he steered the Scotland Bill through this place and on the way in which, first, he steered through the House the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Act 1997. That was followed by the overwhelming yes, yes vote in Scotland for my right hon. Friend's proposals.
  I am a longstanding supporter of devolution for Scotland. I believe that it is right. It ends an anomaly that has been present for far too long. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) mentioned the West Lothian question, but the poll tax question in Scotland was much more important than that. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred to the poll tax in terms of the English Bill. The Scottish Bill, however, was driven through the House against the wishes of Members representing Scottish constituencies and against the wishes of the people of Scotland. It was clear that the poll tax was to be imposed on Scotland alone. The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who now sits on the Opposition Front Bench, was a Scottish Office Minister at that time. He lost his seat as a result of the poll tax measure that he drove through the House.
  That was the real anomaly in our constitution. It was the anomaly that allowed the House to impose on Scotland legislation that was not the wish of the Scottish people. I do not intend to take the route of making a speech about devolution at any great length. I merely say that I have always supported devolution as a democrat, as a means of improving democratic structures. It is part of the changes that the Government are introducing. I have never supported, and never will support, devolution on the basis of nationalism. I do not believe that devolution is about nationalism. Instead, it is about improving democracy in this country.
  I shall give a mild warning to some of my hon. Friends. I wish that they would stop talking about the first Scottish Parliament for 300 years and start talking about it as a new democratic Parliament for the 21st century. That is what it is about. It is about democracy, not nationalism. Nationalism is backward looking and we are forward looking. We want to look forward to our new democracy.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friends on the next step that they are taking, which is to abolish hereditary peerages. It is long overdue. I have heard some dubious defences advanced in the House, but I have heard nothing like the ones put so far on behalf of hereditary peers from Opposition Members. They are saying that however rotten something is, we should not cut out the rotten piece before we manage to build an entire new house around it. What nonsense. If someone has dry rot in his house, he gets rid of it. It may then be necessary to embark on some
  594
  restructuring of the house but no one would leave the dry rot to damage the rest of the house while restructuring takes place.
  Mr. Grieve: Would the hon. Gentleman like to identify exactly what it is about the present structure of the House of Lords which makes the hereditary element rotten—as opposed to the life peers element? What practical effect is it that he identifies as being rotten which requires removal at the initial stage?
  Mr. Maxton: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary rightly referred to what was the English poll tax Bill. I would say that the Scottish poll tax Bill was even worse. The Government of the day pushed through the Scottish Bill even though the Conservative party had not referred to it in its manifesto. However, it was pushed through the House against the wishes of the Scottish people and Members representing Scottish constituencies. Equally, the House of Lords bowed it through almost without debate. That is an example of a rotten majority of hereditary peers being used to drive an unwanted measure through Parliament.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's analogy about rotten wood in a house. Those of us who find that we have rotten timbers in our house do indeed take out those rotten timbers, but it is generally a sensible precaution to have standing nearby the new timbers to put in place. Our argument is that the Home Secretary and the hon. Gentleman have no new timbers to put in place to replace those that they wish to cut out.
  Mr. Maxton: The new timbers are there.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe said that he would always vote for the abolition of hereditary peers. He essentially said that any royal commission established would get rid of hereditary peers. So what is wrong with getting rid of them now and then considering the future structure at a later date? That seems an eminently sensible thing to do. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said, there would still be a Tory majority because the Tories had 18 years in which to appoint their life peers.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friends on their intent to abolish hereditary peers. I look forward to voting for the Bill that will have that effect when it comes before the House: it has been a long time coming. I am an historian and I remember reading Roy Jenkins's book entitled "Mr. Balfour's Poodle" about the 1911 crisis. I recommend it to anybody who intends to take part in later debates. There are some wonderful quotations from Winston Churchill, if from no one else, about the position of the House of Lords and hereditary peers.
  There is a need to move on from the debate, as the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said. I hope that I am giving him the correct title—it is right honourable, is it not?
  Mr. Maclennan indicated assent.
  Mr. Maxton: Yes. There are two reasons for changing the constitution. The first is to get rid of anomalies that have been present for a long time, as with the abolition of the voting and speaking rights of the hereditary peers

  595
  and the introduction of devolution to Scotland. The second reason is the need to keep up with our rapidly changing world: to consider where we stand and how we can adapt or radically reform our constitution to take account of such change.
  The internet introduces a totally new element into the way in which our people obtain information. All past Governments have relied on keeping information to themselves for the purposes of power, because retaining information gives them power over people who do not have that information. Suddenly, the internet has released such controls: people can watch me on the internet as I speak; they can read what I and other hon. Members have said in the debate on the intemet tomorrow morning; and they can read all the White Papers that the Government produce on the internet. People now have access to information as never before. The other day, there was a short piece on the "Today" programme about how dissidents in China use the internet to get information to each other and to change the way in which China operates.
  Technology is advancing rapidly, yet what are we doing? I suggest that the next general election should use electronic voting: people should be able to go into a booth and put their vote into a machine which records that vote immediately. People might ask what that has to do with democracy, but I believe that it will encourage more people to vote. In my constituency, many people do not vote because they would have to travel a mile and a half, often walking past other polling stations, to get to their polling station and vote. Electronic voting would allow people to use any polling booth in the constituency and, eventually, any polling booth in the country.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I know of the hon. Gentleman's fondness for electronic matters, but his remarks are rather wide of the amendment we are debating.
  Mr. Maxton: I thought that we were talking about the Gracious Speech and that, therefore, we could go a little wider and refer to other constitutional changes that might be introduced. However, I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  We have a Government who are introducing radical change. This place will increasingly become an anachronism if it does not change itself. That does not mean minor tinkering around the edges of procedures, but radical change to the way in which we look—getting rid of costumes and many other things—and to the way in which we operate. However, as you will again rule me out of order if I go too far down that path, Mr. Deputy Speaker, let me say only that I am disappointed by the decision not to introduce electronic voting to Parliament. I think that that was a mistake; I hope that the Government have not completely abandoned the idea and that we shall return to it at some stage.
  The time has come to hold a Speaker's Conference or to set up a royal commission—however much people might criticise them—to consider whether this place is viable in a modern technological democracy. Is it not time to consider whether we should move from these premises to a new Parliament building, purpose built for the
  596
  21st century, instead of continuing to work in a building that is no longer usable in terms of modern technology? I hope that the Government will consider my remarks and institute some sort of mechanism whereby we can put our ideas and proposals to a commission or a Speaker's Conference.
  The right hon. Member for Devizes sits with a smirk on his face. With the poll tax in Scotland, he did more damage than any other man. He is now supposed to be in charge of devolution matters—
  Mr. Michael Ancram indicated dissent.
  Mr. Maxton: Well, he was when the Scotland Act 1998 went through. His job now is to sit and smirk and try to put people off their speech—he is not going to put me off. It is time for radical change, and that means more than reform of the House of Lords and devolution. The next step is to change this place—the House of Commons. We need to leave and go to a modern Parliament building somewhere else.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It might be of help to the House if I read out the following statement. The scope of the debate is determined by the amendment before the House, which relates to the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, the House of Lords and the Neill committee report. Reference to other constitutional matters should be made only as background to those main subjects.
  6.56 pm
  Sir Peter Lloyd: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). If I can find my way through my notes, I shall refer to some of the points he raised—albeit, you will be glad to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not those relating to electronic communications or the other matters that so move him, but about which I know little.
  Before I forget, I should like to refer back to a point made by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley). I agree with his exhortations to the House to have more confidence in its own ability to conduct its own inquiries, rather than farm them out to judges and other dignitaries beyond our bounds. That makes sense only if the House equips itself with those outside experts to use in the Committee that would look into such matters. I hope that the Government and the House authorities will carefully consider that.
  I start on a conciliatory note—at least, one that is conciliatory to the Government, if not to most of my right hon. and hon. Friends—by welcoming the undertaking to introduce an age of consent Bill. Before you intervene to rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should say that this leads directly to the subjects for debate. I welcome the undertaking because the current age of consent, 18, is unrealistically high. It is certainly cruel to those young men who are permanently homosexual and it offers absolutely no help or real protection to those who are passing through a phase on their way to heterosexual orientation.
  It is extremely satisfactory that the new Bill will strengthen the protection of teenage boys and girls from those who take advantage of special positions of trust. I hope that the improvement will ensure that the Bill will

  597
  now pass in another place. However, we have their lordships to thank for the chance to present them with a better Bill. That would have been less likely had the other place been filled only with placemen and party political loyalists, as the Government are—whatever they say—likely to go some way further in contriving, at least for the foreseeable future.
  Like most of my hon. Friends, I see no merit in the bald proposal simply to exclude hereditary peers. If the White Paper is coming as soon as the Home Secretary says it is and we are well down the road of stage two, there is even less reason to act now. Let us wait for both stages to come together and consider them simultaneously. The Government are foolish to press on in the way they propose: the passage of such a Bill will take an inordinate amount of time—time that the Government will find they can ill spare from their legislative programme. I do not believe that it is all part of a well-thought-out stage plan.
  The Government might calculate that they will gain some sympathy by persuading the public that they are fighting valiantly on behalf of democracy against the massed might of feudal reaction, but the electors are shrewder than that. They will suspect that the Government are engaged in a shallow exercise, not a constructive piece of reform. They will realise that the Bill will make the other place not a whit more democratic, but visibly and obviously less independent. Above all, the passage of the Bill will continuously remind the public—
  Maria Eagle: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Can he define what he means by independent? The current composition of the House of Lords suggests that it is Conservative rather than independent.
  Sir Peter Lloyd: I believe that the hereditary peers are particularly independent. The fact that— [Interruption.] I know that better than the hon. Lady, because I served in the previous Government and know the number of amendments that we were obliged to take account of and adopt. On the whole they were sensible amendments, and many of them improved Bills, but they were uncomfortable for the then Government to recognise. I believe that the House of Lords as presently constructed has independence as one of its merits, but, as I shall say later, the upper House needs thoroughgoing reform.
  The Bill will remind the public continuously what a sensible Government would not, and should not, want to advertise: that they are concentrating on stage one because they seem to have absolutely no idea of what to do for the all-important stage two. I hope that Parliament will resist stage one successfully. If it does not, I fear that the Government will be sufficiently satisfied not to hurry to get round to stage two. We need a fully reformed second Chamber—one that has dealt with the hereditary principle, which, although it introduces valuable people in the upper House, cannot now be defended.
  We will not achieve full and workable reform in this piecemeal fashion. I could accept even the Home Secretary's two-stage argument, so long as we knew what stage two would be while we were considering and voting on stage one. We would get full and thoroughgoing reform much more quickly and much more effectively if the Government had the sense to put the two parts together.
  598
  No doubt the long-drawn-out struggle on hereditary peers will be a handy excuse for the Government, who look as if they are to renege on their election promise to hold a referendum on the electoral system. The wording in the manifesto was such that it led the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), his hon. Friends and everyone else to believe that the referendum would be in this Parliament. I am disappointed that the Government seem to be going back on their word, not out of indignation on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, of course—and certainly not because I believe that proportional representation would be an improvement; I do not—but because the matter should be argued out and then settled by the electors in a reasonable time scale. Held over as an ever-present but indefinitely postponed possibility, it will have an unhealthy, distracting and debilitating effect on the work of this House.
  Nevertheless, the Government show all the signs of wanting to avoid any such referendum. They know that it would be divisive in the Labour party, and they perhaps fear that they would not win. Above all, they know that the Prime Minister would have less of a hold over the Liberal Democrats once the issue had been decided one way or another. He would no longer have the ever-receding promise to dangle before them.
  As the Gracious Speech reminds us, the Government were the reverse of tardy in setting up the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly after conducting referendums, which brings me to a large part of what the hon. Member for Cathcart said. Every Conservative Member hopes that the Government and the hon. Member for Cathcart will be proved right in their belief, not that Scotland and Wales are nations—that has never been in doubt—but that they are nations that can be fulfilled and comfortable in the United Kingdom only if they have their own separate national Assemblies in which their nationhood and distinctiveness can be expressed politically.
  Likewise, we hope that the fears of many Conservative Members that this kind of devolution will, on the contrary, point up differences, create new areas of conflict and drive the nations of the United Kingdom further apart will be proved wrong. We shall see.
  All Conservatives will want to make the new arrangements work as well as possible now that they are in place, but what the Gracious Speech does not acknowledge is that the West Lothian question remains unanswered. It remains unanswered partly because the referendums were held before legislation had gone through the House, which felt disbarred from altering in legislation what appeared to have been promised and approved in a referendum.
  The West Lothian question must be answered at some stage, however, if the United Kingdom is to function harmoniously. It can, no doubt, be left over while the Government have a good majority in England as well as in the United Kingdom as a whole, but there will come a time when a Government who do not have such a majority in England seek to impose a policy on England, in respect of a matter that is devolved in Scotland, which is unacceptable to the majority of MPs representing English constituencies. That will create a crisis which would not be contained without further fundamental constitutional change.

  599
  This is very much unfinished business, left by the referendums. It has the capacity to blow this House apart, if it is not faced with timely imagination, but the words that the Government have used in the Gracious Speech give no hint that they recognise that, let alone how they propose to resolve the dilemma. The dilemma remains to be dealt with, partly because the referendums were held before the legislation had been examined by Parliament, and because Parliament undoubtedly felt diminished in its capacity to consider the legislation radically when Bills were presented to it.
  If referendums are to become a regular part of our system, as they appear to be, I hope that we can find a way of conducting them that will make it less likely that such problems will be produced by the results. That will not rule such problems out, but they should at least be considered before—and at the same time as—the people consider the matter.
  7.7 pm
  Ms Oona King: It has been enlightening—in popular speech, the word "not" would usually be used after phrases such as that—to hear the attitude of Conservative Members towards House of Lords reform. It goes without saying that there is no justification for the hereditary principle; it also goes without saying that the Tories will defend it until their dying breath.
  We know that the Conservative party has a love of the hereditary principle that stretches back a long way. It is interesting—instructive, even—to note that, in the 17th century, the Tories were called the Abhorrers, because they abhorred the Addressers—the Liberals; credit where it is due—who demanded that King Charles II listen to their address of Parliament and give Parliament a whirl. That, naturally, sent the Abhorrers absolutely round the bend. To be frank, they went berserk because they were outraged that anyone could question the principle of hereditary power—and they are still taking the same line 300 years later.
  I have to put it to Conservative Members that, if they are ever going to get the hang of this modernisation thing, they had better start now.
  Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Lady comment on why, leaving aside Conservative Members, 60 per cent. of the electorate do not seem to have got the hang of this modernisation thing in respect of the House of Lords, because they disapprove of the Government introducing the two-stage process without saying what the end product will be?
  Ms King: It is clear that the British public disapprove of Tories having an in-built majority because their ancestors did some favour to some king, queen, duke or whoever 300 years back. I do not believe that that is a reasonable argument.
  The Tory amendment mentions how the Government's plans will
  "turn the House of Lords into an enormous quango".
  As a journalist said yesterday, better a quango of the living than a quango of the dead. The current quango was put in place in the 12th century. The right hon. and
  600
  learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said that, for some reason, the Government persist in reforming the House of Lords. Let us spell it out: the reason is the minor issue of democracy. That is why the Government are reforming the House of Lords. There are 626 hereditary peers, two of whom are from ethnic minorities and 16 of whom are women, which is less than 3 per cent.
  I do not expect Conservative Members to take this argument seriously. Look at the Conservative Benches. Does anyone see a woman sitting there? I often look across at those Benches. On these Benches, more than 40 per cent. of the Labour Members present are women, because the Labour party is more democratic.
  Mr. Tyrie: Is the hon. Lady aware that, in his new appointments to the House of Lords, the Prime Minister is making roughly the same proportion of women peers as did the previous Prime Minister? There has been no sizeable increase in the proportion of women being sent to the House of Lords.
  Ms King: What I am aware of is the fact that the Prime Minister will reform the House of Lords, so that the current principles will no longer apply. I also note that Baroness Uddin, the recently appointed peer from my constituency, is the first Bangladeshi woman to be appointed. Unlike the Tories, the Labour party uses its powers to promote representative democracy.
  I find the Tory position shameful, and I think that many Conservative Members do, too, and are unable to defend it. Could there be anything more like a closed list than the hereditary principle? When did the seat of Cranborne come up for election? Was there consultation? Who was on the shortlist? The hypocrisy is mind-boggling, and the transparency of the Conservative party's argument is almost indecent.
  The closed list is in line with the basic premise of our democracy, which is the party system. The party chooses the candidate. I have never heard Conservative Members rail against that principle, because each and every one of them were elected under that system. Everyone in this Chamber was elected on that principle. The Tories support the hereditary principle for no other reason—except perhaps family attachments—than that it guarantees them an in-built majority.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe made a great speech in favour of the status quo. His ancient forebears, the Abhorrers, would be proud of him. It would be funny if it were not so sad. He spoke about the need for legitimacy. How does he justify leaving the Tory hereditary in-built majority in place for the two or three years it will take the royal commission to report?
  It is clear that that majority is illegitimate—as the right hon. and learned Member intimated—and it must go. It is also obvious that the Tories will continue to cling to their illegitimate power for as long as they can. That is shameful to us and to most of the country. I have heard my hon. Friends ask, "What more do they want?" It is crystal clear what they want: they want blood—blue blood. They will continue with their spurious arguments as long as they can to keep that unfair, in-built, hereditary majority.
  In the meantime, if the Lords persist in voting to thwart the will of a democratically elected Government, they will be like turkeys voting for Christmas. I admit that that is a

  601
  cliché, so I was pleased to note that they may also be turkeys voting at—I stress at—Christmas. I should like to put on record my best wishes to them for a merry Christmas and a happy new year, because it will be the final new year of this or any other millennium in which the Tories will be able to use their illegitimate, hereditary power. I shall also be charitable enough to say that I hope they rest in peace.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I was surprised that the Labour party put reform of the Lords in its manifesto, because history tells us that it becomes a bed of nails in the end. I fear that that will also be the case this time round. Now that the Government have decided to reform Parliament, we must all decide what we want for the upper House.
  The first matter to be clear about is whether we really want a second Chamber. I believe that it is right to have some check on the almost untrammelled power wielded by the Executive in this House. Many Labour Members disagree, but they have not said so tonight—although I think I noticed the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) nodding in favour. Three times this century, Labour has been committed to abolishing the upper House completely—most recently in 1983. Indeed, it was one of the founding thoughts of the Labour movement.
  The Conservative party accepts the need for a constitutional check on the Executive's powers in this place. The trouble is that their power is becoming untrammelled. The restraint on that power has traditionally come from independent Back Benchers, but their numbers have been in decline for many years, and under new Labour they are an endangered species. I expect that they will shortly be extinct—there will then be only a few dinosaurs left, such as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who usually sits just below the Gangway.
  I do not want a weak Executive; I want a strong Executive, but an Executive who remain accountable to Parliament. Everywhere we see Labour circumventing Parliament, and slipping out of accountability to this place. By carrying on in that way, the Labour party has made the strongest possible case for bicameralism.
  Mr. Lansley: Does my hon. Friend agree that, far from the debate on closed lists being a cause of war, as the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) suggested, it has shown that, although independent-minded Labour Back Benchers may have spoken against closed lists, none of them voted against them? It took the House of Lords to provide a check on the Executive's desires.
  Mr. Tyrie: That is an excellent point. We have scarcely seen any independence or preparedness to speak out. As I said, the independent Labour Back Bencher is an endangered species.
  The second matter we have to decide is how best to make an upper House effective. I believe that only with an element of democratic legitimacy can a second Chamber perform its job effectively in the 21st century. Without it, the Lords will rarely have the confidence to ask the Executive in this place to think again. We must go down the democratic route in reforming the second Chamber.
  602
  The third major issue we have to decide is the powers of the second Chamber and the balance between the two Houses. If the risk of constitutional gridlock is to be avoided, one House should have the last word, and it must be this House. The role of the second Chamber should not be to replicate what the Commons does, but to give the Executive time to think again on contentious issues, and to act as a constitutional long stop.
  The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949, and the precedents that have grown up around them, form a sensible basis for the division of powers between the two Houses. None the less, there is a case for some change. The Lords have an absolute veto on only one issue: a Bill to prolong the life of a Parliament. Perhaps that absolute veto should be extended to cover other constitutional issues.
  I have mentioned three issues on which I think it is important for the House to come to a view. Has the Prime Minister been thinking about the need to bolster accountability or for a balanced constitution? I do not think that he has for a moment. I do not think that he has any intention of improving parliamentary democracy, or of making the second Chamber more effective. That is why we are having reform in two stages, and why the manifesto said that stage one should be a
  "self-contained reform, not dependent on further reform in the future".
  That is why the manifesto is virtually silent about stage two. Labour was never serious about that.
  I have never heard the Prime Minister put the case for a revising body, or for a constitutional long stop. All that I have heard from him, from time to time, is the language of class politics, some of which I have found nauseating. I am not convinced that the Prime Minister even believes that there is a case for an effective second Chamber: he has never given us any evidence to support the view that he has such a belief.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: What about this Chamber?
  Mr. Tyrie: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I sometimes am not sure whether the Prime Minister even believes in parliamentary democracy here: he is scarcely ever present. [Interruption.] The Prime Minister should come here more often if he wants us to believe that he takes the place seriously. That is what all previous Prime Ministers have done. His voting and attendance records must be worse than those of any other Prime Minister in British history. I have not checked that, but I shall be surprised if I am not right. Winston Churchill, after his stroke, may have rivalled the present Prime Minister's record, but, if so, his is the only case after 1953.
  The country can learn something by watching the way in which the Prime Minister has treated his own party. Before the election, we were told that it was safe to vote Labour, because the Prime Minister had the party under his control. Well, the hon. Members for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), and, in particular, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan)—who is quite a moderate man, as I have got to know—can testify to what the Prime Minister's control over the party really means. It is a type of control that the British constitution can do without. It uses the language of modernisation to disguise a ruthless centralisation of power at No. 10 Downing street.

  603
  We are already seeing that centralisation in the discussion about the House of Lords. We do not have to wait to find out; we do not have to guess what the Prime Minister is going to do with an appointed quango; we can see what he is doing now. He has appointed 105 peers so far, at an annual rate of 67. That is three times the average annual rate of the past 40 years, and almost three times the rate achieved by his predecessor. [Interruption.] Labour Members are making some very banal remarks.
  In fact, the Prime Minister has appointed more peers since coming to power than have been appointed at any comparable time during this century. Harold Wilson's second Administration—even boosted by the "lavender list"—only got the annual average up to 38. What is more, the Prime Minister's appointments are blatantly partisan. Fifty-four per cent. of those appointees are taking the Labour Whip. I have been able to check back only as far as 1958, but in that time, no Prime Minister has let the number in his party rise above 50 per cent.
  Incidentally, the figures for new peers exclude a number of Cross Benchers who are listed as having donated more than £5,000 to the Labour party—and then there is the Islington mafia. No wonder the accusation of cronyism will stick.
  Maria Eagle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the record of previous Prime Ministers from his party? Lady Thatcher created 205 peers, of whom 98 were Conservative, and the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) created 160, of whom 75 were Conservative. We are talking about a percentage of about 50. The current Prime Minister's appointment of 54 per cent. of peers from the Labour party in the first year of the Labour Government goes nowhere towards redressing the 3:1 majority of the Conservative party in the House of Lords. Is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting that the number of Labour peers has made much difference?
  Mr. Tyrie: Lady Jay has made it clear that, following the removal of hereditary peers, there will be a rough balance in the upper House, and, therefore, the Labour appointments can be explained only on a partisan basis. The figures that the hon. Lady gave make my point for me. I think that she will find that they are 47 per cent. respectively for the two most recent Conservative premierships—although I may be slightly out, because I made the calculations in my head while I listened to her. As for the 54 per cent. figure, which I calculated beforehand, this is a sharp increase on figures in the mid 40 per cent. range.
  We are moving into an era of Blairite patronage: an era in which packing the House of Lords will be the norm. We are beginning to witness an unacceptable exhibition of prime ministerial power, which the country will start to notice. So far, people have not noticed it at all.
  The Prime Minister says that there is no need to worry, because he will hand responsibility for all the appointments that we have been debating to an independent committee; but what confidence can we have in such a committee? We know from the Jenkins commission that it is possible to rig an outcome by appointing people who hold only one view. Why should we believe that there will be any more independence in
  604
  the new committee than there is in the existing honours committee? We have been given no explanation to that effect.
  The Prime Minister has breached all precedents, in regard to both the scale of his appointments to the House of Lords in the past 18 months and the proportion of Labour supporters whom he is putting there. He is breaching other precedents as well—for example, on consultation.
  There is a long-standing precedent for consultation on House of Lords reform. On each occasion during this century when a Government proposed comprehensive reform—in 1910, 1948 and 1968—they invited the major parties beforehand to consult on the future of a second Chamber, but that has not happened this time. It is outrageous that this Government should proceed with fundamental reform of the House of Lords without at least trying to establish agreement with the major parties first.
  The Bill threatens to eradicate all remaining independence of the second Chamber. That has stirred even a friendly press against the Prime Minister: even Alastair Campbell could not control it. So we have been offered a sop—and what is it? It is the sop of a royal commission to look at stage two reform. What confidence can we have in that? Labour will not even tell us its terms of reference; it certainly has not done so today. Will those terms of reference be to work up proposals for a largely democratic upper House, or would a wholly appointed Chamber do? Unless Labour rules out a wholly appointed House, the royal commission may merely decide to rubber-stamp the existing stage one proposal.
  Then there is the membership of the commission. How confident can we be that it will not be another case of "packing", as we saw with the Jenkins commission? We must face the uncomfortable truth that royal commissions have a habit of kicking issues into the long grass. Stage one will be with us for a long time.
  I am very disappointed in the Liberals. Unfortunately, only one of them is present, but I suppose that is better than none. They have decided to team up with the Government, and to abandon their traditional role as an Opposition party. What do they think that they have got out of their constitutional deal? I can only assume that the answer is proportional representation—the wrong kind—in regard to European elections.
  Mr. Richard Allan: For the moment I shall refer merely to the Human Rights Act 1998, devolution for Scotland and Wales, London government and the move towards regional assemblies, as those are the only examples that come to mind immediately.
  Mr. Tyrie: Has the Liberal party influenced any of those decisions? Do they think that they will secure anything more as a result of their constitutional pact? Have they not understood that, when the Prime Minister says, "Closed lists it will be", closed lists it is?
  Where has the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) brought the Liberals? They have abandoned the proper and traditional role that they should have. They want a democratic upper House, but they should surely realise that that is the last thing that they will get if Labour secures stage one reform without our having first debated and clarified what stage two will contain, and when we will secure it.

  605
  Only one course is open to those who sincerely believe in the diffusion of power, and in the need for checks and balances in the constitution. Only one course is open to all of us who are suspicious of an over-mighty Executive, whoever may be in control of them. We should oppose the Bill, and we should call for Labour to abandon the artificial distinction between stages one and two. If we are to have Lords reform, let us have one Bill, let it come before the House after all-party consultation and let it be a Bill to strengthen the legitimacy of the House of Lords.
  7.29 pm
  Ms Hazel Blears: Just 18 months ago, I was elected by the people of Salford to try to ensure that their voice was heard in Parliament and, indeed, by Government. I have done my best in that regard, but it has become increasingly clear to me that one of the biggest challenges for all of us is the requirement to make politics relevant, and to ensure that our decisions here reflect the priorities of those whom we represent. If we are really committed to representing our communities, it is clear that we must revitalise our democracy, reinvigorate our Parliament and renew our constitution.
  I have listened to the debate. I have heard the Opposition become more excited and animated than for some time. They certainly were at the beginning of the debate; time has perhaps taken its toll already. They have become excited and animated about the subjects that they have chosen to put in their narrowly worded amendment. They have become excited about the virtues of closed lists and open lists for the European parliamentary elections. They have become over-excited about the composition of the House of Lords and the need to retain the rights of hereditary peers to vote and to influence our legislation. Those may be the sort of issues that excite and animate the Opposition, but they are not the sort of issues that excite and animate the people whom I was sent to the House to try to represent.
  Perhaps the best speech that I have heard this evening was made by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who made the most down-to-earth, practical statement of the changes that he would like. The only difficulty was that he wanted to vote for the abolition of the right of hereditary peers to vote, but not yet. Perhaps we have the chance to persuade him to be a little more forthcoming in the way in which he approaches the issue.
  Mrs. Laing: The hon. Lady may be surprised to hear that I entirely agree with what she has said. Has she thought of asking her Government, whom she supports, why we are spending so much time on those issues, which, as she rightly says, do not excite the people—who sent her, me and all hon. Members here to talk about education, health and the economy? Why are we spending so much time on those internal issues?
  Ms Blears: We are spending so much time on those internal issues because, as I understand it, the issue of closed lists versus open lists has been debated on six separate occasions in the House. The Opposition have wanted to take up valuable parliamentary time in discussing those fairly arcane and irrelevant issues. If the Opposition show some common sense, we could get those matters through this House and then concentrate on jobs, the national health service and improving our communities.
  606
  There is a fundamental issue at stake in debates such as this one, about constitution and Parliament. We can discuss and pontificate all that we like, and I have no doubt that the debate will be vigorous and fascinating for those who are in the political class and for those who exercise power, but a whole swathe of people are completely disaffected and alienated from the political process. In recent times, there have been worrying developments in my constituency and in most of the great cities—in Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield and London.
  At the last general election, the turnout in my constituency was barely 60 per cent. Average turnouts at local government elections last year were between 20 and 25 per cent.; in inner-city wards in my constituency, they were between 11 and 16 per cent. I use that simply to illustrate that a large section of the community that we are supposed to represent in the House is completely disengaged from the political process. The longer that we spend discussing the virtues of closed lists and open lists and arcane internal politics, the more we exclude those people from our discussions, from deciding their future, from engaging in politics and from being part of what is an important political process.
  There are people in my constituency—I was shocked at this—who genuinely do not know even how to vote. Generations have not worked and generations have not voted. They do not know what happens at the ballot box. A young person has asked me, "Will I have to write an essay on politics? Will the council be able to trace me for my poll tax debts?" That is the situation that we are in. People do not know how the system works. They are not a part of our democracy or of our constitution.
  Mr. Allan: Does the hon. Lady accept that, to an extent, political parties must take the blame because, in safe seats, they tend not to work so hard? Does she agree that fairer voting systems, in which every vote counts, are an important way of ensuring that political parties work in those areas because they will need the votes?
  Ms Blears: I represent the area where I was born and brought up and where I have lived all my life. No one works harder than me and my party to try to engage people in politics. It is a fairly superficial argument to say that proportional representation will be the answer to all the problems of engaging the community back in politics. This is a more fundamental issue about making people feel that they have a stake in their community, that they can affect what goes on and that they can make a real difference to their lives. Simply imposing another structure and another process is not the answer. We must fundamentally engage with people, use relevant and accessible language and express political ideas in a way that catches their imagination and fires their enthusiasm to be part of a political process.
  I emphasise that the system of politics and democracy that I want is not looking backwards towards the House of Lords, or towards a system of privilege, power and elite, or to history. It looks to the future and engages the people whom I have talked about, making them feel that they can make a difference. It is vibrant, modern, fresh and alive. In this House, the sooner we stop talking simply to one another and having incestuous debates that do not relate to the people, the sooner our democracy will begin to live and be able to breathe new life into civic and parliamentary affairs.

  607
  In their wider constitutional proposals, the Government have a dramatic programme for increasing citizenship and for making people feel that they have a stake in the affairs of their country. I look forward to the Government implementing their programme to begin to reconnect the people with democracy.
  7.36 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) said and I disagreed with most of it, save to say that she is right to draw attention to the fact that there is less concern to be involved in political issues these days. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) is probably right to say that the political parties have something to do with that, but the way in which we organise ourselves in this House has something to do with it too. This is an extremely important debate. Far from being irrelevant, it goes to the heart of what we should be discussing in this House—the great constitutional issues.
  The great issue that we are discussing tonight is the total absence of the Government's plan for an alternative to the revising chamber in this Parliament. That is a national scandal, to which attention has been drawn by all Conservative Members. There has been no acknowledgment from Labour Members of the constitutional vandalism that they are wreaking.
  The measure that is included in the Queen's Speech is the seventh of a series of measures that are wreaking huge constitutional change. The Home Secretary referred to incremental change, which was a complete misnomer. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) had it right when he said that, in constitutional terms, this is probably the most radical Government this century.
  The proposal to abolish the independent revising chamber of this Parliament, the other place, is the seventh measure. It follows devolution in Scotland and Wales, which is now all coming adrift; and the creation of a new tier of government in the English regions, which no one in my part of the world, the south-east, wants. They think that it is merely another unnecessary tier of local government. Together with what is going on in Scotland and Wales, it is stoking up the demand for an English Parliament. The Government have no idea of the whirlwind that they are going to reap from the changes that they are forcing on the British people.
  The third measure is the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into our legislation. I have said this to the House before, and I apologise for saying it again, but it is important that Labour Members should understand: incorporation will change fundamentally the ways in which the House operates and is regarded by the people outside. That measure will put power into the hands of the judges in a way that they do not currently enjoy. So long as those judges reflect the prejudices of the Labour party, it may be content with that, but there will come a time when the judges do not reflect its prejudices and when it starts to realise that, instead of coming to the House to seek the redress of grievances, our constituents will make their way to the law courts.
  The fourth change, which has been mentioned several times already in the debate, is the change to the voting system used in the European elections. It is no good for
  608
  Labour Members, such as the hon. Member for Salford, saying that it is irrelevant whether we use open lists or closed lists, because it is a fundamental issue. The people of Britain have no idea that, in next year's Euro-elections, they will be able to vote not for an individual candidate but only for a slate. That will be their only opportunity.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) has already listed the deficiencies of the Government's proposals for the European elections. I should like to ask the Minister what will happen if—as frequently happens in the Labour party—a Member of the European Parliament is removed from the party list? Will a substitute be found, or will a by-election be called? What will happen? What arrangements will there be to deal with circumstance such as that?
  The fifth matter that I should like to deal with is the Government's flirting with proportional representation as proposed in the Jenkins report. The hon. Member for Salford did not seem to be as keen on proportional representation as some other Labour Members. I am delighted that there is some common ground between us on that issue, if not on others.
  The penultimate issue—before that of abolishing the independent upper House—is the Government's further transfer of powers from this place to Europe. Those powers are hugely important. Transferring powers may not seem to affect people's daily lives, but that perception will change once the transfer affects people's businesses, prices, jobs and ability to hire others.
  The measures that were passed in the previous Session, and the ones that have been heralded for this Session in the Queen's Speech, add up to a catalogue of constitutional vandalism, which raises the question: why are the Government doing it? I believe that the legislation is being proposed and passed because the Prime Minister has been searching for a big idea. Unfortunately, however, most of the dramatic reforms that were necessary to sort out the United Kingdom and put it back on its feet were made by my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). Trade unions have been reformed, and British industry is now among the most successful in the world.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Although I know that the hon. Gentleman has been in the Chamber for most of the debate, I am not sure whether he was here when I mentioned the fact that hon. Members have to speak to the Opposition amendment. Therefore, we cannot talk about the records of previous Prime Ministers and Governments.
  Mr. Howarth: I accept entirely your stricture, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I was trying to make a point by asking why the Prime Minister wishes to create—in the words of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—an "enormous quango". I think that, as we are examining a major constitutional change, that question is fair and should be asked. What is driving the Government to implement the change?
  I contend—I hope that you will allow me to express my contention, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that the Prime Minister has invented the need for constitutional change, including abolition of hereditary peers' voting rights, because he wishes to make his mark in history and go

  609
  down as one of this century's great Prime Ministers. I do not think that he is likely to fulfil the ambition. However, he will certainly go down in history as a significant Prime Minister—as the man who destroyed the unity of a kingdom that, for three centuries, has advanced the cause of liberty, free trade and the rule of law. He will be remembered as the man who stumbled round like a mad axeman, scything away at institutions that have evolved over centuries and served the nation well.
  Ms Oona King: Would the hon. Gentleman be prepared to go down in history as the first Tory to support ending the hereditary principle?
  Mr. Howarth: I am not alone in supporting the hereditary principle, and I shall certainly be voting for it. I shall deal in a moment with that matter. This is a very serious debate. It should not be trivialised as, I submit, the hon. Lady trivialised it. Although she is a very charming lady, and I should be happy to work with her on other issues, this issue is not trivial.
  We are already beginning to see the results of the whirlwind sown by the Government. Labour was pushed into third place in a European by-election in Scotland, demonstrating that the policy of trying to buy off Scottish separatism has failed dismally. I believe that, as a whole, the collection of measures introduced by the Government will cause discord throughout the Kingdom.
  Another feature—it is singularly unattractive—of the Government is the ruthless manner in which they promote their policy and in which the Prime Minister attempts to impose his authority on Labour Members. Such practices are quite unlike those that were used by my right hon. Friends who previously commanded the House.
  What about closed lists? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield said, only one Labour Member has spoken in favour of closed lists, whereas 21 have spoken against them. They have been afraid to vote against them. The experience of Mr. Ken Coates may be instructive. In the European Parliament, the Labour whip was removed from him because, as he wrote in the Daily Mail of 23 October last year:
  "I had refused to sign a gagging order and agree to keep quiet about my opposition to Tony Blair's plan to introduce a closed regional list system of proportional representation for elections to the European Parliament.
  It may seem an obscure issue on which to stand and fight, but its anti-democratic implications are so enormous that they must be resisted, come what may … I will not be gagged."
  Mr. Coates's experience is instructive for two reasons. First, it shows that their lordships are seeking in another place to fight the Government on an important issue. They have the support of at least one Labour MEP who is prepared to stand up. Secondly, it shows the Government's Stalinist approach to anyone who stands in their way.
  The Government's plans for the other place are an extremely important issue. I do not oppose the Government's plans simply because the Prime Minister wishes to stuff the other place with his cronies, but support the other place for other reasons. The first—which I have not said before this debate—is that, as a Conservative, I believe in tradition. I believe that it is incumbent on the Government to prove that the system that has served the United Kingdom so well for so many centuries is now uniquely broke and needs fixing. I do not believe that that is true.
  610
  I believe that the British people value tradition, pageantry and the rich tapestry of tradition that is embodied by the other place and was shown so emphatically last week, during the State Opening of Parliament. I tell the hon. Member for Salford that I suspect that far fewer people will switch on their tellies for this debate than turned them on last week to watch the pomp and circumstance of the State Opening.
  Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman seems to respect the tradition of the other place, but does he not really respect the fact that it has an in-built Conservative majority?
  Mr. Howarth: That was a cheap remark; I do not believe that at all. I am arguing passionately in favour of tradition because I believe in tradition.
  I believe also that the other place provides our nation with continuity. Our system of government is admired around the world precisely because it gives us a sense of continuity. If the other place is to be composed only of Tony's cronies, stuffed full of the Prime Minister's appointees, they will all—apart from a few token young people—be middle aged, The great advantage of the lottery of accident of birth—which is far better than the lottery of being the Prime Minister's friend—is that it often provides the other place with very young, very able, blood.
  Ms Blears: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Howarth: No; I do not have much time.
  Some of the best speeches that I have heard in the other place have been made by—
  Helen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Howarth: No, I shall not; time is running out.
  Some of the best speeches in the other place have come from young hereditary peers. It may not be fashionable to support the hereditary principle, but I support it because I believe that there is some value to this nation in continuing with that tradition. It is one of those intangible benefits to the nation that we throw away at our peril.
  A further reason for supporting the other place is that, in that House, people are beholden to no one. They are independent. If they take the Conservative Whip, fair enough, but many times they vote against. In 1985–86, their lordships voted against my Government 22 times. In 1989–90 they did so 20 times. In the past Session, the upper House voted against the Government on 31 occasions. If we take out the five times that they dealt with the closed list-open list argument, that leaves 27. Averaging that out over 12 months rather than the unusually long 18-month Session that we have just had, we reach a figure of less than 20. Their lordships have not exceeded the voting pattern that they showed when the Conservatives were in power.
  The final reason is that, as I said to the Home Secretary, removing the hereditary principle from the upper House unquestionably puts the sovereign at risk. The Labour party will have to explain that.
  The Government have made no case for an alternative to that which they wish to destroy. It is incumbent on them to explain to the British people what they intend to

  611
  put in its place. Opinion polls have shown that 68 per cent. of the public—73 per cent. of 18 to 24-year-olds—want the Government to come up with a proposal before—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  7.52 pm
  Shona McIsaac: The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) will probably be surprised to hear that I like the tradition of piers, but the only one that I like is the one in Cleethorpes, which gives fine views over the River Humber and has a nice night club. That pier has about as much right to rule over this country as those next door.
  On a sadder note, I want to break some bad news about a tradition that has bitten the dust. Poor old Lord Snooty—does anyone remember him?—is no more. He has been banished from the pages of the Beano because he is not relevant to kids today. Kids today? I did not identify with Lord Snooty 30 years ago. I was more of a Bash Street Kids girl or Minnie the Minx—I had the red hair, the boots, the bonnet.
  The Tories in the House of Lords should have seen the writing on the wall, but they did not. They signed their own death warrant by voting down the European Parliamentary Elections Bill five times. I have heard some spurious and fallacious mutterings from the Tory hereditary peers—repeated in the Opposition amendment—about that Bill. All the drivel—and it is drivel—about people in this country voting for a person rather than a party is outrageous. We have to get real. Few people in this country voted for a person in the general election. They voted for the party banners that we stood under. I am under no illusions about that.
  Dr. Liam Fox: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Shona McIsaac: No, I have only a short time.
  I was voted in because I was a Labour candidate. Few people, if any, voted for me as a person. I have a sneaking suspicion that my husband voted for me because I was me, and I voted for me because I was me—but if I had not been the Labour party candidate, I would not have voted for me either. It is all about parties.
  I have no problems with closed lists. There we go—we have found a Back Bencher who likes closed lists. I challenge anyone who says that they are here because of who they are. It is so arrogant. They should give up the party tag, stand as an independent and see who wins. An official party candidate will every time.
  Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Shona McIsaac: Okay, just the once now.
  Mr. Grieve: I seem to have heard a great deal in the Chamber during this Parliament about the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell). It has been suggested that he was
  612
  elected because of the rejection of another candidate who was standing for his party, which would not otherwise have been rejected.
  Shona McIsaac: I was talking generally—and after all, the other parties withdrew from that election. The hon. Gentleman could have got the hon. Member for Aldershot, who is behind him, very worked up with the mention of the word Tatton.
  I was elected 18 months ago because the majority of people in this country wanted a Labour Government. It was not Shona McIsaac they were voting for.
  The people of this country thought that they had got rid of the Tories last May. They did not. The Tories are alive and well, sitting on their red Benches next door and waiting for their sons—it is largely sons—to inherit. I cannot accept them lording it over us in that fashion. It is undemocratic that 600 families can rule by accident of birth alone over 60 million people. It is out of date.
  The hereditary peers are hardly representative either. It has already been said tonight that there are only 16 women among the hereditary peers and two from the ethnic minorities. Looking a little deeper, they are all from one social class. We do not see them down at Kwik Save or putting a fiver on the lottery. We are far more likely to see them falling off their horse at a local hunt. They do not scrutinise legislation, they block. It is simple: Labour has a majority in the House of Commons; the Tories have a majority in the House of Lords. So, they are going to block, because they believe that it is their right—indeed, their hereditary privilege—to block anything that us oiks, Bash Street Kids, Minnie the Minxes and Dennis the Menaces do in this Chamber.
  Labour has been accused of class war. Some of the worst examples of that that I have come across have been from those defending the hereditary principle. I got a strange little pamphlet in the post today called "In Defence of Hereditary Peers". Here is the class war clincher from that document. It describes the voters of this country as
  "an uninformed and ill-educated electorate."
  If that is not class war, I do not know what is. It is saying that the Lord Snooties next door can lord it over us "uninformed and ill-educated"—that probably just means that we did not go to Eton—Bash Street Kids in the House of Commons. We should know our place and should not forget it.
  Various opinion polls have also been mentioned suggesting that people did not want to get rid of the hereditary principle. I tested the waters in Cleethorpesnot literally; I did not jump off the pier or anything like that—asking people what they thought. Almost 70 per cent. said that they wanted to scrap the voting rights of the hereditary peers. That is a higher percentage than the Labour and Liberal Democrat votes combined, so there must be a few Tories who want the measure, too. We must get a few things clear. There are more than just Labour and Liberal Democrat supporters who want the change. Plenty of Tories have said that we have to get rid of the principle.
  A lot has been made of Labour's policies. Getting rid of the voting rights is just a first step. That is made perfectly clear in our manifesto. The detailed reform will come later. We also made it clear that there will still be a second Chamber to act as a check on the Executive and

  613
  the Commons. We are not getting rid of the House of Lords; we are just getting rid of the voting rights of the hereditary peers.
  Our policies also state that no party will have an overall majority in the House of Lords. Surely that is fairer. When the House of Lords voted against the previous Government, it was because coalitions were formed with other parties. At the moment, the Tories in the House of Lords have nobody but themselves to convince when they want to vote down Government legislation. I cannot accept that. Some of our detractors parrot the line that we have not said what would replace the hereditary peers, but we do not need to replace them. If we scrapped the hereditary peers, the House of Lords with about 500 Members, would still be one of the biggest second chambers in the world. Surely we can work with that.
  I do not know whether Lord Snooty's fictitious family had been around for 800 years, but if the Beano, which is a far more loved institution than the House of Lords, can get rid of Lord Snooty, the parliamentary Bash Street Kids can certainly get rid of hereditary peers. They are unelected, undemocratic and, like Lord Snooty and his pals, they have had their day.
  8 pm
  Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Hearing the admirable speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) made me remember what an excellent vintage 1970 was in parliamentary terms. Their speeches reminded me of a delicious auslese—only when the grapes have been nipped by the first frost of political winter does their true savour come out. It did in full measure and how privileged we were to experience it.
  Madam Speaker's selection of the loyal Opposition's amendment was particularly wise. The Liberal amendment, rather like the speech of the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), was prolix in the extreme. Our amendment focused on the three key constitutional issues at the heart of the Queen's Speech: first, the voting system for the European parliamentary elections; secondly, the nature of the House of Lords and the Government's determination to press ahead with the abolition of voting rights for the hereditary element before the House or the country have agreed on what is to replace them; and thirdly, the rules for the conduct of referendums—a subject on which my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) is a particular expert. I am glad to see him on the Front Bench.
  I shall take as my point of departure not the speech by the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac)—the quicker we move on from that the better—but the observations of the Home Secretary. He said that the justification for the proposed radical constitutional changes was that they would strengthen the nature of citizenship and involve people more closely in the determination of the decisions that affect their lives.
  In respect of reforming the House of Lords, I do not see how that can possibly be the case, at least in the interim, if we are optimistic; for very much longer, if we are pessimistic, we shall have to endure an upper House of placepersons. Is that what the public want?
  I have never encountered in any general election campaign—and I have fought a few—any elector calling for reform of the upper House. People have called for
  614
  better living standards and improved health services. My electors have just signed a petition, with 80,000 signatures, against the dismemberment of their local hospital. People have called for better pensions and improved standards of education, but I have never detected the call for class warfare that was so odiously expounded by the hon. Member for Cleethorpes, who so rapidly made her departure from the Chamber.
  Mr. Grieve: Does my hon. Friend agree that the electorate have also called for a better standard in the drafting of legislation—a matter that has not been brought before the House?
  Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend is right about that, as he is about so much. He exemplifies the need for an effective second chamber that has the authority of the people's support behind its composition.
  Helen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wilkinson: No.
  The pernicious element in our political system is patronage, not primogeniture. It is certainly not the class system which is an irrelevance. We have only to walk along the Royal Gallery or look up at the west window of Westminster Hall to realise how irrelevant class is. We are all mortal and we all face the same dangers in combat as the many people from the other place who laid down their lives, but we have a common duty to serve our fellow citizens better. That should be the test. I am not at all convinced that an upper House of appointees would do the job better—far from it. I would advocate a senate in which 100 per cent. were elected on a different franchise from ours and for fixed terms. Such a model might also find favour with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe.
  The worst of all political motivations is jealousy, which is corrosive. The democratic process is about mutual respect—respect for those in office and, among those who hold office, respect for those who put them there. Those who put them there should do so freely through a franchise and a ballot system of which they approve and which maximises individual choice and accountability. That is why the closed list system that the Liberal Democrats love so much is so deplorable. How deplorable it is that they should have sold their independent soul to the Labour party and that a once-great party that governed this country for decade after decade should have capitulated root and branch to the socialists.
  Moving on to the growing importance in our constitution of referendums, I shall highlight one way in which contemporary circumstances demonstrate why we need a proper code of conduct for referendums. Right hon. and hon. Members will recall that in the last Session we considered the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill. The referendum was flawed because there was a single ballot paper with two questions:
  "Do you approve of a directly elected mayor?"
  and,
  "Do you approve of a directly elected assembly?"
  The issues should have been separated, but they were not. We argued that to put such a question in advance of the legislation and before we knew what would be the role and functions of the authority was dishonest, and so it has

  615
  proved. We heard today that one of the central responsibilities of the mayor—to control London Transport—has been taken away from him. So the electorate of London were voting on spurious grounds. That is why the recommendation of the Neill committee should have been encapsulated in the legislative programme and enacted in this Parliament.
  We are seeing a diminution rather than a deepening of democracy. I revert to the theme that is, I believe, central to the thoughts of us all, especially about the conduct of European affairs—we need a deepening of democracy. We look, perhaps rather pathetically, to the European Parliament better to control the European Union. We know that our hopes are vain and that the European Parliament is probably more interested in its perquisites than in doing a proper job.
  The European Parliament, however, must at least be elected properly, especially because it has a co-determination role in the European Union and because, as we know from experience, the European Union will increase its budget year on year—the budget will increase by 19 per cent. in the next few years.
  We need to be able to choose individuals who are clearly the best people for the job. We need on occasion to be able to vote across party lines. We may know what the "selectorate" do not know—that an individual has a past, a character weakness or a lack of intellectual capacity that should debar him or her from elective office. However, under the list system, the electors can do nothing about that.
  Maria Eagle: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that argument applies to hereditary peers? No one has the chance to decide whether hereditary peers are fit to serve in a legislative House.
  Mr. Wilkinson: First, I suggested for the future a wholly elected senate. Secondly, the upper House is a revising chamber; it has no power over money Bills or budgetary matters, which is of crucial significance.
  I hope that, in judging these constitutional matters, people will recognise that, in a true democracy, representatives must know their electors and their electors must know them. Currently, we hardly ever see Members of the European Parliament. They seldom hold surgeries and are not involved in the day-to-day matters about which people really care. As I said, the electorate have more important concerns—their standard of living, their jobs, their health and their local schooling—than the constitutional monstrosities that the Government are proposing in the Queen's Speech.
  8.13 pm
  Miss Melanie Johnson: During such a debate, for most of which I have been in the Chamber, I am especially proud to be on the Labour Benches—not only because of the quality of Labour Members' arguments, but because of the wider setting. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was right to begin his speech by placing the subject in a much wider context and I was disappointed that so few Conservative Members picked up on that.
  616
  Like Members of Parliament, the constitution exists for a purpose. As my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears) said, Members of Parliament are here to help people in their ordinary lives outside the House of Commons and the other place. I have been helped in my intention to be brief by the fact that the Tories have not mentioned law and order, one of the many matters which the constitution exists to uphold, but which the official Opposition removed from the scope of the debate by not referring to it in their amendment.
  This morning, I was sitting not on these green Benches but on a magistrates' bench. I was dealing with people who had first offended at the age of 13 but who were still going through the offending and imprisonment routine in their 30s and 40s. One of the reasons why we are discussing the constitution is so that we can make the right decisions, implement the right systems and processes and allocate the right resources to tackle matters such as youth offending. I am disappointed that the official Opposition have not enabled the many Labour Members who wanted to talk about the wonderful things that the Government are doing on that score to say more about how we have the answers to many of the law and order problems that everybody outside faces.
  The regional lists are closed but, as many hon. Members have said, they are not as closed as hereditary peerages. Indeed, they are less closed than the lists used when Tories went on the chicken run from, for example, St. Albans to Hitchin and Harpenden, neither of which constituencies is a million miles from mine. I know that the electors of St. Albans wanted to vote in my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard), but I am also sure that many of them wanted to say no to the former Member for that constituency, the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). Like others, they found it disappointing not to have such a choice.
  Selection in the Labour party is very democratic. I was on a short list of six candidates, several of whom are now also Members of Parliament. However democratic that process, electors may nevertheless vote for only one party, so it is ridiculous for Conservative Members to make a fuss about the European elections when they have lived with the system for Westminster elections for so many decades.
  Conservative Members seem to be arguing that, because we are not doing enough about the hereditary principle, we should do nothing at all about it. I want to know what has happened to democracy and its principles. Why has the word "democracy" not been used more often in this debate? Perhaps Conservatives are uncomfortable with democratic means of getting their way in Parliament. Dubious means have been used in the other place to frustrate legislation. Indeed, I am sure that dubious means would have been used to frustrate legislation on the abolition of hunting, for example—the other place would have come to a different conclusion from that of the House of Commons. Moreover, as other hon. Members have asked, to what extent do those with hereditary peerages represent women and the ethnic minorities?
  Conservative Members have spoken about tradition. I expect that similar arguments were used to justify slavery or other practices that were once seen as traditional but have since been recognised as inappropriate in a more modern society. How can we justify a second chamber in which a large number of the people making

  617
  decisions are there by virtue of their birth, in which women are under-represented and in which ethnic minorities are hardly present? As an argument, tradition cannot have any weight.
  Mr. Lansley: I recall that the Earl of Shaftesbury was a Conservative, so I do not think that the hon. Lady can arrogate to the Labour party the responsibility for abolishing slavery. Will she deal with the real argument about the House of Lords? The Labour manifesto said that abolition of the voting rights of hereditary peers would be a self-contained step. Conservatives believe that the step should not be self-contained; before it is taken, a clear decision must be made on what should come next.
  Miss Johnson: I will be delighted to move on to that point in a moment. First, it was explicit in the Labour manifesto that this would be a two-stage process. In voting for a Labour Government—as people did with a massive majority—it was clear that people would be voting for a two-stage process, of which only one stage would be completed during this Parliament.
  As has been said, we cannot reject hereditary Members. We are stuck with them by right of their ancestry—regardless of whether they are useful, appropriate, mad or sane. Some peers may fit into any one of those categories.
  The two-stage process has been raised, and it is an interesting point. The Home Secretary made a powerful point about what you would do if you found that your dentist—or the pilot flying your plane—was in that position of responsibility as a result of a purely hereditary principle and had no relevant skills.
  Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Johnson: I am answering the point made by your hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). If a dentist or surgeon worked on a hereditary basis, Opposition Members would not say, "Let us wait and see how it turns out before we decide whether that person should go on doing the job." That is the point that you are putting.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I am not putting any points. Would the hon. Lady try to use the correct parliamentary language?
  Miss Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will endeavour to do so.
  If we do not have the two stages, we will not move forward on the hereditary principle; instead, we will maintain something that we feel is dangerous, inappropriate and out of place. The Opposition argue that we should move forward in one fell swoop and not in two stages—a proposal for which we have electoral support. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—who is not in his place at the moment—likened a royal commission to a broody hen sitting on china eggs. My grandparents had hens, and that was quite an effective manner of getting them to lay eggs. I would not want to indulge in my hon. Friend's pessimism on a royal commission.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) talked about moving in one fell swoop and about having an exact plan. That is the perfect ploy for
  618
  delay, which must be the reason the Opposition proposed it. They know perfectly well that if this process has to be carried out in one fell swoop, it is highly unlikely to take place. They are keen to see a second chamber without any legitimacy, and one in which the hereditary principle is still very much alive and well. That would be ideal for the Opposition.
  One could say that the House of Lords was built by the Tories, for the Tories, to keep the Tories in power. It is not an independent second chamber. We have heard evidence today of how it has been biased against Labour Governments. The built-in majority results in limited changes when the Tories are in power, but massive opposition when the Conservatives have been removed by the people from Government and do not have their previous legitimacy in this Chamber.
  We can see why the Tories want to maintain the present position; their opposition is self-interested. This is about the class war, it is about the Conservatives making sure that they have a mechanism to try to defeat the will of the people of this country and about the rights of the House of Commons to have its say as the democratically elected Chamber.
  Like many others, I am happy to see a second chamber—our proposals are not about removing the second Chamber altogether. However, we can make this first step in a good way to show that we are modern and looking to the future and that we do not want to support a principle that has no validity in a democratic system. We can move towards getting rid of hereditary peers and towards a discussion, through a royal commission, of how we make an effective second chamber that we all need in order to be an effective House of Commons.
  8.25 pm
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: I found some of the parts of the speech by the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson) rather obscure, but one of her points went to the heart of our discussion. She said that the purpose of the constitution was to deliver what people wanted. From that, I inferred that she wished to see the constitution altered, so that she—and, by implication, her party—could deliver the policies that they thought were correct. I have to say that that is never how I have viewed the purpose of a constitution.
  Miss Melanie Johnson: That is not what I meant in the slightest. I meant that the constitution needs to relate to the things that mean something to people in their ordinary lives—education and health, for example. The policies do not matter particularly, but the constitution must be capable of delivering the things that the electorate as a whole want.
  Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to hear that from the hon. Lady, but she still misses a central point. One of the values of a constitution is to provide a framework within which decisions are taken which command as much approval within the community as possible, so that those decisions which are often inimical to certain groups within the community nevertheless command respect and are accepted. That applies as much to decisions taken by Conservative Governments as to those taken by Labour Governments.

  619
  That is why I believe so strongly in a constitutional monarchy, which I believe provides the framework within which people can relate and have a common focus of loyalty, which is so important where there are other areas in which we may have disagreements.
  It is with that in mind that I approach the whole question of constitutional reform. In the past year, I have spent many hours in this House debating the Scotland Act—I think we clocked up 190 hours. We have debated also the Human Rights Act—which, unlike some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, although they had good reasons, I supported and broadly approved of—the Government of Wales Act and a number of other constitutional measures.
  It is perfectly proper for the House to consider constitutional reform, but we would do well to have in mind when we do so the purpose of what we are doing and what we are trying to achieve. In that context, there was a great deal of open scrutiny of the Human Rights Act. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Dewar) for the dialogue and debate which undoubtedly improved the Scotland Act. In contrast, the Government of Wales Act was one of the worst-drafted pieces of legislation I have ever seen, and its hallmark was precisely the reluctance of the Government's ministerial team to engage in any debate on it.
  We are now facing a new raft of legislation. The question of the reform of the House of Lords will clearly attract a lot of emotion; we have heard quite a bit in this debate. I start from the premise that we need a second chamber—that seems to command a considerable measure of agreement in this House—that a revising chamber is important and that a chamber which can keep the lower House, the House of Commons, in check and make it think again, even if it will not ultimately stop legislation, is also important.
  Unlike some Labour Members, I do not believe that unbridled democracy, which, of course, neither the United Kingdom nor any other country has, is an unbridled good. Ultimately, there must be checks and balances in any working constitution. Interestingly, it was from the Labour Benches that we heard that point, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) for pointing out that the powers of the Commons to obstruct—not prevent—legislation, and to make the Government think again have been consistently eroded over the past 30 years. The result is bad legislation, which, ironically, places a greater burden on the upper House. It must do our job for us, and that creates more frequent confrontation than should be necessary.
  The upper House is undoubtedly an eccentric institution. It has one great merit—historical continuity. However, I accept that that could be preserved even within the reforms that the Government have suggested. At the same time, the great virtue of the other place is undoubtedly its independence. That independence arises not only from the eccentric fact that it contains people who have not been placed there, who depend on no one and who are selected from a substantial and random pool, but because its members bring to bear a range of independent ideas, backgrounds, professions and jobs. The diversity is considerable. One need only consider the
  620
  contributions made by several hereditary peers to note that they often turn out to be of considerable value. We ought to pause and think about that before we embark on any programme of reform.
  We should also consider independence of party. Party allegiance will count for something, but the peers are not ultimately dependent on party. The hereditary peerage is beholden to no one. We should take that into account in considering how, if we are to get rid of the hereditary element, we can improve on it.
  Let me offer briefly two possibilities. First, if we are to have an elected second chamber, which has much to commend it, the powers of the second chamber will be circumscribed in relation to the powers of the first. The likelihood is that the second chamber will therefore attract politicians for whom, I hesitate to say, it will not be the first choice of where to go. Far from the elected element representing diversity, we may end up with an elected element composed of placemen who want to go there because it is rather a soft touch. It may well attract those who fail to get into this House. Some creative thinking is required on that point if we are to embark on reform towards an elected second chamber.
  If we are to stick with an appointed second chamber, we shall face considerable problems. It is no good the Prime Minister promising that some nebulous commission will make the appointments. We need to get down to the nitty gritty of what will happen in practice if we are to understand how appointments will take place in a way that will enable independence of thought to flourish. If we do not, we shall end up with a chamber of placemen. That is undesirable, but surmountable. Surely we must debate that issue.
  I freely acknowledged during our debates on the Scotland Act 1998 that I had learnt a lot from the process of debating. However, we seem to have reached the stage at which debates on Bills involve a statement from the Government Front Bench, endorsed by clone-like comments from the Back Benches and ritually opposed from the Conservative side before they go through. It is no wonder that Bills return with hundreds of amendments from the upper House when it has considered the detail. We must consider how we can improve legislation, rather than simply ritualistically deciding that one part of the upper House offends some susceptibilities and should be got rid of. In fact, if our correspondence bundles reflect the position, the vast majority of the electorate find the House of Lords a wholly innocuous institution that generates many benefits.
  Shona McIsaac: The hon. Gentleman mentioned his postbag. I have had a number of letters about the upper House and fox hunting. People who wanted hunting abolished believed that the Tory hereditary peers in the House of Lords would thwart any legislation. People in the country certainly understand that point.
  Mr. Grieve: The Bill in question never went to the upper House, having failed to get through the House of Commons in the time allotted to it. Even if the upper House had rejected a Bill, there is no doubt that, if it had been re-presented, it would have got through. The checks and balances should not disappear. I fail to follow the rationale of the hon. Lady's argument.
  I would be perfectly well prepared to engage in vigorous and interesting debate on how to create a reformed second chamber, but I will be blowed—and my

  621
  constituents will be blowed, too, if I read their letters and the opinion polls correctly—if I am to sign away an element of the upper House's independence that has made some interesting and amusing contributions, and some of great benefit to our national life, when no one on the Government Benches is prepared to suggest how the replacement will improve on the current position.
  Far from encouraging us to engage in debate, and to look at the big picture, the Government are asking us again and again to consider narrower and narrower issues. When the public—and, sometimes, even hon. Members on the Government Back Benches—point out that the Government are going off the rails, as with the closed list for proportional representation for next year's European elections, they are ridden over roughshod. We are told that it is all the fault of the upper House, but it is, in fact, clearly articulating the disquiet that the electorate are registering.
  I hope, for the sake of my country, that the Government will go down as a successful reforming Government. They have come in with a lot of ideas, but after 18 months, evidence has emerged with startling and hideous clarity that they are blinkered against any reasonable debate. Above all, they are blinkered by their own spin doctors against articulating their fears or the drawbacks that they see in their own policies. There are one or two notable exceptions to that, which is why I singled out a few Ministers earlier.
  The Government's proposals are dreadful. They fail to address the big picture, if I may use the Prime Minister's phrase. Until they do so, the Opposition are entitled to oppose them. I am sorry to say all this to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), for whom I have a great deal of respect. I wish that one or two other Ministers were present. When Governments embark on policies that I believe to be highly objectionable, it is my duty to oppose them. The Government will, at the end of the day, have the majority to carry their proposals, but the development of the debate is extremely valuable.
  Historically, those who have believed that they could ride roughshod over others to achieve their aims have tended to come a cropper. I am mindful of the comment made to King Henry V when he thought that he was on his way to conquer France. The Duke of Burgundy said that the King had all he required to achieve that, but that he would, by the time he achieved it, be heartily tired. Unless the Government think again, I intend to ensure that that is exactly how they feel.
  8.39 pm
  Maria Eagle: I want to concentrate on the reference in the Opposition amendment to reform of the House of Lords, although the other two issues raised in the amendment are equally important. I have been struck during this debate and previous debates by one word that we hear time and again from Conservative Members. It was used by the Leader of the Opposition when he opened the debate on the Gracious Speech last Tuesday. It has been used constantly today, not least by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd). The word in question is "independence".
  I wish to explore what is meant by that. I have made several interventions to try to tease out what the Opposition mean when they use that word because it can
  622
  have several meanings. What is it that is independent about the current upper Chamber? How representative is it? What is its composition? What does its voting record over the past few decades show?
  I ask the House's forgiveness in advance for giving percentage figures that are inherently boring, but I hope that hon. Members will bear with me because they have an impact on one's view of the upper Chamber's independence. How representative are the current members of the upper Chamber? More than half of them are hereditary peers—626 out of 1,166. Of those, 299, or 47.7 per cent., take the Tory Whip. Some 17, or 2.7 per cent., take the Labour Whip, and 24, or 3.8 per cent., are Liberal Democrats, Another 198 are Cross Benchers, who swing all ways in casting their vote and are not reliable in a party sense, and they form 31.6 per cent. Some 88—or 14.5 per cent.—have no affiliation, not even to the Cross Benches.
  My hon. Friends have already pointed out that less than a third of 1 per cent. are from the ethnic minorities and, of the hereditary peers, only 2.5 per cent are women. For the benefit of Conservative Members, I should point out that the two latter facts narrow the range of experiences on the basis of which those who sit in the upper Chamber can speak and vote. The value of having a diverse range of people in any legislature, including this House, is that they bring wider experiences of life to the consideration of legislation. That is an important point that is not often made.
  At the general election, the Labour party experienced one of the three biggest landslides this century. It was the best result the party had ever had. The Conservatives will not wish to be reminded, but they had their worst result since 1832. What impact has that massive change in political views had on the independence of the House of Lords? Well, 47.7 per cent. of the hereditary peers still take the Tory Whip. In other words, the landslide had no impact whatever on the composition of the upper House.
  Some Conservative Members have defended the hereditary principle, but others seemed somewhat embarrassed and said that they would vote to get rid of it, given the opportunity, in favour of a senate or something. It is a democratic outrage that an election can demonstrate such a change in political opinion but that the impact on the other place is zero. The hereditary peers are representative only of an old aristocratic section of society. I do not wish to sound prejudiced, but they overwhelmingly represent one social stratum and one type of life and experience. That does not fit my definition of independent. Most of them are conservative, if not in party affiliation, in experience, background and life style.
  What of the life peers? I have heard it said that the life peers restore the balance and make the hereditary aspect acceptable. The current Chamber contains 531 life peers. The Tories have 173, or 32.5 per cent.; Labour has 158, or 29.7 per cent.; the Liberal Democrats have 45, or 8.4 per cent.; there are 120 Cross Benchers, or 22.5 per cent.; there are nine Law Lords, or 1.6 per cent.; and the bishops make up 4.8 per cent. Even among the life peers, the Tories still have the biggest group. Labour has fewer life peers, but the number is closer to equality with the Conservatives. Cross Benchers form the next biggest group, and the others make up the numbers.
  The Tories still have the most peers, whether life or hereditary, despite the fact that they went down to their worst defeat since 1832. While the hereditary peers still

  623
  exist, the Tories can call on them whenever they want to ensure victory in the upper Chamber.
  That is not what I call independence of either representation or composition, although the Conservative party has a tendency to use the word "independent" interchangeably with the word "Conservative". We have all come across that on local councils, where they also used to use the word "ratepayer" to mean Conservative.
  What have the peers done over the years in their voting record to indicate the independence that the Conservatives seem to value as their most important contribution? I have a list of important defeats inflicted on Governments by the House of Lords since the Liberal Government of 1909, and it makes illuminating reading. My conclusion, from reading the list, is that the upper Chamber has defeated Labour Governments much more often than it has defeated Conservative Governments and, when we used to have Liberal Governments—a long time ago now—the Lords defeated them much more often than they defeated Tory Governments.
  The defeats that the upper Chamber has inflicted on Labour and Liberal Governments in the past have also been more extensive and on much more important pieces of legislation. The upper Chamber has also tended not to press Conservative Governments so far, so defeats are inflicted but entire Bills are not lost. A further important aspect is that defeats inflicted on Labour and Liberal Governments chimed in with the Conservative Opposition of the day.
  Mr. Grieve: The hon. Lady is making a fascinating and thoughtful speech. However, she is surely not suggesting that the upper Chamber, whether elected, appointed or hereditary, should operate by trying to achieve equality in the number of times that it rejects the legislation introduced by different Governments.
  Maria Eagle: Of course I am not suggesting that—it would be nonsensical. I am trying to illustrate that the composition of the upper Chamber becomes important when we examine how it exercises its powers. I shall give some examples.
  We have all read in history books about the crisis that brought about the first of the Parliament Acts, when the upper Chamber decided to defeat the Liberal Government's Finance Bill. The first Labour Government were defeated on proposals to nationalise the mines, and those defeats benefited the private mine owners, those landed and propertied interests that the upper Chamber tends to represent and protect.
  At the time of the vast programmes of nationalisation on which the post-war Labour Government embarked, the Lords tended to defeat the Government in order to prevent the vesting days of nationalised industries. That was still occurring under the Wilson Governments, when the Lords inflicted defeats on legislation that nationalised assets. Those were clearly Government policies that had been included in the party's manifesto.
  The upper Chamber has not only inflicted far fewer defeats on Conservative than on Labour Governments: it tends to concentrate its defeats of Labour Governments on important legislation and is not concerned that the policies were in the party's manifesto.
  624
  Reference has already been made to the manifesto commitment to reform the upper Chamber, which is specific. It says:
  "The House of Lords must be reformed. 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 to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative. The legislative powers of the House of Lords will remain unaltered."
  That is why I take exception to the implication in the amendment before us today that we should propose stage two of the reform before abolishing the rights of the hereditary peerage to sit and vote. It is clear from the manifesto that that is not envisaged as stage 1 of the reform.
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: I have been listening to the hon. Lady's speech with great interest. Does she accept that Conservative Members would have vastly more faith in that second step if the royal commission had been set up on the day the Government came to power, so that there was a chance of putting serious reform before the House now?
  Maria Eagle: I am happy to give my view on that. Of course, I am not a member of the Government but a Back-Bench supporter. There is no reason why the royal commission cannot report quickly, and I would support that. The view that the royal commission means that reform will disappear into the dim and distant future is not necessarily correct. Although I can understand the hon. Gentleman's view, which is based on the role of royal commissions in the past, this commission will not necessarily be the same.
  It is important to see off, at long last, the hereditary peerage in the short Bill that will come before the House. That will not impede the upper Chamber's ability to conduct its affairs, or prevent it from doing its job within our constitution. There is no reason why the royal commission cannot report quickly and why stage two of the reform cannot be achieved more speedily than some Conservative Members fear it will be.
  Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Maria Eagle: No, I am short of time.
  We are witnessing a re-establishment of the pattern of the upper Chamber's behaviour towards a Labour Government. It has started to defeat the Government on major legislation to fulfil pledges and manifesto commitments. That is why the reform of the upper Chamber must proceed as quickly as possible, whether or not stage two has been worked out.
  8.54 pm
  Mr. Richard Allan: The House should be grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) for introducing to the debate important and interesting facts about the many facets of independence, which the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) greatly exaggerated. I had visions of Conservative hereditary peers independently getting into their cars and into their planes in Tasmania to come here for the debate on European elections, when we know that

  625
  their independence took the form of responding to a telephone call from the Conservative Whips in the other place, who whip peers every time they need them to vote.
  The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) made a frank admission about the role of personal votes. During the general election, my father went around saying, "Vote for my son. He needs a job." I suggested to him that that was not the ideal campaign slogan, but I know that I got a personal vote.
  I agreed with the spirit of what the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) was saying. On election turnout, my experience in Sheffield is that when political parties are fighting a close battle they do bother to make themselves relevant to the electorate. That is not the effect of the electoral system on its own—the fact that there is a contest is important. Sadly, under the current system, in many areas there is no real contest, so politicians do not bother to make themselves relevant. The hon. Lady's experience may differ, of course.
  Two key issues were raised about the European elections. We are all grateful to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) for another chance to debate that important issue and the reform of the House of Lords. A common thread runs through those arguments: can the Government exercise their will and make their own mistakes, or should we have a new doctrine that the other place exists to save the Government from themselves?
  If Conservative Members believe that the Government's proposals are wrong, they should stand in the next election on a platform of returning to first past the post for European elections and to the existence of hereditary peers. If they had any confidence in themselves, they would believe that they could win an election in 2001 on that platform. The European Parliamentary Elections Bill has undergone a revising process, and the Conservatives should not block the legislation altogether because that is outside the domain of proper scrutiny.
  Dr. Fox: There is a mechanism by which the Government and this House ultimately get their way—the Parliament Acts. That is the proper constitutional procedure to use.
  Mr. Allan: We are all aware that the Parliament Acts are being invoked for the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, but the Conservatives gain no credit by delaying the legislation for so long and causing disruption.
  The other common thread that runs through the two issues is that they both involve members of the Conservative establishment trying to protect themselves against what they see as threats in the form of fair voting systems and the end of their in-built majority in the House of Lords.
  Liberal Democrat Members are prepared to associate ourselves with those important reforms. We agree that they are not perfect in every respect, and we have voiced criticisms on many occasions and will continue to do so. However, on balance the reforms are worth while.
  On the European elections, most of the problems that have been revealed in our debates have related to internal Labour party selection processes rather than the voting system itself. We are interested to note that Conservative Members have linked that to the Neill committee
  626
  recommendations, and I hope that they will be playing an active part in reforming party funding, as we certainly will be. The Home Secretary has already brought in the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998. We are now moving into a constitutional phase in which legislation deals with the internal affairs of political parties. That is necessary as we end the fiction of parties being secondary to individuals.
  We are no longer in a world in which the country squire is elected and casually joins the Whig or Tory factions, and in which the party is secondary to the main interest of politics. In my experience, the party is one of people's principal concerns and is certainly all-pervasive in the House and another place, to a greater degree than has been admitted in the debate.
  Conservative Members have no credibility on the issue of European elections. They allowed the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill to be passed with closed-list systems. In Committee, they did not support a Liberal Democrat amendment, on the Belgian open-list system, to the European Parliamentary Elections Bill. The Conservative spokesman, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, said that he accepted that the Bill was likely to be passed and that the most important point was to have a review afterwards. The Conservatives were offered precisely that in this House and, at that very late stage, seemed to turned down the amendment for which they had argued in Committee. Our only conclusion is that their real motive was to see the Bill fall, as indeed it did in the previous Session. Their real motive is to block a system in which all votes in June will count under a fair electoral system.
  I was interested to note that young peers were called in evidence by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth). The other day, I told a young peer, my noble Friend Lord Addington, that on the day of the Queen's Speech, I felt that some hon. Members were keen to dive straight into the House of Lords and say, "Come on, outside now." Lord Addington discouraged me from doing so. He is as wide as the Mace and a very keen rugby player, which suggests that his promise that peers can defend themselves perfectly well is adequate to scare us off and will force us to reform the House of Lords by constitutional means.
  I certainly worry about the prevalence of gun cases in some of the Range Rovers in which peers travel up to London. That, too, suggests that the Government's constitutional method is the one to take us forward—even though I recognise that the atmosphere in this House is sometimes a little more heated.
  Tory arguments on the issue of the House of Lords have become very confused. They appointed life peers while in government and did not criticise their role, yet now trot out the argument that such peers are no more than automata who have no independence and are not able to make any decision. We heard again about Tony's cronies. Although we are still appointing Paddy's cronies and Willie's cronies, there are still far more of Maggie's and John's cronies than anyone else's. Indeed, a few of Lloyd George's cronies are probably still lurking in the corner.
  The fact that such peers are life peers does not devalue them completely. The fact that the Government are appointing them to redress the balance causes some concern, however, and we would certainly favour an independent commission creating a balance of peers

  627
  according to the split of votes at the election. We believe that is the fairest way forward in the interim. To simply say that all life peers have a problem and all hereditary peers are great, which certainly seems to be the tone of Conservative arguments, devalues the debate.
  We would like the second stage of reform to begin as quickly as possible. Conservative Members who have spoken in favour of some reform seem to be latching on to the single Conservative policy of wait and see. Famously, the Conservatives have a wait-and-see policy on other issues, too. They think that, until they have seen the total shape of reform, they should not make a decision or take any steps forward.
  The role of the House of Lords is crucial. The Conservatives seem confused on that, too. On the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, they have argued all arguments, from the House of Lords being a revising Chamber to the matter being one of fundamental principle. The hon. Member for Garston has done us a great service in pointing out the way in which Conservative peers have defeated non-Conservative Governments, which suggests that the revision varies very much according to the political predilections of the Government of the day. Revision can mean many things according to who is in government. What seems clear is that revision takes the form of blocking far more frequently when centre and left parties are in government.
  We believe that all this points to the need for a written constitution. We need clearer authority than any single Government or Parliament eventually to resolve such issues of major change. Parliament needs to cede some of its authority to an independent authority. We welcome the Human Rights Act 1998 as a key stage in that process. The lack of clarity in our constitution causes the fear on which the Conservatives are so keen to play. The fact that nothing is written down and that there is no other limiting factor creates a climate of fear, which the Conservatives are using to try to hold us back.
  As an example of the assistance of the written constitution, I would cite the Republic of Ireland, where the Government have had to use explicit referendums to decide every cession of power to the European Union. The ability under a written constitution to decide what goes before and outwith Parliament and what needs to go to the people would be very helpful—not least to the Conservatives in clarifying and achieving some of the objectives that they state that they want to limit an Executive's powers.
  It is time to be bold on this issue and to move on the agenda. We are prepared to associate ourselves with the agenda of electoral reform for Europe and reform of the House of Lords. We are prepared to let the electorate decide on whether that agenda has been successful. We do not want to leave that decision to hereditary peers, who were elected by no one.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Nigel Beard: This debate has left me with the definite impression that many Conservative Members have been asleep for the past 40 years—some for even longer. For 40 years, the House of Lords has been a mixture of hereditary and life peers. I do not recall the Conservatives making any substantial
  628
  criticism of that arrangement until now, when it is proposed that it should change. Indeed, the Conservative party fought the general election on the basis that our constitution had reached such perfection that any one change would be for the worse. There was no question then of the House of Lords being in any way affected. Now that it is proposed to remove hereditary peers, we are told that we would be removing the respectable part of the House of Lords and that what is left—life peers—is no longer respectable and, indeed, quite intolerable. That reflects a state of mind, but I am not sure whether my mind can cope with it.
  Conservative Members have also totally ignored the point that has been made in response to the broad slurs of "Tony's cronies" and placepersons. The Government have already said that a commission will be set up to appoint life peers to the House of Lords in the interim before a royal commission has considered the matter and defined a longer-term solution. Those aspects were not mentioned of course; they were inconvenient to the Conservatives' argument.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was like a breath of fresh air. His contribution was elevated more by the flatness of the surrounding countryside, but at least he appears to be a paid-up member of the 20th century, unlike the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who seems barely to have entered the 17th century, given the views that he expressed about the hereditary principle.
  However, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe did not tell us why—if he abhors the hereditary peerage as much as he said—the hereditary peerage should have any say on the House that follows it. Why should it be there to define its successor, and why should that privilege linger for generations to come, in the form of the House of Lords that it has defined?
  Conservative Members have made much of their argument that what is really at issue is the need to abolish the hereditary peerage at the same time as deciding what will follow it. That is sophistry, because Conservative Members know that, if so complex a measure were introduced, it would be balked at every turn in the House of Lords. There would be an exact repeat of what happened when Harold Wilson introduced a similar Bill. Why should the hereditary peerage be in a position to balk a Government's business? And not only this issue would be balked. There would be a road block of all the Government's measures for the next 12 months at least. For 12 months, there would be frustration of a Government who received an immense endorsement from the people only 18 months ago.
  The truth underlying the Conservatives' feigned Olympian detachment is revealed as they seek to define a proper and appropriate process. Their stance hides the crude politics of the Conservative party maintaining its dominance—maintaining its say through the future House of Lords. The party has done it before; for a large part of the 20th century, it has maintained power under the table, through privilege. However, one of the main messages of 1 May 1997 was that the British people would not put up with that any longer. If Conservative Members realised that, they might halt their party's decline.
  9.8 pm
  Mrs. Eleanor Laing: The issues that we are discussing tonight are fundamental, because they concern the working of our democracy. I shall keep my

  629
  remarks short, owing to a lack of time, but there is so much that could be said on these matters, and much of it has been said tonight.
  The reason I am so concerned about these aspects of our democratic system is that, when one looks at the whole picture, it becomes clear that the Government are undermining the balance of our parliamentary democracy. Their plans for dealing with the issue of the second Chamber—how it should be constituted and who should sit in it—are part of that undermining process.
  We should have debate first, then action. It is illogical and dishonest to do things the other way round, as the Government are intent on doing. We should debate first what the second Chamber is about and what it is to do. We should then debate how it should be constituted.
  Personally, I do not defend the hereditary principle. Had there been anything to inherit in my family, I would have been rather annoyed if my brother had inherited it all and I had been ignored. It is an academic matter as there was nothing to inherit. My brother and I are therefore good friends. I would have been angry had it not been so.
  I have been amused to hear the arguments of Labour Members about the so-called Conservative majority among hereditary peers. I fully appreciate the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), whose logic I usually admire—although I might not always agree with her. However, that is not my position this evening. The hon. Lady and her hon. Friends have overlooked an important point. They may challenge the legitimacy of hereditary peers but they cannot challenge their independence. The fact is that one does not inherit political views. They are not in the blood. It just happens—
  Maria Eagle: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Laing: I shall give way in a moment.
  It just happens that many of those who sit through an hereditary right in another place are Conservatives. Surely Labour Members must appreciate that tomorrow's hereditary peers could become members of the Labour party. They could do so if they wanted to because they are independent.
  Maria Eagle: My points were made on the basis of figures that show how many of the hereditary peerage take the Conservative Whip. Of course that may change over generations.
  Mrs. Laing: I agree. The hon. Lady's facts and figures are indisputable. However, she cannot dispute that if 100 hereditary Members of another place decided tomorrow to join the Labour party, they could do so. They would be able to do that because they are independent. Therefore, to challenge the independence of hereditary peers is wrong. This point has been entirely overlooked through prejudice.
  Much of the debate has been about what people who sit in another place do in their leisure time. That is irrelevant. It does not matter whether someone goes hunting on a horse, plays badminton or whatever. That is irrelevant. What matters is what they do when they are in Parliament. I repeat that one does not inherit political
  630
  views. Such views come not through the blood but through decisions which independent people reach on their own, and in the 1990s we are all individuals.
  I am sure that my uncle, who was once chairman of the Labour party in Scotland, is most amused that I am sitting on the Conservative Benches.
  Dr. Fox: Upwardly mobile.
  Mrs. Laing: I wonder—we Conservative Members will be that when we are sitting again on the Government Benches.
  I shall turn briefly to my second point. Once again, the Home Secretary did not make clear this evening his attitude to the need to regulate the conduct of referendums. If referendums are to be part of our constitutional democracy, we must have regulations. If a referendum is not properly conducted, the result is undermined and the referendum has no legitimacy. I introduced a Bill a few weeks ago that would have had the effect of regulating referendums in accordance with the recommendations of the Neill committee. The Government did not oppose my Bill but neither have they supported it. We are asking only for a fair and level playing field.
  I ask Ministers to tell us what the Government are afraid of. What are they afraid of when they refuse to legislate on the conduct of referendums? Are they afraid that on the next referendum that is called on a major constitutional issue, as is likely within the next year or so, the Neill committee's recommendations will mean that the Government will not be able to use their machine and taxpayers' money to fight their side of the argument?
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: They are afraid of the people.
  Mrs. Laing: Indeed, they must be afraid of the people. If they are not afraid of the people, why are they afraid to consult the people under fair rules? Why are town council elections, parish council elections and even some student elections at universities better conducted than referendums on major constitutional issues? It is illogical and unfair; unless and until the Government agree to establish rules for the proper regulation of referendums, we shall continue to ask: of what are they afraid? If the Government want to conduct opinion polls, they can continue to do so; but if they want a referendum to be legitimate, it must be conducted under rules.
  The hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) said that the people who elected us to Parliament are not interested in constitutional matters. If people believe that the constitution is a dry and boring matter which is discussed only by lawyers, it is not surprising that they are not especially interested. However, when they begin to realise the Government's underlying agenda for change to our constitution—surreptitious, gradual and, I would argue, dishonest change, because the Government do not explain their overall strategy—the people become interested in the constitution. They will quickly come to resent what the Government are doing to undermine our parliamentary democracy.
  9.16 pm
  Dr. Liam Fox: This debate began in a most interesting fashion, with the Home Secretary detailing what he described as the Government's detailed and thorough constitutional changes. However, they must have been different constitutional changes from those that have been presented to the House, which could not have been described as either detailed or thorough. The parliamentary Session began with the Government's devolution proposals, which laid the ground for the further constitutional changes that have since been proposed. To understand exactly what stage we have reached in those constitutional changes, we need to examine the process, for it is instructive in showing how the Government have gone about those changes.
  First, let us look at what we were promised before we reached the devolution referendum, when we were still at the White Paper stage. We were promised that the proposals would preserve the Union and that they would bring an end to nationalism. The Secretary of State for Defence said that they would kill nationalism stone dead. Well, nationalism did not appear to be stone dead in north-east Scotland last Thursday, when the nationalists looked rather triumphant. That only goes to show that when we said that the proposals presented a tremendous danger to the Union, our warning was correct.
  During the passage of the Scotland Bill through the House, we were told that the Government would always look at devolution in the worst-case scenario; they would legislate just in case the consensus broke down. Despite the lovely winceyette, cuddly and all-inclusive, new-age politics that we were supposed to have in Scotland—which fell apart last Thursday—the Government would always look at the worst-case scenario, just in case. We said in return that we would be constructive in our approach to the Bill.
  Is that what we got? It is not. In the other place, we got 186 groups of amendments to the Government's flagship Bill: the Government had to amend a Bill on their main proposal for constitutional change that was desperately flawed, as we had warned—it was so flawed that a bus could be driven through the holes in it. The second Chamber here, which the Government say has no democratic legitimacy, had to deal with 186 groups of amendments to a Bill that sets up a unicameral body. That, in the Home Secretary's words, was detailed and thorough. The Bill was a dog's breakfast—it was even being amended at Third Reading, days before coming back to this House.
  We have already had several verdicts on devolution and I believe that we are to get another in the next couple of days. We never believe the leaks that we read in newspapers, but if the leaks in The Herald are to be believed, the verdict of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, which is dominated by Labour Members, will be damning indeed, saying that the Bill was poorly drafted and that Ministers did not understand their briefs. There are various criticisms of the process and of the fact that it will not fulfil the promises that the Government had outlined at first. Ministers had a unique combination of incompetence and naivety in their approach to the Bill, and—typically for the culture of the Government—Ministers of State get the blame, not Secretaries of State.
  There was a by-election last week and, in the collapse of the Labour party's vote, we saw that the public had also lost confidence in the ability of the Secretary of State
  632
  for Scotland to deal with the nationalists, although, as a by-product, I noticed that the Liberal Democrats were today cosying up to the Scottish nationalists, just in case they might be the winners in future elections. The Liberal Democrats take the term "lowest common denominator" to new levels.
  On Wales, which is the other part of the flagship, we heard interesting noises from the Home Secretary—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the terms of the motion are quite carefully defined, and he should refer to it.
  Dr. Fox: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am simply pointing out, as your fellow Deputy Speaker pointed out earlier, that background issues lay behind the Government's broader constitutional programme.
  The Home Secretary said in his opening speech that he believes in equal funding in respect of referendums. I presume, therefore, that he agrees with the Neill committee, which had grave reservations about the referendum in Wales—had the Government not spent money on one side, there might have been a different result. That has enormous constitutional implications for us, and is something that we should consider.
  As several speakers—most notably, my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd)—have said, the most important section of this part of the agenda is the fact that the West Lothian question remains unanswered: 20 years after that question was first asked by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), we still have no answer to an important constitutional conundrum.
  How can it be that the West Lothian question was regarded as so unimportant that it was not addressed in the Government's well-thought-out, detailed and thorough constitutional programme? The reason is that it cannot be answered within the Government' s devolution plans, because devolution cannot answer the West Lothian question. The West Lothian question defies the logic of devolution, which says that the constitutional arrangements in one part of the kingdom can be changed without changing them in the rest.
  One of the issues that has come forward clearly today is the conduct of referendums. I thank those who have worked with us on that in recent times—Charter 88, the constitutional unit, the Electoral Reform Society; those who responded to our reasoned plea—the Law Lords, the peers, members of all parties in this House and the bishops; and all those of all parties and none who responded to what we had asked.
  What we are interested in achieving in the conduct of referendums has to do with something that lies at the heart of the British people—a sense of fairness. I do not need to point out to the House that the groups with which we have worked are hardly the usual bedfellows for the Conservative party, but they all share a fear of the Government's approach to referendums.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) said so clearly—not only tonight, but on a previous occasion—if referendums are to be part of our constitutional architecture, and it seems that they shall be, we need better guidelines than we have at present. As she pointed out, we have adequate guidelines for the conduct of every other type of election in this country; why not for the conduct of referendums?

  633
  I was extremely interested in what the Home Secretary had to say, because—if I may use the term—his mood music was interesting and fair on this subject. As he will know, we have, with the co-operation of the groups that I have mentioned and a large input from Charter 88, developed a draft Bill which we believe could answer these points. I hope that he will enter into conversation with us, to discuss the content of the Bill and whether we could legislate in this Session in respect of this part of what the Neill committee has said. Any assurance that he could give the House—
  Mr. Straw indicated assent.
  Dr. Fox: The Home Secretary is nodding, and I am pleased to see that.
  What we propose is very simple. We believe that there is a need for minimum regulation to deal with finance and media access during a referendum campaign. There is nothing to prevent the Government from putting their case in any referendum to the people—that is right and proper. What is objectionable is the Government using taxpayers' money to support only one side—as happened in Wales—because taxpayers will inevitably support both sides.
  Having established minimum regulations on finance and media access to both sides of a referendum campaign, we should go further and examine what other regulations may be necessary. It would be sensible to consider who should set the question in the referendum, who should decide on the timing, what constitutes validity and what thresholds need to be set. Those questions should be of equal importance to both sides, as they deal not with specific issues, but with the mechanism by which a referendum would be valid in the eyes of the electorate. That is the most important aspect. Will those who lose in a referendum believe that it was fair and accept the result? The low turnout was one of the factors that undermined the referendum in Wales.
  We need look no further than the referendums that may come up in the near future. I have no idea whether the Liberal Democrats know when the referendum on proportional representation will take place—if they do, their information is probably not correct—but we know that it will happen at some point. There will also be a referendum on economic and monetary union. Without the referendum commission, the question would probably be, "I, the Prime Minister, the Almighty, being such a great guy, if, at some point in the future, I decide that it would be reasonably good for the United Kingdom to consider monetary union, do you think that I perhaps should be given the chance to take this country in at some point to be decided in the future?" That is the sort of crisp question that we are likely to get, and it is all the more reason to establish a mechanism to make the process more valid.
  What is the difference in validity between a pre-legislative and a post-legislative referendum? Our recent experience in Wales and Scotland strengthens the case for a post-legislative referendum. A Bill has been amended and changed until it is almost unrecognisable, yet in both its forms, it is supposed to be the same measure that the voters voted for, and that cannot be so.
  The case for a post-legislative referendum is also strengthened by the changes being made to the legislation for London, as my hon. Friend the Member for
  634
  Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) pointed out. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham referred to other cases in which people have voted for one thing and have got something quite different. It should be our practice to have post-legislative not pre-legislative referendums, if they are to have legitimacy.
  I do not intend to say much about the European Parliamentary Elections Bill. We have had a rota, and have taken turns to speak on that Bill, so there can hardly be a Member who has not spoken on it. The attitude of Labour and Liberal Democrat Members is instructive. There is a clear principle, which is choice for voters. Choice for voters is good, maximal choice is best, and some choice is better than none. However, the Government have adopted the reverse principle—not voter first, but party first.
  I was astonished to hear the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) say that the Salisbury convention had been badly shaken by the decision to reject the closed list. There is nothing in the Labour manifesto about closed lists. The Liberal Democrats did not say that they would change from open to closed lists when it suited them. This was a properly constituted matter: the House of Lords decided that the House of Commons should think again.
  The House of Commons can get its way through the Parliament Acts, and the Government have made it clear that they will do so. That is the correct process. For some reason, the idea has been put about that there has been undue process and an abuse of Parliament. This is how Parliament is supposed to work. We have a system of checks and balances to ensure that the House of Commons gets its way, but does not rush through legislation if the other Chamber believes that it should think again.
  I hear people say that this is the settled will of the House of Commons. It is the settled will of the House of Commons through the Whips—there is no doubt about that—but it is hardly the settled will of the House of Commons as conveyed by Labour Members in speeches here. Labour Members went out of their way to be absent: to be in their constituencies, having dinner, seeing their best friends or doing anything to avoid having to defend a position that they found very unpalatable.
  Most of today's debate has concerned reform of the Upper House. I feel that, generally speaking, the standard of debate on this issue should be raised from the caricature and tiresome class-war rhetoric that has featured too much today. I exempt the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), who made an informative and intelligent speech. I wish that more of her colleagues had done the same.
  The debate is not about the Government's right to have stage one without stage two, which is clearly in their manifesto; it is about whether the Government are wise, or correct, to have stage one without stage two. It is not about the Conservative party's blindly defending the rights of hereditary peers—although that is what the Labour party would love us to do, because it would make its job so much easier. It is very unlikely that, if we started with a blank piece of paper, we would end up with the constitutional position in which the United Kingdom currently finds itself.
  I do, however, defend the public service of men and women in the other place, over many years. That has been cheaply denigrated today by too many Labour Members,

  635
  many of whom have been in Parliament for only a short time. Above all, Conservative Members defend the right of the people to know how they are to be governed. In saying that they want stage one without stage two, the Government are, in effect, saying, "We are going to change the way in which you, the people of Britain, are to be governed through Parliament, but we are not going to tell you what that change is to be".
  We need, first, to determine whether there is a need for a second chamber. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) presented a passionate defence of our two-chamber system today. Next, we need to decide on the role and function of a second chamber: we must do that before we decide on its composition. To decide who is to sit in a chamber before deciding what it is to do is rather like setting up a factory, employing staff and then deciding what the factory will make. It would be ridiculous to put us in such a position.
  After that, we should decide on our criteria for the chamber. We have set out six criteria for any change to the upper House. It should hold the Government to account better than the present Chamber; it should have a substantial number of independent Members, free of any political party; the Prime Minister's power should not be increased; Members must be drawn from all parts of the United Kingdom; the impact of reform on both Houses should be considered; and the House of Commons must remain supreme. Those are clear criteria, set out by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
  Mr. Straw: Do those criteria include an end to the built-in 3:1 Tory majority in the other place?
  Dr. Fox: It is typical of the Home Secretary to ask such a question. We are talking about engaging openly in a process of reform, which, as the Home Secretary knows, we have offered to do on several occasions. We have wanted to take part in a full, one-stage, coherent process of reform. We are talking about the better governance of the United Kingdom—and what does the Home Secretary talk about? He talks about the Labour party's interests. The Labour party can see any part of constitutional change only in terms of what is in its interests. Only when we have decided what the role of the Chamber can be shall we be able to decide what its composition should be.
  We heard one or two extraordinarily interesting contributions. Perhaps the best was that of the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), who, in a "Beanoesque" speech, said, "No one voted for a candidate in the election. No one voted for me." The hon. Lady has not worked out that the whole point of an election is that the voters are supposed to have a choice. According to her, it is all about party. It takes one of the newest Members of Parliament to speak the truth, for that is indeed what it is all about for the Labour party: it is all about party.
  Last week, Lady Jay referred, in the other place, to Cross Benchers' being independent "in name only". That betrayed the fact that, under the current Administration, people are either with the Government or against them. It is not possible to be independent: you are either "them" or "us". As my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood pointed out, they do not understand the danger of patronage.
  636
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester said, unusually in this Government, the new life peers being created are predominantly Government peers—54 per cent. so far. It is clear that the Government intend to pack the upper House, to increase the Prime Minister' s power and to increase the Executive's power when we should be bringing it under check.
  What is the demand for the constitutional change that is being put forward? Are our voters stretching out in constituencies demanding constitutional change? Are lorry loads of petitions making their way into the House at this moment to be dumped on our desks? Do barges sail up the Thames, with the people of this country demanding that we have constitutional change? No, they do not. That is not what people are interested in, as many hon. Members have pointed out.
  The trouble is that the Government believe that history began on 1 May 1997. They have little respect for our traditions or our heritage. [Interruption.] Labour Members may well roar their approval because that is exactly the perspective. They see us not as a nation state, but as a conglomeration of regions, just as they see the electorate not as a whole, but as a coalition of minorities. As they say, they want us to be governed by modern European mechanisms of government, but we are not a modern European nation. [Laughter.] We are a strong, independent nation state that twice this century, because of the values that we have held, has been able to get Europe out of trouble of its own making. It is typical of how little feel the Labour party has for our country's traditions that it can mock them in such a way.
  I look forward to the Secretary of State for Wales answering the debate. He is in a particularly difficult position: either he wins his election and gets a job that he does not want, or he stays in extended exile. I enjoyed his shotgun wedding to the Welsh Labour party last week, with him being led down the aisle by the Prime Minister. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) could be the best man, but best man is not a term that counts in the Labour party; only Blair's man counts.
  We have in the Secretary of State someone who has come late to the constitutional debate, having not taken part in the devolution flagship debates, and he is left to clear up what is now a mess. The European Parliamentary Elections Bill tries to gag the voters and to boost the party bosses. The House of Lords reform is to bolster the Prime Minister, not to improve how we are governed. The nationalists are resurgent. The United Kingdom is in peril.
  There is more that unites us as a nation than divides us, but the Labour party refuses to see it. The Government's approach is piecemeal, vacuous and superficial. It is all about Labour. It may be good for Labour, but it is bad for the United Kingdom. It should be opposed. We will relish that opposition.
  9.38 pm
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): What a rant that was. I was looking forward to a wide-ranging debate reflecting the scope and breadth of the Government's constitutional reform programme. From devolution to the incorporation of human rights legislation into domestic law, to the reform of the other place, the Government are committed to overhauling and modernising our constitution. Instead of that sort of debate, we have had a narrow, petty amendment, reflected

  637
  in narrow, petty arguments from Opposition Members. What we have heard in the past few minutes was the worst and narrowest of the contributions.
  If anyone has come late to the constitutional debate, it is the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). I have been involved in that debate for more than 30 years. My commitment over the years is beyond doubt. After the contribution that he has just made, his commitment to anything is slightly doubtful.
  In the last Session, 10 constitutional measures were enacted, when constitutional experts said that two would be ambitious, yet it would have been 11 but for the refusal of the hereditary peers to accept the wishes of those who have been elected. There is more work to come in this Session, as well as a number of draft Bills—more than enough, I would have thought, to engage Conservative Members—yet instead there has been a series of stale and stereotyped attempts to defend the indefensible: the so-called right of an in-built Conservative majority to frustrate the policies of an elected majority in the House of Commons. That is what the debate has been about.
  The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) was right to criticise what he described as the "ritual opposition" of Conservative Members, who have debated nothing but one issue. They have offered no real debate on the European elections or on the Neill committee's report. They have shown no real engagement on the major constitutional issues raised by the 10 major constitutional measures that I mentioned. They have also not attempted to debate the measures that were introduced in the Gracious Speech.
  I tell the hon. Member for Woodspring that the Government's authority is based on our constitution, and on the confidence with which people voted for us and their desire for us to make this a modern, democratic Government. He has confessed that the previous Government did not leave us a modern and democratic House.
  The language used by Conservative Members in today's debate has been curious and loaded with prejudice. They accuse us of undertaking reform piecemeal. It is more appropriate to talk of incremental change. As we have an uncodified and unwritten constitution, we are bound to effect change in a case-by-case, incremental process. I thought that Conservative Members favoured such a process—of careful, incremental change, driven by a coherent philosophy. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary clearly said at the beginning of the debate, we certainly take such an approach.
  I agree with the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) on the Government's courage in proceeding with the modernisation agenda at every level of government.
  Mr. Lansley: I fear that, in his comments on the previous Session, the right hon. Gentleman may be failing to distinguish between activity and achievement. Nevertheless, on the coming Session, will he explain—if he has a coherent philosophy—what the Government propose as the democratic and modern alternatives to the current House of Lords and to current electoral systems?
  Mr. Michael: The alternatives are simply what we promised in our manifesto—to remove the entirely
  638
  undemocratic and unjustifiable votes of elected peers. We shall then move forward. Until we have taken the first action, we cannot get Conservative Members to engage in proper debate. They are stuck on defending the indefensible—an unelected majority in the other place. Once we have dealt with that, perhaps the Government will be able to have a coherent debate with Conservative Members and not only with the Liberal Democrats. Conservative Members have opted out of the debate.
  This Session will also bear witness to several of the previous Session's measures bearing fruit. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) mentioned that point. As a consequence of the Human Rights Act 1998, for example, the Bills that have been published already this Session have been accompanied by ministerial statements certifying their compliance with the provisions of the European convention on human rights. The constitutional reforms that the Government have undertaken are starting to have a direct beneficial effect on the lives of ordinary people. None the less, today's Conservative amendment is narrow, bitter and arid.
  Why did Conservative Members not want to talk about the new Northern Ireland Assembly, the government of London, or the sentence in the Address celebrating the fact that
  "people will be able to vote in elections to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly next year, and my Government will work to ensure that both are established successfully"?
  It was not until the hon. Member for Woodspring replied for the Opposition that a lame attempt was made to criticise the exciting progress being made by the Government. Perhaps Conservative Members are so quiet now because that legislation completed its passage, finishing the job, in the previous Session.
  The fact is that 1999 will be very much a year of destiny for Wales and Scotland and for all of the United Kingdom. I am very concerned that there are those in Westminster and in Whitehall who misunderstand the process of change that we are experiencing, just as they seemed to misunderstand the referendum process that we experienced. Conservative Members' mention of referendums and, in their amendment, of the Neill report was meant simply as a hook to be used in attacking the devolution process. Dare I say it that hon. Members and some people in Whitehall believe that, after 7 May, they will no longer have to consider or bother about Wales or Scotland?
  There are also those who pursue a nationalist agenda and talk as if, after devolution, a deep divide will develop between the English border and the Welsh border. There is neither a new Offa's dyke to be erected nor a new Welsh sea to come between us. The point of our constitutional change is for the people of Wales to elect representatives who are directly accountable for the decisions that are currently taken by the Welsh Office. It will be essential for the Assembly to engage with other Departments of state and be involved in legislation and administration that is done on an England and Wales basis or a United Kingdom basis.
  Reform of the House of Lords, reform of this House and systems of election are closely related and are about improving democracy in this country. They are not about undermining our democracy, as the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) suggested, any more than devolution is about separation. It does not mean cutting

  639
  the ties that bind us. Instead, it gives us the opportunity to create better government. My vision of devolution is not about the arid separatism that nationalism implies. It is dynamic devolution, in which accountability and democratic participation are brought to decision making for Wales and in which we develop new partnerships and new links between the different levels of government to create a dynamic economy and movement in social and economic development, enhance the opportunities available to every sector of the economy and society in Wales and move the whole United Kingdom forward.
  Dr. Fox: Will the great new democratic freedom in Wales and the lust for devolution be extended to the Labour party in the form of one member, one vote?
  Mr. Michael: Every member of the Labour party will have a vote in the selection of the leader of the Labour party in Wales.
  It is not surprising that the hon. Gentleman wants to move away from the argument about the effectiveness of our systems. If we are to be effective—if this House and the House of Lords are to be effective—it is important that decisions should be taken at the right level, that we should get the right results and that we should enhance quality of life for people in every part of this land. Conservative Members seem to have lost sight of the fact that that is what constitutional change is about. It is not about arid theory; it is about making life better for people.
  Mr. Derek Foster: My right hon. Friend is expounding the most exciting aspect of the devolution debate. For too long, this country has been over-centralised. Now, we have the opportunity to release the talent of the British people in all their countries and regions. That is the way to get this country moving again. I thank him for raising the subject.
  Mr. Michael: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend, as an English Member, understands the process of devolution and the fact that, for it to be effective, there needs to be a dynamic partnership between different levels of government. That is why I shall be putting my energy in the coming months into preparing the ground for that new relationship and dynamic devolution that I spoke about earlier.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I, a number of my hon. Friends and even the Home Secretary were brought to account by the Deputy Speaker when we ranged outside the narrow confines of the amendment. It appears that the Secretary of State for Wales is straying on territory—
  Madam Speaker: Order. I am perfectly capable of knowing what the Secretary of State is saying.
  Mr. Michael: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not here when the Opposition spokesman raised the same points of devolution to Wales to which I am alluding. I am referring briefly to those issues because they are vital. Until the winding-up speech, the Opposition chose to ignore them. I am also trying to bring home to the hon. Gentleman, if he would care to listen, the fact brought to
  640
  the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac)—that the views of ordinary people are important. Some 70 per cent. of her constituents wanted to scrap the voting rights of hereditary peers. That reflects the views of my constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson) asked us to reflect on what our constituents expect of us—an improvement in the quality of their lives. That is the basis on which we should judge constitutional change. Those who operate at the grass roots—businesses, trade unions, local authorities and voluntary organisations—need to be the partners of Parliament or an elected Assembly. The votes of hereditary peers have never helped us on such issues.
  Reference has been made to devolution, which as my predecessor—my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies)—said is not an event but a process. It is neither a single one-off election nor a point on a process from dependency to complete independence, but a process of engaging people as we seek to do in Wales and in every part of the United Kingdom.
  Defending the powers of hereditary peers seems a million miles away from the issues that affect our constituents. That is why I am delighted that the Gracious Speech this year underlines the importance of the events of devolution, including the election, in the next 12 months. It reminds us that those developments will enhance the unity of the United Kingdom, not undermine it. England and Wales will remain partners, bound together by our common legal and economic framework and the accidents of Welsh geography, but allowing us to express our distinctive identity through the Welsh Assembly, which will provide us with our own clear voice.
  Let us apply to the House of Lords and the arguments made by the Opposition the same test of success that I will apply to the Welsh Assembly. What does it do for our people in terms of a strong economy, jobs, better education, opportunities for all, a better health service and healthy, safe communities? The Assembly and the House will be judged by those criteria, which should also apply to the House of Lords. We should consider whether the retention of the rights of hereditary peers can do anything to help.
  Mr. Barry Jones: My right hon. Friend mentioned Offa's dyke. He will know that that great earthwork goes through my constituency, as does the earthwork of Watt. However, I am not concerned with Anglo-Saxon imperialists. How does my right hon. Friend envisage his plans helping the economy in my constituency? What will his proposals do for Alyn and Deeside?
  Mr. Michael: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He does not realise that, as a teenager, I became a world expert on Watt's dyke, but I shall speak to him about that some other time. Each of the 10 measures to which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred will improve the quality of life and its freedoms and the accountability and responsibilities of institutions to the British people. That is our agenda and that of my hon. Friend in his constituency and his work.
  Mr. Grieve: I know that time is short and that the Minister still has points to make. He was kind enough to

  641
  pick up my remark that we should get away from ritual. In the next few minutes, would he be willing to address some of the issues that were raised in the debate?
  Mr. Michael: Yes, but to do so I shall have to turn to my right hon. and hon. Friends and to the Liberal Democrats, as they were not addressed by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.
  The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) noted the ambitious nature of the Government's reform programme. I welcome the fact that he and his party are prepared to enter into debate about modernisation. We may not always agree—it would be nice if the Conservatives took that on board—but he was right to point out that the underlying casuistry of the self-seeking actions by the hereditary peers, who have undermined the conventions of our democratic traditions, has been defended outrageously by Conservative Members this evening.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Michael: I am coming to the speech by the right hon and learned Gentleman.
  In contrast, the Conservative speeches—the right hon. and learned Gentleman was the first who gave the slightest hint of engaging in debate on how to reform the House of Lords—
  Mr. Clarke rose—
  Mr. Michael: I should get my retaliation in before the right hon. and learned Gentleman replies. He was the first for some time to give the slightest hint of engaging in a debate on how to reform the House of Lords, but he retreated rapidly from any real engagement. We shall engage the Conservatives in a full debate only when the rights of hereditary peers have been removed. The Conservatives will not seek to restore such a barmy constitutional anachronism, so let us remove the appendix and get on with improving the health of the body politic.
  Mr. Clarke: I thank the Minister for giving way. He listened to some of the debate, in which I heard no Conservative Member defend our right to a permanent majority in the upper House. Will he address the question that the Bill would make the present Government the first for almost 200 years accountable to a second House entirely appointed by the Executive? Does he have a solitary argument in favour of that in terms of the accountability that he is now talking about?
  Mr. Michael: No. The composition of the House of Lords will be changed by the removal of the hereditary peers, so the form that it then takes will be a matter for constitutional debate and consultation.
  Sir Norman Fowler: Answer the question.
  Mr. Michael: I have answered the question; if Conservative Members listened to the question and the answer, they might learn something.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe made a quirky claim to be a close ally of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), which sounded like
  642
  another vicious personal attack. Other than that, his position was illogical and untenable. He argued that the outrage of the hereditary peers' genetic veto should continue while we build a consensus on how to construct a second chamber that retains and improves what is good about the House of Lords and removes what is bad. When we published our proposals in opposition, I found it extraordinary to behold the instant conversion of hereditary peers to the wholesale democratisation of the House of Lords provided that we waited until every detail had been worked out and agreed before we removed their votes.
  The right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) is usually a thoughtful man, but he made the ridiculous assertion that the hereditary peers are independent and not merely Conservative. Of course we need a balance in the constitution, as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe rightly said, but how will parliamentary democracy be reduced if we make the House of Lords more democratic? Reforming the House of Lords is like eating an elephant; it must be done a bite at a time. That suggestion seems to contain much wisdom.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) made a typically vigorous speech and said a great deal with which I agreed. I am glad that he was not intimidated by his confrontation with large, gun-toting, rugby-playing Liberal peers. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) was worried about the Government's response to the Neill report. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary dealt with those issues comprehensively and at length on 9 November.
  I remind Conservative Members that we made clear in the general election our intentions for the House of Lords. Our manifesto said:
  "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 to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative. The legislative powers of the House of Lords will remain unaltered."
  Our intentions were clear and we have pursued them in government.
  It is absolutely clear that no Government this century have undertaken such a radical and wide-ranging overhaul of our constitution. Far from wrecking the constitution, we have sought to amend it. The Liberal Democrats have been engaged in that process but there has been no Conservative engagement, to that party's eternal shame. Conservatives can claim no rights or authority as supporters of the constitution when their approach is entirely negative and destructive.
  During this Parliament, we will ensure that decisions are taken much closer to the people. We will improve local government and government at the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland level. We will ensure that people no longer have to go to Strasbourg to enforce their basic human rights. We will clean up politics by giving effect to the recommendations of the Neill committee. We will end the absurd anachronism by which people can serve in this legislature not by virtue of election or their own merits but by accident of birth. I am proud of what we have achieved and of what lies ahead.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 133, Noes 350.

  Division No. 1]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Amess, David

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Lansley, Andrew

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Leigh, Edward

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Baldry, Tony

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Bercow, John

  Lidington, David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Blunt, Crispin

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Boswell, Tim

  Loughton, Tim

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Brady, Graham

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Brazier, Julian

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Madel, Sir David

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Burns, Simon

  Maples, John

  Butterfill, John

  Mates, Michael

  Cash, William

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Chope, Christopher

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Clappison, James

  Moss, Malcolm

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Page, Richard

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Paice, James

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Paterson, Owen

  (Rushcliffe)

  Pickles, Eric

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Prior, David

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Cran, James

  Robathan, Andrew

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Day, Stephen

  Ruffley, David

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Duncan, Alan

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Shepherd, Richard

  Evans, Nigel

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Faber, David

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Fabricant, Michael

  Spring, Richard

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Steen, Anthony

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Streeter, Gary

  Fraser, Christopher

  Swayne, Desmond

  Gale, Roger

  Syms, Robert

  Garnier, Edward

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Gibb, Nick

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Tredinnick, David

  Gray, James

  Trend, Michael

  Green, Damian

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Greenway, John

  Viggers, Peter

  Grieve, Dominic

  Wardle, Charles

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Waterson, Nigel

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Wells, Bowen

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Whittingdale, John

  Hammond, Philip

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Heald, Oliver

  Wilkinson, John

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Willetts, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Horam, John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Woodward, Shaun

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Yeo, Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Jenkin, Bernard

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

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  644

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dafis, Cynog

  Ainger, Nick

  Dalyell, Tam

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Alexander, Douglas

  Darvill, Keith

  Allan, Richard

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Allen, Graham

  Davidson, Ian

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Dawson, Hilton

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Ashton, Joe

  Dismore, Andrew

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Dobbin, Jim

  Baker, Norman

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Ballard, Jackie

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Banks, Tony

  Doran, Frank

  Barnes, Harry

  Dowd, Jim

  Barron, Kevin

  Drew, David

  Battle, John

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Beard, Nigel

  Edwards, Huw

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Efford, Clive

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Ennis, Jeff

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Benton, Joe

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Fisher, Mark

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Flint, Caroline

  Brake, Tom

  Follett, Barbara

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Browne, Desmond

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Burden, Richard

  Foulkes, George

  Burgon, Colin

  Fyfe, Maria

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Galloway, George

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gapes, Mike

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Gerrard, Neil

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Cann, Jamie

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Caplin, Ivor

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Casale, Roger

  Godsiff, Roger

  Caton, Martin

  Goggins, Paul

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Chaytor, David

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Chidgey, David

  Gorrie, Donald

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Grogan, John

  Clelland, David

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Cohen, Harry

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Coleman, Iain

  Harvey, Nick

  Connarty, Michael

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Corbett, Robin

  Heppell, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hesford, Stephen

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Cotter, Brian

  Hill, Keith

  Cousins, Jim

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Cranston, Ross

  Hoey, Kate

  Crausby, David

  Home Robertson, John

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cunningham, Ms Roseanna

  Hope, Phil

  (Perth)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  645

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Michael, Alun

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Miller, Andrew

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hurst, Alan

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hutton, John

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Illsley, Eric

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Morley, Elliot

  Jamieson, David

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Mullin, Chris

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Norris, Dan

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Oaten, Mark

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Pearson, Ian

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Pendry, Tom

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Pike, Peter L

  Kemp, Fraser

  Plaskitt, James

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pond, Chris

  Kidney, David

  Pope, Greg

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Pound, Stephen

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Purchase, Ken

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Radice, Giles

  Laxton, Bob

  Rammell, Bill

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rapson, Syd

  Levitt, Tom

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Rendel, David

  Linton, Martin

  Robertson, Rt Hon George

  Livingstone, Ken

  (Hamilton S)

  Livsey, Richard

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Rooney, Terry

  Lock, David

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Love, Andrew

  Rowlands, Ted

  McAllion, John

  Ruane, Chris

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  McCabe, Steve

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Salter, Martin

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Sanders, Adrian

  McDonnell, John

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sawford, Phil

  McIsaac, Shona

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Sheerman, Barry

  McNulty, Tony

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  MacShane, Denis

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  McWalter, Tony

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McWilliam, John

  Singh, Marsha

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

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

  Martlew, Eric

  Snape, Peter

  Maxton, John

  Soley, Clive

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  646

  Spellar, John

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Tyler, Paul

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Wareing, Robert N

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Watts, David

  Stunell, Andrew

  Webb, Steve

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Welsh, Andrew

  Swinney, John

  White, Brian

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  (Dewsbury)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  (Swansea W)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Willis, Phil

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wills, Michael

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Winnick, David

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Woolas, Phil

  Timms, Stephen

  Worthington, Tony

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Todd, Mark

  Wyatt, Derek

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Touhig, Don

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Trickett, Jon

  Mr. David Hanson and Mr. Clive Betts.

  Truswell, Paul

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Debate adjourned. — [Mr. Pope.]
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Eric Pickles be discharged from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee and Mrs. Teresa Gorman be added to the Committee.— [Charlotte Atkins, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. David Atkinson be discharged from the Science and Technology Committee and Mr. Ian Taylor be added to the Committee.— [Charlotte Atkins, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  TREASURY COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Nick Gibb be discharged from the Treasury Committee and Mr. David Ruffley be added to the Committee.— [Charlotte Atkins, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
  Madam Speaker: When I responded to a point of order today from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), I was not aware that he was elected to this House 48 years ago today. I congratulate him. He and I have not always seen eye to eye, but it has been a privilege for me to serve in the House with him. I understand that his wife is not well, and I hope that he and his entire family flourish.

  Planning (East Hertfordshire)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Bowen Wells: This debate concerns the case of my constituent, Mr. S. Carslake, and his dispute with East Hertfordshire district council and the local government ombudsman over the way in which he has been treated in relation to developments affecting his home.
  The essence of the issue is how we ensure that justice is done, and seen to be done, for ordinary people whose property is affected by development that reduces its amenity and value. As we advocate the use of brown land and the redevelopment of our towns and villages instead of building in the green belt, that issue will become more and more important. The case of Mr. Carslake's property in Bishop's Stortford is a prime example of what should not happen. It has left Mr. Carslake—a decent, hard-working citizen of this country who has bought his own home—with a burning and justifiable sense of injustice and outrage.
  The case is as follows. It relates, first, to a number of failures in planning procedure and the lax enforcement of planning conditions involving new structures on three sides of Mr. Carslake's residence, the amenities of which have been substantially damaged. More importantly, it concerns the behaviour of several council officials, which has proved unacceptable by any reasonable standards. It is a complex and difficult case, and I have had to simplify it considerably to describe it in the time available and enable the Minister to give a proper reply.
  The new structures that are being built around Mr. Carslake's home include, first, an overbearing structure on one side which is built closer to his home than the planning approval allowed for and runs the full length of his small rear garden. Planning permission is flouted by the roof being higher in one part of the building, and the original planning permission was amended to extend the building by 9 ft without any reference to Mr. Carslake.
  Secondly, a huge house, which is 170 sq m larger than was advised to the planning committee, overlooks Mr. Carslake's entire rear garden. That problem is made worse by the raising of the land in the garden surrounding the house without planning permission. Planning permission for the house was accepted by the council as being damaging to Mr. Carslake. The council offered to recompense Mr. Carslake by building a wall that would cost at least £6,000, but has subsequently withdrawn the offer.
  On the third side of Mr. Carslake's small rear garden, there is a building converted from a banana packing station into four dwellings with eight windows overlooking his property. The planning permission said that those windows should be non-opening, but they can be and are opened. The council failed to enforce its own planning permission and the building is in any case higher than permitted.
  The second issue is the failure of the ombudsman to examine and report on the case in full once the council had admitted to maladministration on one, and only
  648
  one, aspect of the whole case. That is important not only because it shows up the limitation of the ombudsman and the need for reform of the system, but because, as I understand it, any compensation for Mr. Carslake will be restricted to damage that is caused to his property by the building of the first structure that I mentioned. There will be none for the over-large house for which the council initially offered compensation. If that is so, it will constitute a grave injustice to Mr. Carslake.
  Mr. Carslake has instanced to me and his councillors a series of misdemeanours by the council's officials, which I shall summarise. He has suffered long delays in replies to his letters—months not weeks. Some of his letters remain to be answered seven years after they were sent. In order to avoid answering letters, the council has said that it has lost some delivered to it—since when, of course, Mr. Carslake has always corresponded by recorded delivery.
  Information that he legitimately needed to know has been withheld from him by the holding of conversations in secret part II council meetings. He has been refused minutes from such meetings, even though, under the council's standing orders, it is obligatory that they should be made available to him. To this day, the council has yet to answer any objection that Mr. Carslake has lodged with it, especially with regard to the removal of a pear tree, which provided shelter for his home.
  In September 1992, the director of planning of East Hertfordshire district council submitted a report to the planning committee on the big house which, in a report issued nine months later, was generally agreed to be misleading. Compensation to a maximum of £6,000 to heighten a wall—which Mr. Carslake pointed out could not be done without making it unstable, therefore uninsurable and certainly dangerous to children who played on either side of it—was awarded on the basis of the report and reported to the press. Of course, he refused to accept that amount as sensible compensation or, indeed, as a compromise. At a subsequent secret meeting of the planning committee, the offer of compensation was withdrawn. Council officials decided to do nothing more and were reluctant even to discuss the case with Mr. Carslake's legal representatives.
  After considering the huge amount of evidence submitted by Mr. Carslake and the council, the ombudsman produced a draft report, which he sent to Mr. Carslake and the councillors who were advising him for their comments. The two councillors in Bishop's Stortford who have represented Mr. Carslake for seven years deserve the compliments of the House for the way in which they have pursued the case, supported their client through thick and thin and helped him to try to get justice from the council.
  When the report was published, it reflected none of the comments of either Mr. Carslake or the two councillors. Frankly, it was outrageously biased in the council's favour. This Parliament established the post of ombudsman to try to safeguard the interests of individuals against the council and other bureaucratic procedures. In spite of detailed evidence to the contrary submitted by Mr. Carslake, the ombudsman's report accepted all the council's statements as factual.

  649
  Thirdly, statements made by the council in its own favour were included in the report as fact, although they were untrue and the ombudsman had been given detailed evidence that they were untrue. Fourthly, the ombudsman totally ignored almost all the written evidence provided by Mr. Carslake and the two councillors. Moreover, the report in its final form was never submitted to Mr. Carslake so that he could comment on it.
  Fifthly, there was not a word regarding the main thrust of Mr. Carslake's complaints—that is, misconduct, wilful misconduct and cover-up, all of which incorporated extremely serious allegations. In addition, a number of other highly relevant issues involving false and/or misleading statements by senior council officials were unaddressed, and remain so to this day.
  Sixthly, Mr. Carslake's legal advisers had been given no opportunity to see and comment on the revised draft before its submission to the ombudsman. I understand that, under the ombudsman's terms of reference, that opportunity was improperly denied to Mr. Carslake.
  Seventhly, Mr. Carslake was awarded the derisory and insulting sum of £250 compensation for out-of-pocket expenses and inconvenience. An independent, highly respected local surveyor assessed the amenity damage caused to Mr. Carslake's property at £10,000. Legal expenses alone of more than £10,000 have been incurred, and Mr. Carslake and the councillors involved have spent a huge amount of personal time on the case.
  Mr. Carslake's lawyers have commented that, from the ombudsman's actions, it is clear that the validity and strength of Mr. Carslake's case have been systematically undermined, and that conclusions drawn in the report represented a high and unacceptable level of injustice. Those are highly respected planning lawyers, from some of the leading firms in this country.
  My request that the ombudsman meet Mr. Carslake with the objective of resolving the difficulties was bluntly refused. In effect, the ombudsman has assisted in the cover-up and has shielded senior council officials from the consequences of their improper actions.
  In conclusion, faced with the stony-faced bureaucrats of the council and of the ombudsman, I have had no alternative but to bring this very serious matter to the attention of the House and the Minister. I ask him to investigate the case immediately, with a view to giving an individual taxpayer justice, or to make certain that East Hertfordshire district council sets up its own independent investigation. Mr. Carslake has offered £10,000 to assist in defraying the costs of such an investigation, provided that the money is returned to him if the independent report finds in his favour.
  I also request a review of the way in which councils conduct planning procedures and enforce planning permission conditions, and I ask the Minister to issue guidelines, or to amend the law, to prevent such injustices occurring.
  Lastly, I ask for an investigation of the ombudsman to ensure that his procedures are effective and objective, using this case as an illustration of where he has failed in the past.
  This is a case of the small man trying to achieve justice against the juggernaut of the bureaucracy. It is a case in which the machinery established by Parliament
  650
  to protect the individual has failed to do so. I know that the Minister will share my concern and that of Mr. Carslake, and my desire to see justice done in this case and for all those many property holders, now and in future, who face, or will face, similar dilemmas.
  10.29 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I thank the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. It may help if I briefly set out the origins of the case. I shall then respond to a number of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised, and make clear my understanding of the position.
  I understand that, between about 1990 and 1993, Mr. Carslake's home, "Monkhams", Half Acres, Bishop's Stortford, Hertfordshire, was surrounded on three sides by housing development. Mr. Carslake exercised his rights to make representations about those developments. In respect of one, a bungalow immediately adjoining his home, he was given assurances by the local planning authority, East Hertfordshire district council, about its size.
  When amended plans were subsequently put to the council, it did not reconsult Mr. Carslake, and when construction of the bungalow started, he was concerned to see that it was closer to his home than he had been promised and that, although part of the roof visible from his garden was lower, it was longer than he expected and had a chimney on the end gable. Mr. Carslake was also concerned about the redevelopment of a house a little further off from his home, which he felt was higher and larger than its predecessor.
  Having looked into this matter, it appears to me that the nub of the issue lies not in the enforcement of planning conditions, but in the errors that the council made in consulting and reconsulting Mr. Carslake, and in the failure of attempts since then to resolve the matter.
  I think it will help the House if at this point I outline the obligations on local planning authorities to notify neighbours of planning applications. Local planning authorities are required to publicise all planning applications so that people likely to be affected by a proposed development can express their views before decisions are taken.
  As a minimum, authorities have to notify neighbours directly or place a notice on or near the site. For major applications—for example, the erection of 10 or more dwellings—local planning authorities are additionally required to advertise the proposal in a local newspaper. Generally, neighbour notification will be appropriate where the development is likely to be of interest to close neighbours only. Site notices can be particularly effective where there is doubt about who might have an interest. It is, of course, open to authorities both to notify neighbours and to post a site notice if they consider it appropriate and cost effective to do so.
  These measures represent the statutory minimum requirements. Circular 15/92, "Publicity for Planning Applications", advises local planning authorities to consider what other methods of publicity are available for attracting a wider audience. There is no statutory obligation on local planning authorities to publicise changes to applications once they are accepted as valid,

  651
  or to publicise applications required by a condition on a previous application, or for the approval of reserved matters. It is for the authority to decide whether further publicity is desirable in the light of the circumstances of the particular case.
  In this instance, the local planning authority quite properly wrote to Mr. Carslake to inform him of the first planning application, and entered into correspondence with him about it, but unfortunately treated the subsequent amended plans as minor alterations to the proposal, and did not reconsult him.
  Mr. Carslake has also expressed concern about the council withholding information from the public domain. Under the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, the public have a general right of access to meetings of local authorities and their committees. That includes access to related documents. Such documents normally include minutes of meetings and reports presented to public meetings of the council, including background papers. There are exceptions in the case of certain sensitive material specified in the Act and, for example, authorities must never disclose information the disclosure of which is prohibited by a court of law.
  Returning to Mr. Carslake's position, it is difficult to comment on a situation that has extended over several years and has clearly caused him considerable distress. The case has also greatly occupied the local authority. I think that it would be inappropriate for me to attempt to offer detailed views on who is right and who is wrong.
  The situation now is that the local government ombudsman has investigated the matter, and published a report in February 1997. His findings were as follows. The ombudsman clearly found in Mr. Carslake's favour in respect of the injustice that he suffered as a result of the council's failure to consult him properly about the bungalow built next to his home. He found that there had been maladministration in the council's handling of the replacement dwelling house built a little to the south of Mr. Carslake's home, but that he had not suffered injustice. He found also no maladministration regarding two other matters of development control.
  The ombudsman recommended a clear remedy: that the council should commission a valuation of any diminution in the value of Mr. Carslake's home as a result of the impact of the bungalow; and that compensation should be paid to him on that basis, in addition to a payment of £250 for his time and trouble in bringing the complaint.
  It is a matter of regret that the ombudsman's recommendations have not been implemented, but I understand that that is due to the continuing disagreements between Mr. Carslake and the council. However, I also understand that in recent weeks the valuation has been recommissioned. Whether that valuation will resolve the matter within a reasonable time is entirely in the hands of Mr. Carslake and the council.
  I note with concern that Mr. Carslake wants the independent valuation of his home to be undertaken on a basis that differs from that recommended by the ombudsman. He wants it to take account not only of the bungalow but of the replacement house to the south of his property. The ombudsman found very clearly that Mr. Carslake had suffered no injustice by the council's errors with regard to that house. However, Mr. Carslake
  652
  has raised questions about the ombudsman's report, so I shall turn now to the role and status of the local government ombudsman.
  The ombudsman was established by Parliament to consider complaints by individuals of alleged maladministration by a local authority causing injustice. An important aspect of the legislation governing the activities of the ombudsman is that it was designed to help those individuals who suffer injustice as a result of maladministration where there is no other method for them to seek a remedy.
  As the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford will be aware, the ombudsman is entirely independent of both central and local government. Decisions on whether to investigate complaints are, therefore, entirely at the discretion of the ombudsman, as is the manner in which complaints are investigated. Parliament decided that that independence was crucial to ensure that complainants could rely on a fair and impartial service. The House will understand that Ministers are therefore unable to intervene in the ombudsman's handling of his casework.
  I understand that there has been considerable correspondence between Mr. Carslake and the ombudsman since investigations into Mr. Carslake's complaint were concluded and the ombudsman's report was issued in February of last year. Mr. Carslake disagrees with aspects of the ombudsman's conclusions, which has resulted in delays in assessing the diminution in value of Mr. Carslake's home. The ombudsman's reports into complaints are final, although his actions may be the subject of judicial review. The ombudsman also has an internal complaints system for dealing with complaints about the way in which he has behaved, or the way in which a complaint has been handled. However, if Mr. Carslake wants to make a new complaint about the planning issue, the ombudsman has said that he would be prepared to consider it.
  I have considered carefully whether there is any action that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions can take in the matter. I have to advise the House that there is no action that he could take. As I made clear a few moments ago, he cannot intervene in the deliberations of the ombudsman. My right hon. Friend's powers are entirely, and quite rightly, limited to those powers accorded to him by planning legislation. However, in that respect also, there is no action he can take.
  All the planning decisions at issue were taken several years ago and have been implemented. The dispute does not appear to be about the enforcement of planning conditions; no one appears to have any remaining right of appeal to the Secretary of State; and there is no scheme outstanding over which he could exercise his exceptional power of call-in. It would not be appropriate for him to exercise his exceptional power to direct the revocation of any planning permissions, not only because substantial compensation would be payable to the owners of the buildings but because they could also lose their homes, which would be a harsh and absolutely unjustified consequence. In any case, the Secretary of State is extremely reluctant to intervene in matters of solely local significance, which this case is.

  653
  In my view, the way forward for all parties is perfectly clear. If Mr. Carslake has further grounds for complaint against the council, he should put them as soon as possible to the ombudsman, who will then consider whether there is a case to answer. If Mr. Carslake has complaints against the ombudsman himself, he should follow the course I outlined a few moments ago. Otherwise, I would urge
  654
  him—I am sure that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford will convey the message—to allow the independent valuation to go ahead on the basis recommended by the ombudsman.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Environment Agency
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list (i) the new duties which he plans to give the Environment Agency in England and Wales and (ii) the resources which the Government will provide to the Agency to carry them out; and if he will make a statement. [61194]

  Mr. Meale
  The Environment Agency will undertake new duties, shortly, under the COMAH and Groundwater Regulations. Other legislation in preparation, such as the Pollution Prevention and Control Bill and regulations on Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Terphenyls, may also place new obligations on the Agency.

  In common with the Agency's other regulatory expenditure it is proposed that the annual cost of work on the (CIMAH) Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1984 (£1.3m) and on the Groundwater Regulations 1998 (£3m), and the cost of other new obligations will be recovered largely through charges on those regulated. For preparatory work and other costs for which charging is not feasible the Agency may draw on its annual block allocation of grant-in-aid which will be increased to over £106 million in 1999–2000 following this year's Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Special Areas of Conservation
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the list of candidate special areas of conservation proposed under the European Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora will be reviewed to take account of the new research by the World Wide Fund for Nature. [61005]

  Mr. Meale
  No. The list of candidate sites was selected using a rigorous, iterative scientific process which applied the Directive's site selection criteria. There has also been extensive consultation on the proposals and additions made in the light of earlier comments from WWF and others.

  Service Personnel (Council Tax)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to allow service personnel to have their council tax demand waived during periods when they are posted on tours(a) abroad and (b) in Northern Ireland. [60861]

  Mr. Raynsford
  A person is counted towards the council tax bill at whichever dwelling is considered to be their "sole or main residence". The council tax is 48
  essentially a means of contributing towards the cost of providing a range of local services throughout a local area. These services include, for example, education, police and fire services, and highways maintenance. Whether people work in this country or abroad, it is reasonable that they should make a contribution towards the cost of local services where they maintain their sole or main residence. Members of the Armed Forces are treated in the same way as anyone else in determining sole or main residence and we do not have any plans to change this.

  Cop-4 Talks
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Cop-4 talks held in Buenos Aires. [61010]

  Mr. Prescott
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan) and to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Bums) on Thursday 19 November,Official Report, columns 837–38.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the Government's policy is on the shipment of United Kingdom nuclear waste to Australia for final disposal and storage. [61009]

  Mr. Meale
  I am not aware of any proposal to ship United Kingdom nuclear waste to Australia. Under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993, any such proposal would be subject to approval by the competent regulatory authorities in both countries.

  Garden Hedges
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received about the growing of high hedges adjacent to the boundaries of residential property; and what policy initiatives he is planning to address the issues raised in the representations. [61663]

  Mr. Meale
  We have received numerous representations about the growing of hedges adjacent to the boundaries of residential property. Our current policy regarding the problems caused by such hedges was set out in my previous reply to the hon. Member on 28 October 1998,Official Report, columns 164–65.

  Train Arrival Times
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish, for each train operating company, the percentage of trains arriving at their destination more than three minutes early. [61656]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This information is not readily available. Such trains would be recorded as having arrived on time according to the definition of "punctual" for the relevant route group in the Franchising Director's performance bulletins, copies of which are in the House Library.
  49
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish, for each train operating company, the percentage of(a) London commuter trains, Gatwick Express trains and short distance ex-regional railway trains, arriving at their destination between three minutes and four minutes 59 seconds late, (b) ex-InterCity trains and ex-Regional Railways long distance trains arriving at their destination between five minutes and nine minutes 59 seconds late and (c) ScotRail sleepers arriving at their destination between 10 and 30 minutes late for the latest available period. [61657]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This information is not readily available. Such trains are recorded as having arrived on time according to the definition of "punctual" for the relevant route group in the Franchising Director's performance bulletins, copies of which are in the House Library.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy to reduce the maximum time trains can be late whilst still being classified as punctual within the criteria set for the Passenger's Charter performance statistics. [61658]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The immediate priority is for train operators and Railtrack to improve the punctuality of services within its current, reasonable definition.

  Highway Authorities (Speed Limits)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to be able to release highway authorities from the requirement to seek his Department's approval prior to introducing 20 mph limits on roads for which they have responsibility. [60933]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I shall be introducing secondary legislation shortly in order to remove the consent requirement. I expect the new system to be in operation in the new year.

  Connex South Central
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he or his Ministers held with(a) OPRAF and (b) Connex South Central before the decision was taken not to extend the latter's franchise. [61654]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  None. However, as required by his Objectives, Instructions and Guidance, the Franchising Director notified the Deputy Prime Minister prior to announcing his decision not to extend Connex South Central's franchise.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons the application by Connex South Central to extend its franchise was refused; if he is prepared to consider an amended offer from the company; and if he will make a statement. [61653]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Franchising Director announced in July that he considered that he could obtain better value for money by competitively retendering the franchise on its expiry after seven years. The company cannot make a further offer under the option that was in 50
  their original contract. However, we have said that we are prepared in principle to consider proposals to renegotiate franchises to secure additional passenger benefits and commitments to more demanding performance targets.

  Road Traffic
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate(a) the rate of road traffic growth which could be expected to occur between 1997 and 2002 if no action was taken to reduce this and (b) the rate of road traffic growth which is now expected to occur following Government action to reduce road traffic growth. [60927]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The 1997 National Road Traffic Forecasts were based on previous policies. The increase in total traffic between 1997 and 2002 implicit in the 1997 central forecasts is 9 per cent.

  The Department has begun working on a revised set of forecasts which will reflect the new direction for transport provided by the New Deal. This work involves developing new approaches to forecasting traffic and its environmental and economic effects. Once the Commission for Integrated Transport is established next year, it will be advising the Department on our revised forecasts. One of the first things we will be consulting the Commission on is the alternative forecasting approaches we could use. Once we have the Commission's advice on this question, we will be able to complete our plans and announce a target date for publication.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if it is his policy to set targets for reductions in traffic levels(a) nationally and (b) for particular areas; and if he will make a statement. [60928]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 3 November 1998,Official Report, column 458.

  Aircraft Emissions
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the emissions of NOx, from aircraft operating within United Kingdom airspace in each year since 1980. [60930]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No such estimates are produced for the whole of United Kingdom airspace. An annual estimate is made of the NOx produced by civil aircraft, on domestic or international flights at UK airports, during ground movements and in the landing and take-off cycle, up to 1,000 metres. This is published in the Digest of Environmental Statistics. Information from the Digest for the period 1980 to 1996 (the latest year for which figures are available) is given in the table:

  NOx Emissions 1980–1996

  Thousand tones

  1980

  10

  1981

  9

  1982

  10

  1983

  10

  1984

  11

  1985

  11

  1986

  11

  51

  NOx Emissions 1980–1996

  Thousand tones

  1987

  12

  1988

  13

  1989

  14

  1990

  12

  1991

  14

  1992

  14

  1993

  15

  1994

  15

  1995

  16

  1996

  17

  The UK has played a major part in securing reductions in NOx emissions in standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organisation and will continue to do so.

  National Rail Inquiries
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish, for each month since its inception, the average time taken by National Rail Inquiries to answer a call; and if he will make a statement. [61509]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Information on the average time taken to answer a call is not recorded by the National Rail Enquiry Scheme (NRES). NRES is required by the Rail Regulator to answer 90 per cent. of all calls and to record the percentage of calls answered within 30 seconds. The Rail Regulator monitors performance against both targets but his priority has been to ensure that NRES meets its 90 per cent. target. He is currently considering formal enforcement action following recent disappointing performance by NRES.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent assessment he has made of the accuracy of the information provided by National Rail Inquiries in respect of(a) timetable information and (b) price options. [61508]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Following the Rail Regulator's mystery shopping survey into accurate and impartial retailing last year, the Association of Train Operation Companies (ATOC) agreed to carry out further similar surveys. ATOC is currently carrying out surveys into the accuracy of information provided by both the National Rail Enquiry Scheme and station ticket offices. The results are expected to be published early next year.

  French Nuclear Reactors
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the recent Greenpeace report on the impact on the United Kingdom of emissions from French nuclear reactors; and if he will make a statement. [60942]

  Mr. Meale
  My Department has not received a copy of the report referred to, but it is understood from the Greenpeace press release that it relates to computer modelling of the dispersal of aerial discharges from the La Hague nuclear reprocessing plant.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on Thursday 17 November 1998, Official Report, columns 487–88.
  52
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of measurable radioactivity recorded in southern England is attributable to emissions from French nuclear reactors. [60943]

  Mr. Meale
  Measured levels of radioactivity in air, rainwater, lakes and reservoirs, and radiation levels over beaches in southern England are indistinguishable from levels of both natural origin and from atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons and the Chernobyl reactor accident. The low levels of man-made radioactivity found in marine foodstuffs and sediments sampled from the coastal waters of Southern England cannot be attributed to particular sources.

  Cyclists and Pedestrians
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will introduce targets for reductions in casualties among(a) cyclists and (b) pedestrians expressed in terms of casualties per mile travelled. [60932]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  On 15 October 1997 the Government announced that they will be setting new road safety targets for Great Britain for the year 2010. There will be one target figure for the reduction in road accident deaths and serious injuries, and another for slight injuries. We are still considering the details of the target.

  Rail Electrification
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list, for each EU country, the percentage of rail track operated for passenger purposes which was electrified in(a) 1977, (b)1987 and (c) 1997. [61655]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department does not collect statistics separately for electrified passenger track. However, for the years for which statistics are available, the percentage of electrified track in each EU Member State is:

  Percentage

  Country

  1975

  1987

  1996

  Austria

  46

  54

  60

  Belgium

  32

  61

  73

  Denmark

  4

  8

  17

  Finland

  7

  25

  35

  France

  27

  34

  45

  Germany

  25

  34

  45

  Greece

  0

  0

  0

  Irish Republic

  0

  0

  2

  Italy1

  49

  57

  64

  Luxembourg

  33

  67

  95

  Netherlands

  61

  68

  73

  Portugal

  11

  14

  22

  Spain

  27

  44

  56

  Sweden

  62

  64

  68

  United Kingdom

  20

  25

  30

  1 National Railways only

  Sources:

  International Comparisons of Transport Statistics 1970–94 (DOT) EU Transport in Figures Statistical Pocket Book 1998 (European Commission)

  Dangerous Driving
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the charge of dangerous driving and the appropriateness of the criteria which must be met before such a charge can successfully be brought. [60935]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Transport Research Laboratory is undertaking a research project to discover more about the process whereby charges are brought and prosecuted for dangerous driving, including the application of the criterion in section 2A of the Road Traffic Act 1988, or for the lesser charge of careless driving.

  Shadow Strategic Rail Authority
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reason the Chair of the Shadow Strategic Rail Authority will be required to work only two and a half days a week. [61652]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have advertised this appointment of approximately 2.5 days a week because we judge this to be the right time commitment for the job of leading the British Railways Board as part of the Shadow Strategic Rail Authority and, subject to legislation, the SRA proper with its full-time Chief Executive.

  Packaging Waste
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the current review of packaging regulations will cover the benefits for supermarkets from their back of store waste and the effects of such benefits on others in the packaging chain. [61499]

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans his Department has to increase retailers' obligations under the packaging and waste regulations. [61636]

  Mr. Meale
  The review of the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 covered a range of issues as set out by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment (Mr. Meacher) in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) on 17 December 1997,Official Report, columns 193–94.

  Each of the four main sectors may have back-door waste to some extent. Those businesses that do have such waste are likely to use it towards the discharge of their obligations. Retailers are likely to have larger quantities of back-door waste than other businesses, but will incur costs in making that material available. They also carry a higher share of the burden. A share-out of the burden between industry sectors was agreed on the 15 December 1995, and that industry agreement is the basis of the present Regulations. Each sector's "activity" obligations in the regulations are:

  Sector

  15 December 1995 Agreed share of the burden %

  Activity obligation in the Regulations %

  Raw Material Manufacturer

  5.5

  6

  Convertor

  14.5

  11

  54

  Sector

  15 December 1995 Agreed share of the burden %

  Activity obligation in the Regulations %

  Packer/Filler

  35

  36

  Sellers/Retailers

  45

  47

  Proposed Golf Course (Buckinghamshire)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce the decision on the application to develop a golf course on the ancient woodland site at Penn, Buckinghamshire. [61498]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Inspector's Report following his site visit is currently being considered. It is anticipated that the decision will be issued by the end of the year.

  Building Regulations
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what account was taken of the accessibility of blocks of flats in the decision to extend part M of the building regulations to housing in October; and if he will make a statement. [61651]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Building Regulations (Amendment) Regulations 1998 (SI 1998 No. 2561) made on 26 October 1998 modified Part M in Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 1991 (SI 1991 No. 2768) to apply requirements on access and facilities for disabled people to the design and construction of dwellings. The definition of dwelling in the 1991 regulations includes dwelling houses and flats.

  The revised Approved Document published to provide practical guidance on satisfying the amended requirements applies to all dwellings, including flats, and also includes guidance on passenger lifts and common stairs in blocks of flats.

  Four Star Petrol
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to ban the use of four star petrol. [61505]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Four star leaded petrol will be banned from general sale from 1 January 2000 under regulations currently being prepared. The regulations will allow the continuance of a very limited supply of leaded petrol for use by historic vehicles. The Department is well advanced in preparing publicity material for motorists that currently use leaded petrol and further details will be announced very shortly.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Flooding (Brindley Ford)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on recent flooding at Brindley Ford arising from the Coal Authority's maintenance of the nearby opencast coal site. [61191]
  55
  Mr. Battle
  Following heavy rain in late October, flooding occurred at Brindley Ford to the south of the former Brownlees opencast site, part of which is owned by the Coal Authority.

  The authority is currently investigating, in association with the Environment Agency, Staffordshire county council, and Stoke-on-Trent city council, the water management at the locality to identify the cause of the flooding and ways of dealing with it.

  Textiles Industry
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the role of London Fashion Week in promoting the United Kingdom textile industry; and if he will make a statement. [61646]

  Mr. Battle
  My Department is one of the supporters of London Fashion Week and we therefore assess its effectiveness in promoting the UK textiles and clothing sector each time it takes place.

  London Fashion Week is an important showcase for British design talent. Many of the designers whose profiles were initially raised by London Fashion Week are now working closely with UK producers of textiles and clothing, as well as with UK retailers, to provide a competitive design edge to existing ranges, and to help develop new and innovative products. London Fashion Week also plays an important role in projecting the image of British fashion and textiles world-wide.

  Strategic Export Controls (White Paper)
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what were the results of the public consultation following publication of the White Paper on Strategic Export Controls; and if he will make a statement. [61814]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The Department has received 54 responses to the White Paper on Strategic Export Controls. I am placing copies of the responses, except two for which complete confidentiality has been requested, in the Libraries of both Houses and in the Library of the Department. I have also arranged for copies of the responses to be made available on request from the Department's Export Control Organisation.

  We are currently reviewing our proposals in the light of the responses received, and will make a further announcement in due course.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Women's Boxing
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to(a) ban or (b) place restrictions on women's boxing. [61008]

  Mr. Banks
  The Department has no plans either to ban or to place any restrictions on women's boxing.

  I appreciate the strength of feeling on this issue, but I should stress that the Government do not control boxing—or, indeed, any other sport in this country. We are, of course, keen to see that the proper medical
  56
  safeguards and regulations are in place for all sports, especially those which may carry a higher level of physical contact, and believe that the sport's governing bodies should remain primarily responsible for this.

  Grade II Listed Sites
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what responsibilities attach to owners of Grade II listed sites. [61133]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 27 November 1998]: Grade II listed buildings form an important part of the nation's historic environment, for which we all share responsibility. The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires the owner of any listed building to obtain listed building consent for any works of demolition or for any works of alteration or extension which would affect its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest. The carrying out of such works without prior consent is a criminal offence.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what grants are available to the owners of Grade II listed sites. [61134]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 27 November 1998]: Grade II listed buildings in conservation areas are eligible for grant funding from English Heritage. The Heritage Lottery Fund can also provide funding for any grade of listed building provided that the application meets their assessment criteria.

  Local authorities have powers to give grants for any buildings of special architectural or historic interest. They can give grants up to 50 per cent. of costs, and authorities may also make interest-free loans rather than grants, using the same criteria.

  Further information on other sources of funding may be found in the Directory of Grant Making Trusts published by the Charities Aid Foundation, available from public libraries, and Funds for Historic Buildings published by the Architectural Heritage Fund, Clareville House, 26–27 Oxendon Street, London SW1Y 4EL.

  New Opportunities Fund (Scotland)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what changes he proposes to make to the operation of the New Opportunities Fund's three operational themes in Scotland after the establishment of the Scottish Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [61029]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 27 November 1998]: The framework for the New Opportunities Fund's first three initiatives (healthy living centres, out of school hours activities and childcare, and ICT training for teachers and librarians) already reflects the particular circumstances in Scotland, and each initiative has a specific funding allocation which must be spent on projects in Scotland. Any further initiatives established before the creation of the Scottish Parliament will also take into account the differing needs of each part of the United Kingdom, including Scotland.
  57
  After the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, Scottish Ministers will be able to make Orders or Directions in relation to initiatives applying in Scotland only, and as appropriate make Directions in relation to the application in Scotland of UK wide initiatives, after consultation with and, where necessary, the consent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend will remain responsible for Orders or Directions relating to UK wide initiatives, after consultation with Scottish Ministers. The details of these arrangements are still under consideration.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Telephone Lines
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee what plans he has to ensure that hon. Members have access to ISDN telephone lines. [61438]

  Mr. Richard Allan
  An hon. Member who has a specific communications requirement concerning his Parliamentary duties should raise the matter with the Director of Communications. The provision of communications, including ISDN, at locations outside the Parliamentary Estate is currently being considered, and the Information Committee will be discussing this in the new year.

DEFENCE

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many vacancies there were for the Territorial Army and Voluntary Reserve(a) in May 1997 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available. [60860]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Territorial Army establishment in May 1997 was 59,000 posts, of which 55,900 were filled. In October 1998, the latest date for which figures are available, the establishment was also 59,000 posts, of which 53,847 were filled.

  Service Personnel (Electoral Roll)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what procedures exist for service personnel to be registered on the electoral roll; and what proposals he has to increase the number of registrations. [60862]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Service personnel may vote only when they are registered as Service Voters. The Representation of the People Act 1993 obliges my Department to ensure that all eligible members of the Armed Forces and their spouses are given the opportunity and adequate assistance to register as Service voters. To register, personnel make a Service declaration to the electoral registration officer for the area in which the applicant's qualifying address is situated, and this single registration remains valid throughout a Service career. Spouses may register as either Service or civilian voters.
  58
  Queen's Regulations for all three Services contain detailed information on the timetable for submitting declarations to ensure inclusion in the register of electors for Parliamentary, European Parliament and local government elections.

  Instructions on the action required to make initial Service declarations or to make new ones on any change of address are also included in the Regulations. In addition, each Service issues formal reminders annually describing the registration procedures and listing the relevant forms to be completed. The reminders draw attention in particular to the need to re-register or to amend qualifying addresses where necessary. Commanding Officers are made personally responsible for ensuring that unit administrative arrangements are efficient and that units hold sufficient forms, and are regularly formally reminded of their responsibilities.

  We will continue to employ these measures to encourage Service personnel to register and to vote, but doing so is, of course, a matter of personal choice.

  Soldiers (New Entrants)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what financial assistance is available to new entrant soldiers who are themselves on income support, or whose parents are, towards the cost of equipment and supplies which they are required to purchase and to meet obligatory insurance costs. [60921]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 27 November 1998]: All new entrant soldiers are given an advance of pay, equivalent to one day's pay, when they are attested at a recruiting office, regardless of whether they, or their parents, are in receipt of income support. This advance is intended to cover the purchase of small personal items a new soldier may require. Any equipment a soldier needs to perform his or her duties is provided by the Army.

  My Department places no obligation on new entrants to the Army to take out insurance cover, but applicants are advised to insure their personal belongings, and any military equipment they are issued with against loss or damage for which the holder would be held responsible. New entrants are also advised to consider the purchase of personal accident or life insurance.

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the changes in departmental practices which would be required to comply with the planned Freedom of Information Act. [61512]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence is already committed to greater openness in its work and currently operates in accordance with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. The Department's policy is that staff should take a positive approach towards the release of information. Details of MOD's policy and guidance to staff can be found on the Department's internet site at http://www.mod.uk/policy/opengovt/index.htm. Once the details of the draft FoI Bill have been finalised, instructions, advice and training will be available for staff in order to ensure that they are able to implement the Act and to foster an open culture.

SCOTLAND

  Kincardine Bridge
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he plans to make an announcement on the replacement of the Kincardine Bridge. [61162]

  Mr. Macdonald
  I am announcing today my decision on a preferred line for a new crossing of the Forth in the vicinity of Kincardine. I have decided that, subject to the necessary statutory procedures, a new crossing should be built on an alignment approximately 2 kilometres upstream from the existing crossing at Kincardine. The new crossing will be used in conjunction with the existing bridge which will be refurbished. A new short Kincardine Eastern Link Road will also be constructed to link with the existing bridge and divert traffic travelling to and from Fife away from the centre of Kincardine village. My decision has taken full account of the five criteria—economy, environmental impact, safety, accessibility and integration—which the Government use to appraise trunk road investment. The sensitive ecology of the Forth Estuary meant that environmental considerations were particularly important. I am aware that the new crossing will potentially have an adverse visual impact on the village of Airth and every effort will be made to mitigate this.

  My decision means that the further preparatory work which is required before construction can begin can now be commissioned and the Comprehensive Spending Review has provided resources for this. I am not able, at this stage, to give a firm indication of when construction will begin. The time needed to complete the preparatory work means that, in all probability, construction could not begin before 2003.

  I have written to my hon. Friend giving her further details of my decision and I shall arrange for a copy of my letter to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Dounreay
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the UKAEA has yet responded to the HSE/SEPA report on the management of safety at Dounreay; and if he will make a statement. [62010]

  Mr. Dewar
  Safety at Dounreay remains paramount and I am keeping closely in touch with developments there. The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has today published an action plan in response to the audit of the management of safety at Dounreay carried out earlier this year by the Health and Safety Executive and Scottish Environment Protection Agency. I have arranged for the action plan to be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Management and staff at Dounreay have worked very hard to produce this response to the many recommendations contained in the audit report. They have shown that they are taking the audit very seriously indeed. There are a number of points of detail which need to be discussed further, and there are issues of timing which need to be refined. Nonetheless this is an encouraging first step on what will be a long journey to bring the plant up to the standards expected of a modern nuclear licensee.
  60
  I expect UKAEA management to press ahead with implementation of the action plan as soon as it has been agreed by the plant's regulators. This will build on the actions already underway.

CABINET OFFICE

  Minister's Severance Payments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what has been the total amount spent on severance payments to those who have resigned, retired or been dismissed from ministerial office since 1 May 1997, broken down by ministry. [61516]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Ministerial and Other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991 entitles Ministers (except the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor) to a severance payment of one quarter of their ministerial salary on leaving office.

  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Department

  Amount (£)

  Cabinet Office

  11,300.25

  Culture, Media and Sport

  14,063.50

  Environment, Transport and the Regions

  11,300.25

  HM Treasury

  15,281.75

  Northern Ireland Office

  6,068.25

  Social Security

  19,295.50

  Scottish Office

  5,905.75

  Trade and Industry

  6,068.25

  Welsh Office

  17,368.50

  Total

  106,652.00

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Schools (Absenteeism)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will commission research into staff absenteeism rates in schools(a) prior to and (b) following OFSTED inspections. [60880]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Department's research programme is considered as a whole so that research priorities can be weighed against each other. The programme for 1999–2000 is under consideration and such research can be considered in that context, alongside other research priorities.

  Key Stage 3
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what representations he has received on this year's Key Stage 3 tests in English, Maths and Science; and if he will make a statement; [61001]

  (2) what representations he has received on the percentage increases in the achievement of levels 6 and 7 in English in 14 year olds and over since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [61002]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Forty letters have been received about Key Stage 3 English, mathematics and science; no letters have been received specifically about the percentage increase in the overall attainment in levels 6
  61
  and 7 in Key Stage 3 English since 1997 and 1998. Pupils and teachers are congratulated on the improvement in English performance this year. The mathematics and science results demonstrate the need to maintain our focus on raising levels of attainment. The Government are fully committed to raising standards in schools. This is why we have asked schools to set themselves challenging targets for pupil attainment, and why we are investing an additional £16 billion in education in England over the next three years.

  New Start Partnerships
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he will take to ensure that the training provided by the expanded New Start programme will target the needs of industry. [61173]

  Mr. Mudie
  We are encouraging employers to play a full part in all New Start partnerships, which aim to re-engage young people in learning, often through work related activities.

  They will also have opportunities to influence the local strategic Lifelong Learning Partnerships to be established next year.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the numbers of claimants on jobseeker's allowance who were called in to attend interviews whilst taking their holiday entitlement in the United Kingdom in each year since 1996. [61195]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Richard Burden, dated November 1998:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply direct to your question regarding the number of claimants on Jobseeker's Allowance who were called in to attend interviews whilst taking their holiday entitlement in the United Kingdom in each year since 1996. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  I regret that the Employment Service does not collect statistics of the number of jobseekers who are called in to the Jobcentre to attend interviews during their holiday. In practice, this situation should not occur frequently as interviews can be rearranged if Jobcentre staff are aware in advance that a jobseeker is away from home.
  I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful.

  Employment Service
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will establish website pages for each Employment Service region setting out the names and addresses of each contractor and sub-contractor supplying New Deal service contracts in each district. [61624]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  We have no present plans to include this level of local detail on the New Deal website but I am examining how we can best use the internet for the New Deals and Employment Services more generally, and will include this suggestion in the examination. For 62
  now, those who wish to find out more about local provision should initially contact either the appropriate Jobcentre or the Employment Service District Manager.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the reasons for the Employment Service's failure to meet its target for 1997–98 for placing people on Training for Work. [61075]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Employment Service (ES) placed 130,600 people on training for work in 1997–98, against a target of 150,000 placings.

  The assumptions on which the target was based proved mistaken in two respects. Training for Work employed status starts (which did not count towards the ES target) and direct recruitment by TECs/LECs were both higher than planned. This reduced the ability of the ES to meet its target. However, the ES share of non-employed Training for Work starts, as 81 per cent., met the Government's expectations.

  Overall, the Government's target of 180,000 Training for Work starts in England was exceeded, with over 183,000 starts being achieved. This achievement would not have been possible without the strong support given to TECs/LECs by the ES.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list by region the number of staff employed by the Employment Service in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1995–96 and (d) 1994–95. [61076]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Don Foster, dated November 1998:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question regarding the number of staff who are employed by the Employment Service, listed by region, in (a) 1997–98, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1995–96 and (d) 1994–95. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Employment Service.
  I have recorded below a breakdown by region and by Scotland and Wales of the number of staff in post as at 1 April for 1998, 1997, 1996 and 1995. These figures include temporary and fixed term appointees as well as permanent staff. People who are on career breaks or absent for any reason beyond three months are excluded from these figures.

  Employment Service—staff in post—1 April 1995–98

  Staff in post as at 1 April

  Region/country

  1998

  1997

  1996

  1995

  Scotland

  3,552

  3,479

  4,098

  3,884

  Northern

  1,877

  1,938

  2,443

  2,438

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  3,108

  3,000

  3,736

  3,754

  North West

  4,606

  4,071

  5,150

  4,360

  East Midlands and Eastern

  2,963

  3,061

  3,640

  3,800

  West Midlands

  2,811

  2,913

  3,535

  5,158

  Wales

  1,895

  1,803

  2,151

  2,296

  London and South East

  8,163

  9,530

  11,326

  12,304

  South West

  2,398

  2,638

  3,094

  3,358

  Head Office

  2,155

  1,741

  1,983

  2,027

  Total

  33,528

  34,174

  41,156

  43,379

  I hope this is helpful.

  Work-based Training
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he has set a target for the number of people to be placed on Work-based Training for Adults in 1998–99. [61073]

  Mr. Mudie
  The target for the number of people to be placed on work-based training for adults in 1998–99 is 120,000.

  Dyslexia
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many primary schools provide computers with voice-driven software for dyslexic students; [60961]

  (2) how many secondary schools provide an audio tape library for dyslexic pupils; [60962]

  (3) how many secondary schools provide computers with voice-driven software for dyslexic pupils; [60963]

  (4) how many primary schools provide an audio tape library for dyslexic pupils. [60964]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is not held centrally. Schools are expected to explore the possible benefits of and, where practicable, secure access for a child to appropriate information communications technology. Where such equipment is identified as educational provision and it appears in Part 3 of a statement of special educational needs the local education authority has a duty to see that the equipment is provided.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the cost of screening all rising fives for dyslexia. [60953]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This information is not held centrally. The Education Act 1996 states that those responsible for a nursery school's governance shall use their best endeavours to secure that appropriate special educational provision is made for all their registered pupils with learning difficulties. Local education authorities expect that they will follow broadly the same procedures for identifying and meeting these needs as the Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs recommends for children of compulsory school age.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received on the ring fencing of special education funds for dyslexia. [60957]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government's plans for the further development of financial delegation to schools will require local education authorities to inform schools what part of their budgets are set with reference to pupils' special educational needs, but will continue to give governing bodies flexibility to decide their actual spending on special needs within the total budgets available to them. The majority of consultation responses on this proposal welcomed the clarity it would bring but were opposed to ring fencing an element of school budgets for special needs.
  64
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what advice is offered by his Department to selective entry schools on making special provision for the needs of dyslexic children in entrance tests. [61197]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Children with special educational needs but without statements must be treated as fairly as other applicants. Admission authorities may not refuse to admit a pupil because they consider themselves unable to cater for his or her special educational needs. Admission authorities must consider applications from children who have special educational needs but no statement, on the basis of the school's published admission criteria. They cannot refuse to admit a pupil on the grounds that he or she does not have a statement of special educational needs, or is currently being assessed for one. Where admission authorities give some priority to children with special educational needs but without a statement, their published admission arrangements should state in what way their arrangements differ for such children.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children in each local education authority area are identified as being dyslexic in the most recently available figures. [60952]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Provisions in the Education Act 1981, now consolidated into the Education Act 1996, require schools to submit information on numbers of pupils with special educational needs. There is no requirement for them to record the nature of the disability or learning difficulty. The Statistical Bulletin Special Educational Needs in England published annually summarises the information available on special educational needs. This includes details of pupils with statements by local education authority area and region, and details of pupils, with and without statements, in maintained primary and secondary schools by local education authority area and region.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the methods used by local education authorities to identify children with dyslexia; and if he will publish the guidelines. [60949]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Guidance to help schools and local education authorities identify and assess children with specific learning difficulties, which includes dyslexia, is contained in the Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs. The Code was published in May 1994.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what information he has on the number of unemployed people who are identified as dyslexic during a jobseeker's allowance interview. [60965]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated November 1998:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply direct to your question concerning the number of people who are identified as dyslexic

  65
  during a Jobseeker's Allowance interview. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The Employment Service does not keep statistics on the number of unemployed people identified as having dyslexia. Where an individual is identified as having dyslexia they can be referred to a Disability Employment Adviser for specialist support to help them find employment.
  I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful on this occasion.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will publish the amount spent per local education authority on(a) identifying children with dyslexia and (b) educational support for such children in the last year for which figures are available; [60954]

  (2) what is his estimate of the amount of specialist help in terms of (a) cost and (b) time given to each dyslexic child through stages one to five; [60955]

  (3) what monitoring of expenditure by local education authorities on dyslexia is undertaken by his Department; and if he will make a statement; [60956]

  (4) what estimate he has made of the time allotted by each local education authority to dyslexic children for special help for each of stages one to five in the last year for which figures are available. [60958]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Department does not collect information on time spent or cost of education provision made by type of special educational need per local education authority or school. The Education Act 1996 and Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs recognises that every child has individual needs, including those children with dyslexia, and requires that local education authorities shall have regard to their duty to meet those needs. Similarly, school governing bodies shall use their best endeavours to see that they provide for pupils with special educational needs. This implies that children whose dyslexia requires special provision should have their educational needs identified and provided for appropriately.

  Teachers (Flu Injections)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to offer teachers free flu injections; what estimate he has of the number of days off work which would be saved if such injections were available; and if he will make a statement. [60929]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My right hon. Friend is advised on this issue by the Department of Health which has issued specific recommendations about the risk groups who are offered annual influenza immunisation. He has no plans to offer teachers free flu injections outside the Department of Health recommendations and has made no estimate of the number of days off work that would be saved. He has asked the Local Government Association to survey Local Education Authorities on the extent of teacher sickness absence as part of the wider initiative on managing sickness absence in the public sector.

  Special Needs
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what factors are taken into account when classifying children as having 66
  moderate learning difficulties; what plans he has to review the statementing system; and if he will make a statement. [61502]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Code of Practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs includes guidance on the factors to be taken into account in deciding whether a child with learning difficulties should be given a statement. These include whether the child is working at a level significantly below his contemporaries in any of the core subjects of the National Curriculum; whether there is evidence that the child is falling progressively behind the majority of children of his or her age in academic attainment; whether there is evidence of impaired social interaction or communication; and whether the child has a significantly restricted repertoire of activities, interests and imaginative development. The recent publication "Meeting Special Educational Needs: A programme of action" makes it clear that the Government have no intention of removing the legal protection offered by statements or of constraining parents' access to a statutory assessment where they believe it is necessary. There are however wide variations between LEAs in making statements. The Government therefore propose to publish non-statutory guidance on criteria for statements drawing on a range of examples of current practice.

  Disabled Students
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he intends to respond to the findings of the Snowdon Survey on financial considerations relating to students with disabilities. [61511]

  Ms Hodge
  The Government will respond to the Snowdon Survey recommendations in due course, after the results of the Scheme's consultation on the survey have been received.

  New Deal (Planning Assumptions)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the planning assumptions on which the New Deal pilots for over 25s are based, indicating the proportion of each part of the client group that the Government would usually expect, in the absence of the New Deal, to leave jobseeker's allowance within six months of reaching(a) 12 months, (b) 18 months and (c) 24 months unemployment and the indicative information the Government have about the proportion of jobseeker's allowance leavers who, in the absence of the New Deal, would go into jobs. [61081]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The specification, including off-flow rates from JSA, is in the Library.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the planning assumptions on which each New Deal model, excluding the New Deal pilots for over 25s, are based, indicating the proportion of each client group that the Government would usually expect, in the absence of the New Deal, to leave jobseeker's allowance within six months of reaching(a) six months, (b) 12 months, (c) 18 months and (d) 24 months unemployment and the indicative information the Government have about the proportion of jobseeker's allowance leavers in each client group who, in the absence of the New Deal, would go into jobs. [61079]
  67
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have placed the individual New Deal planning assumptions for each of the 143 Units of Delivery in the Libraries.

  A-levels
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list, for the most recent year for which survey information is available, the percentage of A level grades which are forecast(a) correctly, (b) too low, (c) too high and (d) too high by two grades or more; and if he will list each by school type. [61077]

  Mr. Mudie
  This information is not collected by the Department.

  Construction Industry Training Boards
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the percentage increase in pay settlements awarded by the CITB and ECITB for the next financial year. [61631]

  Mr. Mudie
  On 1 August 1998 the CITB awarded a 3.75% pay increase to its staff and the ECITB awarded an increase of 5%. In each case the awards are applicable to 31 July 1999.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the percentage increase in the levy charged to their in-scope companies by the CITB and ECITB for the next financial year. [61632]

  Mr. Mudie
  CITB proposes to raise a two-part levy in the next financial year with an increase of 0.09% in the percentage rate of payroll, from 0.29% to 0.38% for direct employees and no increase in the percentage rate for net payments to labour only subcontractors. ECITB is not proposing any increase in the next financial year.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Attorney-General what steps have been taken to implement the recommendations of the report of the Review of the Crown Prosecution Service by the Right Hon. Sir kin Glidewell. [62017]

  The Attorney-General
  My statement to the House on publication of the Glidewell Report on 1 June 1998,Official Report, column 42, undertook to publish a formal response setting out the Government response to each recommendation, whether it would be implemented and, if so, how. I then said that a plan of action would be drawn up and published.

  A programme of change based on recommendations made by the Glidewell Report and our prior decision to restructure the Crown Prosecution Service into 42 areas is being taken forward briskly under the leadership of Mr. David Calvert-Smith QC, whose appointment as Director of Public Prosecutions took effect on 1 November, and Mr. Mark Addison, who was appointed Chief Executive on 5 June. They expect to take decisions in the near future about the senior management structure within CPS headquarters and an open competition for the
  68
  appointment of Chief Crown Prosecutors for each of the 42 new areas commenced with the placing of advertisements on 16 November. The selection process for the Area Business Managers recommended by the Glidewell Report is currently under way.

  All this will be taken forward within the framework of the Government's overall strategy for developing a properly co-ordinated criminal justice system working to a common set of overarching aims and objectives. The emphasis will be on clear central policies for the criminal justice system delivered locally.

  The objectives set for the change programme are:
  The organisation should be taken as an opportunity for a fresh start for the CPS, building on the achievements of the past 12 years;
  The development of a form of CPS management at both national and local levels which reflects the new structure and the demands of a decentralised national service;
  CPS priorities should be reordered to focus more on the core business of prosecuting, placing greater emphasis on the more serious cases and providing greater separation of management from legal work, greater autonomy for the areas and better prospects for staff;
  The agencies which make up the criminal justice system should have shared and mutually reinforcing objectives, and should co-operate together to achieve better results across the system as a whole, in accordance with the Government's decisions on the outcome of the cross-cutting spending review of the criminal justice system;
  Decisions on the Glidewell recommendations should be reached as soon as possible and implementation of those decisions should be rapid and purposeful taking account of the need for phasing to provide a smooth transition and to contain costs.

  Detailed consideration of the recommendations contained in the Glidewell Report has taken one of two forms. First, the Chief Executive has been energetically pursuing recommendations specific to the CPS with the support of an internal steering group and working parties to consider specific issues. He as also put in place mechanisms for obtaining the views of CPS staff at all levels. This has included work on internal structures, training, career prospects, central and special casework and the development of an independent element for the CPS Inspectorate.

  Secondly, those recommendations which also affect other criminal justice agencies have been the subject of consideration within existing or specially established inter-departmental groups. The work is being carried forward under the auspices of the Strategic Planning Group which the Home Secretary, myself and the Lord Chancellor established earlier this year to co-ordinate planning within the criminal justice system. I have today placed in the Library of the House a chart setting out the present position in relation to each of the recommendations in the Glidewell Report. It shows those which have been accepted, in whole or in part, and the manner in which consideration of the remaining recommendations is being progressed, together with the anticipated timetable. Of the recommendations internal to the CPS, it is proposed that 39 should be accepted, in whole or in part, with 13 under consideration,

  69
  considered or noted. Of the 23 inter-agency recommendations, 7 have been accepted, wholly or in part, with 16 remaining under consideration or considered.

  My statement to the House on 1 June contained an invitation to interested parties to comment on the recommendations made in the Glidewell Report. I am grateful to all those who took the trouble to respond for the care and effort which went into their responses. These have been carefully considered and will continue to inform decisions about those recommendations still under consideration.

  I draw the attention of my hon. Friend to three specific aspects of the work so far undertaken. First, the recommendations in respect of Criminal Justice Units (recommendations 13–16 and 20) contain some of the most important and sensitive proposals in the Report. It recommended greater priority for all casework and sees the working arrangements between the CPS and the police service as crucial to successful handling of casework and therefore to achieving that priority. Acceptance would lead to major changes in the way in which CPS officers and the police operate. They are being considered by a newly formed Criminal Justice Units Project Group, which is chaired jointly by the CPS and the Association of Chief Police Officers. The issues raised will inevitably take some time to address, but it is hoped conclusions can be reached in the Spring of 1999 so as to provide the new Chief Crown Prosecutors with a firm basis for planning the operations in their areas. The proposal for the establishment of Trial Units (recommendation 18) is so closely linked to the question of Criminal Justice Units that it must remain under consideration until the position in that respect is clearer.

  Secondly, the Report contains a number of recommendations (recommendations 21, 22 and 26) concerning the CPS's relationship with the courts, and suggests that the CPS should play a greater part in the listing of cases in both the Magistrates' Courts and the Crown Court. These recommendations are accepted.

  Listing is ultimately the sole responsibility of the courts. The CPS, however, should play a close part in co-operative arrangements among all relevant agencies, necessary to ensure effective listing by the courts. The text of the report makes clear that greater involvement of the CPS in Magistrates' Courts listing would come about only by agreement, at local level, between the courts and the CPS. Although it should not inhibit CPS liaison and closer involvement in the overall listing process, any such agreement must recognise that the courts are the neutral and independent arbiters of the cases brought before them, and that a decision concerning the listing of an individual case is ultimately a judicial function.

  Co-operation is needed at a local level to ensure that listing practices are effective and bring about significant improvements in, for example, the level of cracked and ineffective trials. In the Crown Court, improved case preparation and inter-agency moves towards better case management should lead to more effective listing practices, ensuring that cases are prepared and listed for trial more quickly.
  70
  Thirdly, the Glidewell Report made recommendations (68 to 72) for changes to the structure and remit of the CPS Inspectorate to incorporate a greater independent element. Those recommendations are being accepted in principle but with some modifications as to the detail. I propose that in future the CPS Inspectorate should be headed by a Chief Inspector appointed by me who would report to me. I also propose that there should be a non-executive Advisory Board which would include a lay member and that Inspectorate staff would include as well as CPS staff on secondment some individuals from outside the CPS. In addition, I propose that the remit of the Inspectorate should be widened to include performance efficiency and effectiveness so that it examines not only the quality of casework decisions and casework decision-making processes (as it does now), but also any other areas of CPS performance where they impact on issues surrounding casework, excluding financial audit. Consideration will be given to whether these arrangements should be placed on a statutory footing.

  I take this opportunity to commend all those who have participated in the work so far undertaken, whether within the CPS or in other criminal justice agencies, on the progress made. I am confident that the position we have reached provides a sound basis for the CPS to go forward as a national but decentralised service with effect from April 1999 and so obtain maximum benefit from the "fresh start" which the Glidewell Report advocated.

  I shall provide the House with a further report in the first half of 1999.

  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Attorney-General how many wasted costs orders have been made by courts against the Crown Prosecution Service in (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1997–98 and (iii) 1998–99 to date, with the breakdown of each Crown Prosecution Service Area and the total sums for such areas and further broken down by the Crown courts and the magistrates courts. [61161]

  The Attorney-General
  Wasted cost orders are usually understood to be orders against individuals pursuant to section 19A of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. These are extremely rare in relation to representatives of the Crown Prosecution Service.

  My hon. Friend's question is taken to refer to orders made under section 19(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, and regulation 3 of the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986, these being orders based on an unnecessary or improper act or omission for which the prosecution is held responsible. The numbers of such orders made against the Crown Prosecution Service are set out for each year in the tables, with the totals for each Area, broken down to show awards made in the Crown Court and those made in magistrates courts. The final column of each table shows the amounts actually paid out by the Crown Prosecution Service, but it is not possible to divide this into sums paid in respect of orders made in the Crown Court and orders made in magistrates courts.
  71
  The number of orders made does not necessarily equate with the numbers of orders paid. No central record is kept of the amounts ordered to be made, although the Crown Prosecution Service accounting system records the payments actually made in the relevant accounting year.

  Costs awarded against CPS—1998–99 (figures for April-September 1998 only)

  Number of costs awards against CPS

  Crown Court

  Magistrates Courts

  Amount paid (£)

  North

  1

  1

  3,497.16

  Yorkshire

  0

  6

  2,859.10

  Mersey/Lancashire

  4

  30

  245.00

  Humber

  0

  0

  3,180.55

  North West

  3

  7

  11,602.38

  East Midlands

  0

  2

  10,787.52

  Wales

  4

  8

  3,212.03

  Midlands

  3

  6

  2,871.16

  Anglia

  1

  5

  3,510.04

  Severn/Thames

  0

  7

  6,117.83

  South West

  4

  4

  1,549.68

  South East

  12

  40

  28,681.58

  London

  11

  12

  62,262.10

  Central Casework

  3

  1

  21,773.14

  Total

  46

  129

  162,149.27

  Costs awarded against CPS—1996–97

  Number of costs awards against CPS

  Crown Court

  Magistrates Courts

  Amount paid (£)

  North

  5

  13

  10,231.05

  Yorkshire

  12

  10

  10,623.21

  Mersey/Lancashire

  8

  13

  889.53

  Humber

  10

  5

  16,712.45

  North West

  9

  25

  5,874.16

  East Midlands

  11

  8

  18,164.41

  Wales

  4

  2

  5,863.78

  Midlands

  0

  11

  9,351.70

  Anglia

  8

  8

  53,847.27

  Severn/Thames

  13

  4

  8,768.53

  South West

  0

  14

  4,319.44

  South East

  11

  41

  15,039.59

  London

  95

  35

  67,876.30

  Central Casework

  5

  —

  49,948.01

  Total

  191

  189

  277,509.43

  Costs awarded against CPS—1997–98

  Number of costs awards against CPS

  Crown Court

  Magistrates Courts

  Amount paid (£)

  North

  1

  2

  448.60

  Yorkshire

  0

  4

  14,459.22

  Mersey/Lancashire

  6

  9

  2,957.47

  Humber

  2

  1

  8,800.04

  North West

  5

  11

  6,495.46

  East Midlands

  0

  1

  10,867.38

  Wales

  7

  11

  15,034.97

  Midlands

  3

  23

  8,899.79

  Anglia

  16

  5

  27,693.63

  Severn/Thames

  7

  8

  9,942.23

  South West

  5

  4

  18,142.06

  72

  Costs awarded against CPS—1997–98

  Number of costs awards against CPS

  Crown Court

  Magistrates Courts

  Amount paid (£)

  South East

  16

  104

  18,344.32

  London

  37

  39

  76,150.34

  Central Casework

  7

  1

  125,203.08

  Total

  112

  223

  343,478.59

  Notes:

  1. Information is not available to establish the enactment under which the orders were made and awards of costs made otherwise than in accordance with the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 may be included.

  2. The information in relation to the number of awards is limited to Crown Court and Magistrates Courts cases. It does not include costs awards made in the Higher Court.

  3. Information about the amounts paid includes payments in respect of orders made in the Higher Courts, but the amounts cannot be broken down by the type of court.

HEALTH

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the population aged between 16 and 65 years have(a) suffered from mental illness, (b) been under the care of a psychiatrist and (c) attempted suicide. [60993]

  Mr. Hutton
  A survey conducted in Great Britain in 1993 established that about one in six adults between the ages of 16 and 64 suffered from a neurotic disorder in the week before interview and about four per thousand had suffered from a psychotic disorder in the previous twelve months. There was no significant difference in the rates for England. Not all of those with neurotic symptoms would need medical care and in most cases this could be provided by the patient's general practitioner.

  Only a small proportion of mentally ill people will need in-patient care. Those patients with finished consultant episodes following admissions to hospitals are shown in the table.

  Information on attempted suicides is not collected centrally. The nearest data relating to attempted suicides are on self-inflicted injury resulting in admission to hospital, for which data are collected centrally. This information is included in the table.

  National Health Service hospital facilities 1995–96

  End age 16–65

  FCEs

  Percentage based on 1995 population estimate

  Mental illness

  154,560

  0.5

  Self-inflicted injury

  56,200

  0.2

  Note:

  FCE are Finished Concultant Episodes

  Figure have been rounded to the whole number

  Source:

  HES:ONS

  Abortion
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the accuracy of British abortion statistics; and if he will make a statement on how they are compiled. [61673]

  Ms Jowell
  Abortion statistics are compiled from the information provided on the notification form which medical practitioners are obliged by the Abortion Act 1967 to submit to the Chief Medical Officer within 7 days of each abortion. Incomplete or unclear forms are returned to practitioners for clarification and resubmission. Any evidence of non-reporting is investigated and would be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service if appropriate.

  The Department's Chief Medical Officer recently wrote to all obstetricians and gynaecologists in England and Wales to remind them of their legal obligations with regard to completion of notification forms.

  Cervical Cancer
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the use of hydrolysed DNA assay testing for the early detection of cervical cancer in tandem with the present smear test. [61530]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department is aware of a number of new technologies being developed which might be used to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the National Health Service cervical screening programme. Any changes to the programme will be introduced only after assessments have proven they are both clinically and cost-effective. The Advisory Committee on Cervical Screening is currently considering the potential role of new technologies in the cervical screening programme.

  Child Labour
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he expects to be able to announce proposals to alter child labour legislation in the United Kingdom; [60950]

  (2) if he will publish the representations received on the future of child labour legislation in the United Kingdom. [60951]

  Mr. Milburn
  We expect the report of the group currently reviewing child employment legislation to be available in the early part of next year. The timing of any alterations to child employment law will depend on the findings of that review. We expect the review's report to contain details of any representations they received.

  Dyslexia
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what departmental funding is made available for research programmes into the causes of dyslexia; and what expenditure is planned for 1999–2000; [60966]

  (2) what research information is held by his Department on the causes of childhood dyslexia; and if he will make a statement. [60960]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not hold, nor does it plan to commission, any research into the possible causes of dyslexia.
  74
  We are collaborating with the Department for Education and Employment on a small project to investigate whether the use of coloured overlays in schools could help the development of children's reading skills. The cost of this research has not yet been fully estimated.

  Children's Health (Income during Pregnancy)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the relationship between income during pregnancy and a child's(a) health in early years and (b) long-term health prospects. [61735]

  Ms Jowell
  The recent independent inquiry into inequalities in health, chaired by Sir Donald Acheson, examined, among other things, inequalities in women of childbearing age, expectant mothers and young children. More generally, the inquiry report drew attention to improvements in health and life expectancy associated with income and living standards.

  We are firmly committed to improving the living standards of the poorest households and are already taking a number of measures that will help to achieve this. We shall be considering Sir Donald's recommendations as a whole in the development of our new health strategy, about which we shall publish a White Paper early next year.

  Councillors
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the local authorities in(a) England and Wales and (b) Scotland showing the number of councillors on each who are (i) men and (ii) women. [61729]

  Ms Jowell
  The information requested has been the subject of a survey of local authorities conducted by the Women's Unit. It is in the process of being analysed. Not all the responses have been received as yet. The results are being examined and an analysis will be placed in the Library.

  Care Services (Gloucester)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what standard spending assessment has been allocated to Gloucester County Council for the provision of care services in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000. [61506]

  Mr. Hutton
  Details of the standard spending assessments allocated to Gloucestershire County Council for the provision of social services up to 1998–99 are shown in the table. Indicative standard spending assessment figures for 1999–2000 by local authority will be announced shortly.

  Year

  £ million

  1996–97

  61.579

  1997–98

  66.678

  1998–99

  70.932

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what care services local authorities are required to provide; what assessment he has made of the
  75
  level of care services provided by Gloucestershire County Council; what steps he is taking to improve care facilities; and if he will make a statement. [61507]

  Mr. Hutton
  Social services authorities' powers and duties to provide care services for adults are set out in various pieces of legislation, including the National Assistance Act 1948, the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968, the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995, and the Community Care (Direct Payments) Act 1996.

  Local authorities' responsibilities for providing care services for children are set out in the Children Act 1989, part III of which deals with support to children in need and their families including the provision of accommodation for children; part IV, with ensuring care and supervision through the courts; part V, with the protection of children from abuse and neglect; and part X concerns child minding and day care for young children.

  In recent years Gloucestershire has been inspected by the Social Services Inspectorate as follows:

  Year

  Report

  1998

  Care management/care programme approach (mental health)

  1997

  Hospital discharge (care management)

  1996

  Children leaving care

  1995

  Information Strategies and systems in community care

  1995

  Foster care

  1995

  Inspection units

  1994

  Complaints procedures

  Copies of all these reports are available in the Library.

  We are today publishing our White Paper, Modernising Social Services. This sets out a wide range of proposals to improve standards in all social services.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police (Early Retirement)
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to reduce the rate of early retirement in the police. [61112]

  Mr. Boateng
  Following our consultation document earlier this year on police pension arrangements, work is in hand on specific proposals to improve practice in managing ill-health retirement and to support good management practice with changes to the Police Pensions Regulations where necessary. Any proposals we make will be published in advance to allow for full consultation with the interested parties.

  Departmental Research
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the priorities for research in his Department. [61113]

  Mr. Boateng
  My Department is carrying out social and scientific research and evaluation across the range of Home Office policy and programmes, in particular,76
  formulating a new Crime Reduction Programme and evaluating the key proposals in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, a new programme of drugs research, carrying out repeat surveys of both Local Voluntary Activity and Youth Lifestyles and a £700,000 programme of police research. This year's external research programme of the Home Office's Research, Development and Statistics Directorate was published in June and copies are available in the Library. The details of the police research programme will soon be available on the Internet.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress being made in reducing the prison population. [61114]

  Mr. Boateng
  The prison population peaked at 66,500 at the end of July and, taking seasonal factors into account, there has been no substantial growth in the population since April this year.

  The Government believe that prison must be the right response for those who pose a danger to the public, such as violent or sexual offenders and for persistent offenders. It is, however, for the courts to decide the appropriate sentence in any individual case, within the statutory limits set by Parliament. The Prison Service has a duty to keep in custody those sentenced to prison and the Government's duty is to provide the resources to enable this to happen. The Comprehensive Spending Review took full account of this.

  Liquor Licensing Laws
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on reform of the liquor licensing laws. [61115]

  Mr. George Howarth
  On 5 May, I announced that we were starting a general review of the liquor licensing laws. This is underway; we need to look at the full range of issues before announcing our conclusions.

  Prisons (Drug Tests)
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his assessment is of the impact of random drug tests in prison. [61116]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Drug testing is an integral part of the Prison Service's drug strategy. It provides an indication of the level of drug misuse in prisons and a deterrent to those who may be tempted to use drugs. It is a valuable part of a package of measures to combat drug misuse. In May, I announced a new strategy for testing which provides for a more targeted approach.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the proportion of Prison Service expenditure derived from the Prison Service's trading activities. [61117]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Although the Prison Service is not set up as a trading organisation, it does derive income from commercial activities. Gross expenditure by the Prison Service in 1997–98 was £1,760.9 million.
  77
  This expenditure was offset by receipts of £23.3 million in the classes authorised for use as appropriations in aid, of which £8.4 million were from sales of capital assets. £7.7 million (33 per cent. of all receipts; 52 per cent. of current receipts) of those receipts arose from external sales from prison industries and farms.

  Police (Effectiveness)
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what performance indicators are used to measure the effectiveness of police forces. [61118]

  Mr. Boateng
  The effectiveness of police forces is measured against performance indicators identified by the Home Office, the Audit Commission and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) and the Association of Chief Police Officers. The indicators are designed to cover the most important aspects of service delivery. Detailed comparative analysis of performance based on the indicators is included in the published HMIC inspection reports.

  Channel Islands
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what deadlines he will be giving to the Channel Islands for the completion of the proposals set out in the Edwards report. [61119]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Minister of State, my noble Friend the Lord Williams of Mostyn, is to chair a group made up of representatives of the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the United Kingdom to examine the conclusions of the Edwards Report and the plans of action being drawn up in response to those conclusions, including timetables.

  Community Sentences
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out the steps he is taking to increase public awareness of the value of community sentences. [61120]

  Mr. George Howarth
  My Ministerial colleagues and I try to publicise good work undertaken by the probation service, of which there are many examples. We are also considering, in the light of responses to the consultation document "Joining Forces to Protect the Public", renaming community sentences to help the public to understand better what they involve and the important responsibilities which the probation service has in punishing offenders, reducing crime and protecting the public.

  Crime and Disorder Act 1998
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. [61121]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Crime and Disorder Act received Royal Assent on 31 July 1998. Of the 121 sections in it, 87 have now been brought into force, some on a pilot basis. The majority of other sections will be introduced within the next 12 months. Sex offender orders will come into force on 1 December. Anti-social behaviour orders will come into force on 1 April next year.
  78
  Crime and disorder reduction partnerships, which are central to the Act, are being established throughout England and Wales. Many areas have already undertaken significant work towards their crime and disorder audits. Up to date information on the implementation of the Act is available on the Internet at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/cdact/index.htm.

  Crime Victims
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to give increased rights to the victims of crime. [61122]

  Mr. Boateng
  We believe that the needs of victims and witnesses should be at the heart of the criminal justice system. We shall be introducing in the current parliamentary session the Youth Sentencing and Witnesses Bill, which will give increased rights to victims of crime. Other measures in the Bill, while not conferring rights on victims as such, will nonetheless make a further significant contribution towards improving the position of victims.

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice is given by his Department to the police about the need to inform the victims of crime about the outcome of their case. [61124]

  Mr. Boateng
  Under the Victim's Charter the police have a responsibility for informing victims if someone has been caught, cautioned or charged: victims who want to receive further information should additionally be told of any decision to drop or alter the charges substantially, the date of any trial and the final result. Most police forces have now established arrangements for keeping victims informed of more significant developments in their case, though practice varies across the country. Ways in which this Charter standard might be achieved more readily and more consistently have been the subject of pilot studies over the past two years. An interim evaluation report has just been published—a copy has been lodged in the Library—and the final evaluation should be available next Spring. Our intention is then to issue good practice guidelines to all police forces.

  Crime Reduction
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what resources he has made available to help reduce crime in areas with high offending rates. [61123]

  Mr. Boateng
  On 21 July 1998,Official Report, columns 914–24, the Government announced a new crime reduction programme supported by £250 million over the next three years. As part of that programme, we will be spending at least £50 million over the next three years on tackling domestic burglary in areas with a high burglary problem.

  Crime (Essex)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about the level of crime in Essex. [61125]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have received a number of representations from members of the public about crime issues in Essex.
  79
  The crime rate statistics for 1997–1998 recently presented to the Audit Commission for its annual review of police performance, confirmed that the crime rate in Essex decreased by 9.8 per cent. against the previous 12 months. The total number of offences falling to 89,380—the lowest since 1990.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the punishment of young offenders. [61126]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government have set out their policy on the punishment of young offenders in three consultation documents (Tackling Youth Crime, New National and Local Focus on Youth Crime and Tackling Delays in the Youth Justice System). By 8 December 1997, 297 responses had been received to "Tackling Youth Crime", 250 responses to "New National and Local Focus", and 177 responses to "Tackling Delays". Summaries of the responses to each of the three papers have been placed in the Library.

  The White Paper "No More Excuses—A New Approach to Tackling Youth Crime in England and Wales" was published in November 1997. Many of the policies contained in the White Paper were made by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which received Royal Assent on 31 July 1998.

  Detainees
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his current estimate of the number of people detained under immigration legislation. [61100]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As at 31 October, approximately 970 people were held in detention solely under Immigration Act powers.

  Psychiatric Care
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were clinically assessed as requiring medium secure psychiatric care in each of the last five years; how many of those assessed were transferred to psychiatric hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [61157]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The number of transfers to hospital by direction of the Home Secretary under section 47 and 48 of the Mental Health Act 1983 in each of the last five years was as follows:

  Year

  Number of Prisoners transferred

  1993

  767

  1994

  785

  1995

  723

  1996

  745

  1997

  745

  Some 50–60 per cent. of such transfers are to medium secure or equivalent conditions of security. Information about the number of clinical assessments for psychiatric care is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Medway Secure Training Centre
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the ministerial visits to the Medway Secure Training Centre since 1 May 1997. [61018]

  Mr. Boateng
  Medway Secure Training Centre opened on 17 April 1998. The then Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), visited the centre on 26 August, as did I on 17 November 1998.

  Sara Barhandi
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in ascertaining the whereabouts of Sara Barhandi, abducted from her home on 15 August. [60997]

  Mr. Boateng
  Since being notified of the disappearance of Sara Barhandi, the police have made extensive inquiries, both within the United Kingdom and abroad, in an effort to locate her. This included issuing an All Ports Bulletin in an effort to prevent her from being removed from this country. To date, no information has yet been received to confirm her whereabouts, although inquiries are ongoing.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will take steps to regulate the destruction of unwanted animals bred for use in experiments; [60936]

  (2) what steps he is taking to reduce the numbers of animals bred for use in experimentation but subsequently discarded without being so used; [60938]

  (3) if he will make it a requirement for those holding project licences under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to publish details of the number of surplus animals killed each year; [60937]

  (4) if he will estimate the number of animals bred each year for possible use in experimentation but subsequently discarded without being so used. [60939]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Under the terms of section 10 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, animals bred in designated establishments for use in scientific procedures but which are surplus to requirement must be killed by a method which is appropriate under Schedule 1 to the Act or otherwise approved by the Secretary of State. We have already accepted recommendations made by the Animal Procedures Committee, in its interim report on the review of the 1986 Act, that those killing animals by Schedule 1 methods should be trained and that a register of competent persons should be maintained in designated establishments. We have no plans, at this stage, to introduce further controls.

  The production of genetically modified animals is a regulated procedure under the terms of the 1986 Act and must, therefore, have project licence authority. Details of all such animals are already included in the annual statistics. Project licence holders are not, however, responsible for the breeding of non-genetically modified animals and it would not, therefore, be possible for them

  81
  to provide details of the number of surplus animals killed each year. All establishments are, however, required to keep records of the source, use and disposal of animals.

  The Animals Procedures Committee has been looking at overbreeding and wastage of laboratory animals as part of its review of the operation of the 1986 Act. The Committee's report on the review was published as appendix F to the Committee's annual report, which was laid before Parliament on 26 November. The Committee notes that some overbreeding is unavoidable, but it can be minimised and the Committee has identified six principles of good practice which will be refined in collaboration with the Laboratory Animal Science Association. We accept the Committee's recommendation that we should issue these as guidelines for breeding establishments.

  The Committee also suggests that establishments be required to report to the Home Office figures for overbreeding of those animals listed in Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act. We will consider this.

  Driving Offences
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average penalty applied to a person convicted of accidentally killing another whilst in charge of a motor vehicle. [61501]

  Mr. Boateng
  The readily available information relates to the average length of custodial sentences (unsuspended imprisonment and young offender institution) in England and Wales in 1996 for the three offences involving causing death and is as follows:

  Offence

  Average sentence length (months)

  Causing death by dangerous driving

  33.7

  Causing death by careless driving under influence of drink or drugs

  34.5

  Causing death by aggravated vehicle taking

  22.6

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were(a) charged with and (b) convicted of dangerous driving in the last year for which figures are available. [60934]

  Mr. Boateng
  The readily available information relates to the number of proceedings and findings of guilt for offences of dangerous driving, which, in England and Wales in 1996, the latest year for which figures are available, were 10,017 and 5,750 respectively.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he gives to the police regarding decisions on whether to prosecute offending motorists or to require them to undertake driver improvement schemes; what percentage of offending motorists(a) were prosecuted and (b) took part in these schemes in (i) Gloucestershire and (ii) the United Kingdom in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [61504]

  Mr. Boateng
  None. Decisions on whether to prosecute drivers or offer them a place on a driver improvement scheme are for the police to take in consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service, as appropriate. The figures requested are not available centrally.

  Policing (Greater Manchester)
  Ms Blears
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the funding to be made available for policing in Greater Manchester in 1999–2000. [61107]

  Mr. Boateng
  My right hon. Friend announced on 21 July 1998,Official Report, column 915, that the police service in England and Wales will receive an additional £1.24 billion over the next three years from 1999–2000. Our plans allow for police expenditure to increase by 2.65 per cent. in 1999–2000. Funding will be allocated to individual police authorities by means of a needs-based formula next year. We will announce provisional allocations later this week.

  Sex Trafficking
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information his Department (i) collects and (ii) publishes on the trafficking in women for sexual purposes in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the rest of the EU and (c) wider Europe. [61533]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government do not collect statistical information specific to women who are trafficked for sexual purposes.

  The Home Office Policing and Reducing Crime Unit of the Research, Development and Statistics Directorate is currently considering commissioning a small research study on trafficking in women. This will draw together any information which exists on the extent and forms of trafficking in women in England and Wales.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what involvement his Department has in the efforts to combat the trafficking in women for sexual purposes in(a) the EU and (b) wider Europe. [61531]

  Mr. Boateng
  The United Kingdom is fully committed to opposing trafficking in women and its associated activities. We are taking steps to implement the European Union Joint Action of December 1996 to combat trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation of children, and we support and participate in the European Union STOP programme, which provides for incentives and exchanges for persons responsible for combating trafficking in human beings and the sexual exploitation of children. In addition, we recently adopted The Hague Ministerial declaration on a European Code of Conduct to prevent and combat trafficking in women for the purpose of sexual exploitation.

  Among other initiatives, this year the United Kingdom took part in an European Union/United States information campaign to address the problem of trafficking in women from Poland and the Ukraine. We are also working on the problem, together with other European Union member states and countries of Central and Eastern Europe, within the European Conference. At the meeting of the European Conference on 6 October 1998, the conference tasked its expert group on drugs and organised crime to examine how the measures in the Joint Action to combat trafficking in human beings and the sexual exploitation of children could be extended to all States participating in the group's work.

  The Government also support action to combat illegal immigration, including that of women for sexual purposes, in both European Union and international fora, and have

  83
  supported information campaigns aimed at alerting women to the risks involved in such illegal immigration.

  European Network of Policewomen
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what contribution his Department makes to the work of the European Network of Policewomen; what is the composition and role of the network; and what is the estimated annual cost to public funds of United Kingdom participation in it. [61532]

  Mr. Boateng
  The organisation is based in the Netherlands and the majority of its funds are provided by the Dutch Ministries of the Interior and Justice. This Department does not make any contribution to the work of the European Network of Policewomen centrally. However, a small number of police forces and National Police Training at Bramshill, who are supporting members, have made small annual contributions.

  I understand that the main objective of this organisation is
  "to optimise the position of policewomen in the European police service".

  It promotes the exchange of information, research and training between organisations and individuals who endorse the ideal that the police organisation should be a place where women and men can work together as equals.

  Dyslexia
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the percentage of the(a) female and (b) male prison population who are dyslexic in each of the past 10 years. [60946]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Prison Service does not currently undertake separate screening tests for dyslexia so the information requested is not available. However, dyslexia screening on induction for prisoners in the dispersal estate is to be introduced from 1 January 1999. In addition, the Prison Service is looking at a number of options to identify dyslexia needs among prisoners and will issue guidance on screening tests to providers of prison education when the research which it has commissioned is complete, at the end of February 1999.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his Department's estimate of the number of current young offenders who are dyslexic; and what estimate he has made of the number in each of the last five years. [60947]

  Mr. Boateng
  No information is available about the number of young offenders who are dyslexic. However, results from Prison Service skills screening tests for literacy and numeracy amongst prisoners in general suggest that 60 per cent. have poor literacy and communication skills and 75 per cent. have poor numeracy skills.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what specialist help is available to dyslexic prisoners by the Prisons Education Department; and if he will make a statement. [60948]

  Mr. George Howarth
  All education departments in prisons try to identify the individual learning needs of prisoners. Where there is an indication that there are 84
  dyslexia needs, specialist advice and guidance is sought and appropriate learning can be made available. Specialist advice is sought from the British Dyslexia Association which provides a full diagnostic assessment, or, within some education departments, from teachers who have undertaken specialist training leading to nationally recognised accreditation.

  WPC Fletcher
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to make a statement on Scotland Yard's continuing investigation into the case of WPC Fletcher. [61088]

  Mr. Straw
  As I said to my hon. Friend in my answer of 26 October 1998,Official Report, column 47, I understand from the Metropolitan Police that their review of the evidence surrounding the murder of Woman Police Constable Fletcher is nearing completion. I expect to receive a report as soon as is practicable after the police inquiries are completed.

  Firearms Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total cost of all the options of(a) the high calibre handgun compensation scheme and (b) the low calibre handgun compensation scheme; and what were the associated staff costs in each case. [61633]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information is as follows:

  Cost of payments under the large-calibre handgun compensation scheme: £57,160,0797

  Cost of payments under the ex gratia payment scheme for small-calibre pistols: £4,671,200

  Cost of payments under the statutory compensation scheme for small-calibre pistols: £1,452,958

  Firearms Compensation Section staff costs (including Agency staff) at end October 1998: £1,704,339.

  Immigration Advisers
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to bring forward measures to regulate immigration advisers. [61092]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We hope to bring forward legislation to regulate unscrupulous immigration advisers in the next few months.

TREASURY

  Pensions Mis-selling
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the FSA has taken to investigate the possibility of general mis-selling of(a) free-standing additional voluntary contributions and (b) other pension top-up policies since their introduction. [61186]

  Ms Hewitt
  This is a matter for the Financial Services Authority. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the FSA's statement of 19 October.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the uncertainties involved in estimating the ultimate cost to firms of the mis-selling pensions review;
  85
  and what steps he will take to produce an estimate of the split of the likely cost of the pension review between with profits and unit linked policies. [61182]

  Ms Hewitt
  This is a matter for the Financial Services Authority.

  VAT (Dried Fruit)
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate the revenue from VAT on sweetened dried fruit sold as confectionery in(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000 as a result of HM Customs updating of VAT Notice 701/14 Food; [60878]

  (2) how much revenue was raised from VAT charged on sweetened dried fruit sold as confectionery in (a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98. [60877]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are no actual figures on VAT receipts from dried fruits available. Using information on sales of dried fruit, HM Customs and Excise estimate the VAT on sweetened dried fruit sold as confectionery to be no more than £5 million for each year.

  The updating of VAT Notice 701/14 Food has no effect on the VAT treatment of sweetened dried fruit sold specifically as confectionery.

  Individual Savings Accounts
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the advantages of including the savings-related share option scheme within the proposed system of ISA accounts. [61187]

  Ms Hewitt
  The facility to transfer shares emerging from Inland Revenue approved all-employee savings related share option and profit sharing schemes to ISAs continues a facility already available with single company PEPs. The facility has been retained for ISAs following responses to the original ISA consultation by companies operating these schemes. We are persuaded that this facility is a significant incentive to employees in these schemes to hold onto their shares and can help to achieve our objective of boosting employee share ownership.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is his latest estimate of the number of additional savers expected as a result of the introduction of the individual savings account; and if he will make a statement; [61070]

  (2) how many extra savers he expects as a result of the introduction of the individual savings account. [60945]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Gentlemen to the answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) on 17 November 1998,Official Report, column 496.

  Financial Services
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he intends to take to collect information on the proportions of financial services products sold(a) on commission and (b) by advisers taking a fixed fee. [61185]

  Ms Hewitt
  None.

  Double Tax Relief
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to publish a consultation document on his review into double tax relief. [61041]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 27 November 1998]: No date has been set for publication of the consultation document. Informal consultations with business and with representative bodies are still continuing.

  European Community VAT
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions have taken place in the Council of Ministers (ECOFIN) in respect of the proposals of the European Commission in Com (96) 328 Final concerning a revised system of VAT. [61727]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The European Commission's proposals for a Common VAT System were presented to member states at the 14 October 1996 ECOFIN by Commissioner Monti, but they were not endorsed or debated at that meeting. A Commission proposal to reform the VAT Committee, which forms part of the Common VAT System proposals, is on the agenda for the ECOFIN meeting on 1 December 1998.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what memoranda have been made available to(a) hon. Members and (b) others, signed by Ministers, concerning the proposals of the European Commission for a revised system of community value added tax, as contained in their Document 9466/96 Com (96) 328 Final; and on what dates they were made available. [61726]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The following Explanatory Memoranda have been made available to hon. Members:Document 9466/96 of 25 September 1996 on the Commission's overall work programme for a Common VAT System;
  Document 7478/97 of 16 June 1997 and Supplementary Document 12805/97 of 17 December 1997 on a proposal for enhanced arrangements for co-operation between tax authorities;
  Document 9118/97 of 29 July 1997 on a proposal for reform of the VAT Committee;
  Document 9741/98 of 21 July 1998 on a proposal concerning the rules governing the right to deduct VAT; and
  Document 9877/98 of 24 July 1998 on a proposal on mutual assistance in the recovery of debts.

  EC Monetary Committee
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals have been placed before the Council of Ministers (ECOFIN) of the European Community for the formation of the Monetary Committee required under Article 109c of the Treaty of Maastricht and Article 114 of the proposed consolidated Treaty of that community; and if he will make a statement. [61725]

  Ms Hewitt
  In accordance with Article 109c(2) of the Treaty, the present Monetary Committee will be dissolved at the beginning of stage 3 of EMU (1 January 1999). The same Article requires that an Economic and Financial Committee (EFC) be set up as its successor.

  On 25 February 1998 the European Commission presented its proposal for the formation of the EFC. This was circulated to Member States on 27 March 1998 (7189/98 COM(1998)110 final).
  87
  The proposal was deposited in Parliament on 7 April 1998 and an explanatory memorandum was submitted to Parliament on 22 April 1998. This cleared scrutiny on 27 April 1998 through the Lords Select Committee on the European Communities (the Chairman's 954th Sift) and on 29 April 1998 through the Commons Select Committee on European Legislation (26th Report Session—1997–98).

  The tasks of the EFC are set out in the Treaty.

  EU Convergence Programme
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has submitted a new convergence programme revising that of September 1997 to the EU Council following the downward revision of his growth projections. [61718]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government intend to submit a new Convergence Programme in the near future.

  Drugs
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what quantity of heroin has been imported into the United Kingdom through controlled deliveries since 1985; from which countries it came; and in(a) how many instances and (b) what quantity some of those imports have gone missing. [61717]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is not Customs and Excise policy to disclose detailed information relating to operational activity.

  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish the result of the Customs National Investigation Service inquiry into the practice of the controlled delivery of drugs by drugs liaison officers attached to the British High Commission in Islamabad. [61486]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs are conducting an internal review of procedures used in controlled deliveries. It is not practice to publish such reviews.

  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action was taken in respect of the senior British Drugs Liaison Officer who was caught in possession of heroin in his official vehicle in mid-1997. [61627]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No such incident took place.

  European Central Bank
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his policy to promote increased transparency in the decision-making processes of the European Central Bank; and if he will make a statement. [61063]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government believe that it is vital that the European Central Bank (ECB) is as open and transparent as possible. Transparency is an important factor in ensuring that the ECB gains the trust of the European public and financial markets. Ultimately it will provide the credibility needed to deliver a more effective monetary policy. The Government welcomed the announcement by the ECB on 13 October on elements of their monetary policy strategy which was a useful first step. The Government hope to see further evidence from the ECB of a genuine commitment to openness.
  88
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his policy that the European Central Bank should adopt an inflation target; and if he will make a statement. [61064]

  Ms Hewitt
  In accordance with the Treaty, the primary objective of the ECB is to achieve price stability. The ECB announced on 13 October its intention to base monetary policy decisions on a wide range of economic and financial variables, including a monetary aggregate. This is typical of most central banks, including the Bank of England. The important issue is that the ECB meets it Treaty objective.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the full-year revenue yield of introducing a new 50 per cent. rate of income tax on taxable income of over £100,000 per annum. [61196]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimated full year yield at 1998–99 income levels of introducing a 50 per cent. rate of income tax on taxable incomes over £100,000 per year is £2.0 billion.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the number of people likely to benefit from the working families tax credit in each parliamentary constituency in the United Kingdom. [61803]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I regret that estimates for individual constituencies are not available.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Visa Applications
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for visit visas have been refused at the high commissions in(a) Colombo, (b) Islamabad, (c) Delhi, (d) Accra and (e) Istanbul, and what proportion of total applications this represents, in each of the last four years, and in the current year to date. [61000]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The numbers of visit visas refused so far this year in(a) Colombo, (b) Islamabad, (c) Delhi, (d) Accra and (e) Istanbul are as follows:

  January to October 1998

  Issued

  Refused

  Percentage of total visit applications processed

  Colombo

  11,950

  427

  3.4

  Islamabad

  32,429

  6,249

  16.2

  Delhi

  52,925

  4,665

  8.1

  Accra

  17,944

  4,136

  18.7

  Istanbul

  49,597

  2,222

  4.2

  Global Entry Clearance Statistics for the years 1994–97 inclusive have recently been made available to the House of Commons Library. These contain the other information requested in respect of previous years.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government plans to make to the Pakistan Government following the murder of a family of nine Christians in Nowshera Peshawar. [61003]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We were deeply shocked by the murder of nine members of a Christian family near Peshawar. The murders have been condemned by the Government of Pakistan. We and our European Union partners regularly urge the Government of Pakistan to protect the rights of religious minorities in their country, most recently at a meeting between Pakistan and the EU Troika on 25 November.

  Sara Barhandi
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he has made in ascertaining the whereabouts of Sara Barhandi, who was abducted from her home on 15 August. [60996]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The precise whereabouts of Sara Barhandi remain unknown. Our Vice Consul has contacted Sara's relatives in Morocco but they did not disclose here whereabouts.

  Sara is a dual British/Moroccan national. While she is in Morocco our Embassy has no formal locus to intervene. Consular staff will, however, continue to offer as much support to Sara's mother as they properly can and make informal inquiries with the Moroccan authorities.

  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the export of armoured vehicles for use by the US and British embassies in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the export of armoured vehicles and other non-lethal military equipment to the Kosovo Diplomatic Observers Mission in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. [62007]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Government has allowed the export to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) of eight armoured Land Rovers, for use by the US Embassy in Belgrade, and a further two armoured Land Rovers and an armoured Rover saloon for use by the British Embassy in Belgrade. We attach the highest priority to ensuring the safety of staff and personnel at our Embassy in Belgrade, and we rightly recognise that other diplomatic missions, like the US Embassy in Belgrade, attach high priority to the protection of their staff. We were therefore glad to be able to allow these exports, which are not caught by arms embargoes against the FRY.

  In advance of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe's establishment of the Kosovo Verification Mission (KVM), the Government have allowed also the export of up to 30 armoured Land Rovers and other essential and non-lethal military equipment for use by observers at the British Embassy in Belgrade (known as the Kosovo Diplomatic Observers Mission, or KDOM). It is clearly important that British and other staff at KDOM should be protected in the course of their duties which include monitoring the enforcement of the arms
  90
  embargo against the FRY. These personnel will, in due course, become members of KVM. The UN Sanctions Committee has raised no objection to these exports.

  Argentina
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new exceptions there have been to the arms embargo on Argentina. [62008]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Licences have recently been issued to allow the following exports:

  (a) two firearms (deactivated to Argentina specification) to a private individual in Argentina;

  (b) nine sets of gun rings and smoke grenade launchers to be mounted on armoured personnel carriers in service with the Argentine contingent of the UN forces in Cyprus;

  (c) re-export of radio equipment for the Argentine Gendarmeria after repair by the manufacturer in the United Kingdom;

  (d) supply of radio equipment for the Argentina Gendarmeria.

  These decisions represent exceptions but not changes to the arms embargo on Argentina, which remains in place unchanged.

  Council of the European Union
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union for December and the major European Union events for the next six months. [62009]

  Ms Quin
  The information is as follows:

  Forecast of business

  Business

  December 1998

  1

  Brussels

  Transport Council (continuation from 30 November)

  1

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  1–2

  Brussels

  Social Affairs Council

  1

  Brussels

  Joint meeting of the ESA and ECOFIN Councils

  3–4

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  4

  Brussels

  Education Council

  7

  Brussels

  Internal Market Council

  7–8

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  10

  Brussels

  Research Council

  11–12

  Vienna

  European Council

  14–16

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  17–18

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  21

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  The following subjects are likely to be discussed:

  December 1: ECOFIN Council

  Employment

  Preparation for Stage 3 of EMU

  Follow-up to the declaration of 2 May

  Stability and convergence programmes

  Agenda 2000

  Taxes

  December 1: Joint meeting of the Social Affairs and ECOFIN Councils

  Report from the Presidency

  Commission first draft of the 1999 Employment Guidelines (debate)

  Joint report on Employment 1998 (adoption)

  91
  December 1 and 2: Social Affairs Council

  Report from the Presidency on the preparation of the European Council (Vienna)

  Commission first draft of the 1999 Employment Guidelines

  Joint Report on Employment 1998 (debate)

  Employment Rates Report

  Draft Council Directive on employee involvement within the European Company—political agreement

  Follow-up to the Beijing Conference on Women (the Council will take note of the annual Report)

  Second phase of the Community vocational training programme Leonardo Da Vinci (legal basis: Article 127) (oral report from the Presidency)

  Extension of 1408/71 (students and other insured persons) (political agreement)

  Amended proposal for a Directive on the protection of workers potentially at risk from explosive atmospheres (legal basis: Article 118 A) (political agreement)

  Proposal for a Council Decision relating to the Conclusion of an agreement between the EC and the Council of Europe (European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia) (legal basis: Article 7(3) of Council Regulation No. 1035/97) (political agreement)

  Amended proposal for a Council Directive amending for the second time Directive 90/394/EEC on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens at work (legal basis: Article 118 A TEC) (political agreement)

  Mid-term report on the Community programme concerning safety, hygiene and health at work (1996–2000) (debate)

  Amended proposal for a decision on the promotion of European pathways for work-linked training, inc apprenticeships (legal basis: Article 127) (political agreement)

  December 3 and 4: Justice and Home Affairs Council

  Convention and protocol

  Action plan to create an area of liberty, security and justice

  Preparations for the entry into force of Amsterdam

  Legal action on European solidarity

  European migration strategy

  Regulation on countries subject to visas

  Enlargement: evaluation

  Determination and classification of the Schengen legal situation

  Incorporation of the Schengen information system in the EU legal framework

  Progress report on work on the Convention on the admission of third-country nationals

  Council Decision on monitoring the implementation of the instruments adopted in the field of asylum

  Joint action on the approximation of legislation to combat counterfeiting (adoption)

  Explanatory report on the Second Protocol to the Convention on the protection of financial interests (adoption)

  Joint action on money laundering and confiscation

  Joint action on combating corruption in the private sector (if not adopted in September)

  Convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters

  Revision of the Brussels and Lugano Conventions (progress report)

  Rome II: Convention on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (progress report)

  Implementation of the CIS Convention

  Driving disqualifications: explanatory report

  Implementation of the joint action on synthetic drugs

  Implementation of the joint action on the approximation of drug laws

  92

  Ratification of previous conventions (appeal to the Member States in line with recommendations 13 and 14 of the Action Plan and Cardiff follow-up)

  Start-up report

  Decision extending the mandate to terrorism

  Document on the threat posed by terrorism

  IRAQ: final report

  Expert working party report on best practice

  Report on measures to combat counterfeiting of the EURO

  Council Resolution on the prevention of organised crime with reference to the establishment of a comprehensive strategy for combating it: adoption

  OC annual report

  Report to the European Council on implementation of the action plan to combat OC

  Report on implementation of the Resolution on hooligans

  Report on implementation of the Resolution of 18 December 1997 on priorities in the fields of justice and home affairs from 1 January 1998 until the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty

  Article 18—Committee meeting (possible)

  December 4: Education Council

  Proposal for a European Parliament and Council decision establishing the second phase of the Community action programme "Socrates" (poss. common position)

  Second phase of the Community vocational training programme Leonardo Da Vinci (legal basis: Article 127) (poss.) (common position)

  Proposal for a Council decision adopting the third phase of the trans-European co-operation scheme for higher education (Tempus III) (poss. adoption)

  (poss.) Action plan for the implementation of the Green Paper "Education, vocational training, research: obstacles to transnational mobility" (presentation by the Commission)

  (poss.) Proposal for a Council recommendation on the statute of mobile students (included the transfer of Scholarships) (presentation by the Commission)

  Report by the Commission on the implementation of pilot projects in the context of the objectives of the White Paper on education and training, "teaching and learning: towards the learning society" (presentation by the Commission and debate)

  1999 National Employment Action Plans (debate)

  December 7: Internal Market Council

  European Company Statute

  Free Movement of Goods—Intervention Mechanism

  Proposal for an amending Directive concerning liability for defective products

  Internal Market and Cardiff process of economic reform—presidency report

  Proposal for a directive on certain legal aspects of electronic commerce (presentation by the Commission)

  December 7–8: General Affairs Council

  Agenda 2000

  Enlargement

  Preparation of Amsterdam Treaty Implementation

  Russia

  Human Rights: 50th Anniversary Celebration 10 December (poss.)

  Preparation of the Vienna European Council

  Asylum and Immigration Task Force

  Council Working Methods

  Western Balkans

  Middle East Peace Process

  Cuba

  93

  South Africa

  Switzerland

  Draft Regulation GSP for 1999–2000

  Transatlantic Relations

  December 10: Research Council

  (poss.) Fifth EC RTD Framework programme (final adoption)

  (poss.) Fifth Euratom Research Framework programme (final adoption)

  (poss.) Fifth EC and Euratom Framework programmes—Specific programmes (final adoption)

  (poss.) International Cooperation (poss. signature/conclusion of agreements with pre-accession CEECs and Cyprus, and other third countries)

  December 11–12: European Council

  No agenda yet available

  December 14–16: Agriculture Council

  No agenda yet available

  December 17–18: Fisheries Council

  Proposal for a Regulation setting TACs and Quotas for 1999 and related legislation (adoption)

  (poss.) The Future of the Common Fisheries Policy (2002) (oral report by the Commission)

  Council Regulation on the common organisation of the markets in the fisheries sector (presentation by the Commission)

  (poss.) Funding of the collection of data of the common fisheries policy (presentation by the Commission)

  Modification of Regulation 3699 on Structural Funds for Fisheries (IFOP) (presentation by the Commission)

  December 21: Environment Council

  (poss.) Draft proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and the Council amending directive 88/77/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the measures to be taken against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from diesel engines for use in vehicles (heavy goods vehicles) (common position)

  Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (political agreement: EP Opinion expected in February)

  (poss.) Proposal for a Council Directive on ozone-depleting substances (common position)

  Proposal for a Council Decision on the monitoring of CO, emissions from passenger cars in the Community (common position)

  Proposal for a Council Directive on the labelling of fuel consumption of passenger cars (common position)

  Community strategy on climate change: follow-up to Buenos Aires (Council conclusions)

  Proposal for a Council Directive on "end-of-life vehicles" (common position)

  European calendar: December 1998-May 1999

  Month

  December 1998

  1

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  1

  Brussels

  Transport Council

  1

  Brussels

  Social Affairs and ECOFIN Council

  1

  Vienna

  Parliamentary Heads

  2

  Brussels

  Social Affairs Council

  2–3

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  3–4

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  4

  Brussels

  Education Council

  7

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  7

  Brussels

  Internal Market Council

  7–8

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  10

  Brussels

  Research Council

  11

  Vienna

  Political Committee

  11–12

  Vienna

  European Council

  94

  European calendar: December 1998-May 1999

  Month

  14–16

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  14–18

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  17–18

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  21

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  January 1999

  1

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  11–15

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  14

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council (possible)

  18–19

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  18

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  19

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  25

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  25–26

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  27–28

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  February 1999

  4–6

  Bonn

  Ministers for Labour & Social Affairs (Informal)

  8

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  8–12

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  11–12

  Berlin

  Ministers for Justice & Home Affairs (Informal)

  18

  Brussels

  Research Council (possible)

  22

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  22–23

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  22–23

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  24–25

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  25

  Brussels

  Internal Market

  March 1999

  9

  Brussels

  Social Affairs Council

  11–12

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  12

  Brussels

  Justice & Home Affairs Council (possible)

  13–14

  Reinhartshausen

  Foreign Ministers (Informal)

  15

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  15–16

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  18

  Brussels

  Education Council

  22

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  22–23

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  24–25

  Brussels

  Special European Council

  24–25

  Frankfurt

  Asia-Europe Finance Ministers

  25

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  29

  Brussels

  Transport Council

  29–30

  Berlin

  Asia-Europe Foreign Ministers

  April 1999

  13

  Luxembourg

  Consumer Affairs Council

  15–16

  Stuttgart

  Barcelona III

  16–18

  Dresden

  ECOFIN (Informal)

  19–20

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  22

  Luxembourg

  Telecommunications Council

  23–25

  Mecklenburg

  Environment Ministers (Informal)

  24–25

  Luxembourg

  NATO Summit

  26–27

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  29

  Luxembourg

  Industry Council

  May 1999

  6

  Brussels

  EU-ACP Ministerial meeting

  10

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  10

  Brussels

  Social Affairs Council

  10

  Bremen

  WEU Council

  10–11

  Berlin

  Trade Ministers (Informal)

  11

  Brussels

  Energy Council

  17–18

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  17–18

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  18–19

  Weimar

  Culture Ministers (Informal)

  20

  Brussels

  Research Council

  21

  Brussels

  Development Council

  25

  Brussels

  Joint ECOFIN and Labour & Social Affairs Council

  27

  Brussels

  Youth Council

  27–28

  Brussels

  Justice & Home Affairs Council

  31

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  30 May-1 June

  Dresden

  Agriculture Ministers (Informal)

  Note:

  This calendar is primarily concerned with European Union matters, but certain other relevant events are also included. Events and dates quoted are based on the information available on the date of issue.

  International Criminal Court
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the United Kingdom will sign the Statute of the International Criminal Court. [620111]s

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Our Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York will sign the Statute of the Court today on behalf of the UK.

  Official Hospitality (Wine)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the total expenditure of the Government Hospitality Fund Advisory Committee for the Purchase of Wine since 1 May 1997; what is the average cost of each bottle purchased; and what percentage of wine purchased is of United Kingdom origin. [60940]

  Mr. Fatchett
  There has been no expenditure by the Government Hospitality Fund Advisory Committee for the Purchase of Wine. The Committee makes recommendations on quality only and is not involved with the purchase of wine.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what is the oldest bottle of wine held for Government hospitality purposes; [61517]

  (2) what has been the most expensive bottle purchased on the recommendation of the Government Hospitality Fund Advisory Committee for the Purchase of Wine since 1 May 1997. [61515]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The purchasing policy for wines bought for the Government Hospitality cellar are the same as those that applied under previous Administrations. Wines are purchased to ensure availability at reasonable cost of appropriate wines suitable for the wide variety of functions organised by Government Hospitality.

  The oldest wine in the cellar is a top grade Claret, Château Latour 1955. The most expensive bought since 1 May 1997, a Claret of equal quality, is Château La Fleur Petrus 1995, which cost £37.60 a bottle inclusive of VAT.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the members of the Government Hospitality Fund Advisory Committee for the Purchase of Wine; how many times the committee has met since 1 May 1997; if its deliberations are a matter of public record; and if he will make a statement. [60941]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Chairman of the Government Hospitality Fund Advisory Committee for the Purchase of Wine is Sir Ewen Fergusson; the four members are Mr. Anthony Hanson MW, Mr. Mark Savage MW, Mr. Sebastian Payne MW and Mr. John Avery MW. The Committee has met six times since 1 May 1997 and produced an Annual Report recording its work for 1997 which was published on 28 January 1998.

  Pitcairn Island (Asbestos)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library 96
  a copy of the report from the Government of Pitcairn Island on the disposal of asbestos waste near the island. [61674]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  An urgent investigation into the circumstances of the incident is being carried out. When the information is available a report will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Office Automation
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the replacement programme for office automation and telecommunications infrastructure will be completed. [61677]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The FCO's office automation replacement programme will be completed in 2000. The implementation schedule ensures that all FCO business critical computer systems will be millennium compliant, either by correction or replacement, before the end of 1999.

  A private finance initiative contract that will provide a managed voice and massaging service between the FC and its overseas missions is in the final stages of negotiation. The contract, which is expected to be signed by mid February 1999, states that implementation of the full service will take 25 months from contract signature. But implementation has already started, under an Instruction to Proceed, in order to replace all non-millennium compliant telephone switchboards.

  Sudan
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reply he has given to the invitation from the Sudanese Government for a United Kingdom verification mission to examine the Al-Shifa factory site. [61500]

  Mr. Fatchett
  A revised draft resolution on this issue has recently been submitted to the UN Security Council. We believe that this is the appropriate place for such suggestions to be considered.

  We will continue to urge Sudan to become a party to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits the acquisition, development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It is supported by a verification regime consisting of data declarations and on-site inspections.

  Iraq
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the legal authority on which the Government plan to take military action against Iraq are based. [61676]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The precise legal basis for any future military action will depend on the circumstances at the time, but any action taken by the Government will be lawful.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the Iraqi opposition groups that ministers have met over the past four weeks. [61675]
  97
  Mr. Fatchett
  I met representatives of the following Iraqi opposition groups on 23 November: Constitutional Monarchy Movement; Iraqi Democratic Party; Association of Iraqi Democrats; Assyrian Democratic Movement; Patriotic Union of Kurdistan; Turkoman National Democratic Movement; Islamic Accord Party; Kurdish Democratic Party; Ahl al-Bayt; Iraqi Reform Movement; Iraqi National Movement; Mr. al-Rubaie (Independent); Iraqi National Congress; Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq; Iraqi National Accord (Wifaq).

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to introduce freedom of information legislation on St. Helena. [61466]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  This is a matter for the St. Helena Government which have no plans to introduce such legislation.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  National Insurance
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has yet completed his review of National Insurance contributions for 1999–2000. [62006]

  Mr. Darling
  We have completed the annual review under Section 141 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. Proposals will take effect from 6 April 1999 alongside the structural changes to National Insurance contributions announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget on 17 March 1998,Official Report, columns 1097–112, and re-affirmed in his Pre-Budget report on 3 November 1998, Official Report, columns 681–702.

  Full details of the changes to the structure of employees and employers National Insurance contributions (NICs) from April 1999 are as follows:

  (i) the NICs "entry fee" currently payable by employees once earnings reach the lower earnings limit (currently £64 a week) will be abolished, so that employees will not pay NICs on the portion of earnings at or below the lower earning limit;

  (ii) employers will also no longer pay NICs on the portion of earnings at or below the lower earnings limit once earnings reach that level. The point at which employers start to pay NICs will be further increased to the level of the personal tax allowance. In practice, this will mean no employers' contributions will be payable on earnings up to and including £83 a week;

  (iii) the 3 per cent., 5 per cent., 7 per cent. and 10 per cent. rates of employers' NICs for different levels of employees' earnings will be abolished and replaced with a single 12.2 per cent. rate of employer NICs payable on earnings above the level of the personal tax allowance;

  (iv) to ensure employers with Contracted-out Salary Related Pension Schemes (COSRS) or Contracted-out Money Purchase Pension Schemes (COMPS) are entitled to the same level of NIC rebate, they will continue to be entitled to a rebate on earnings between the lower earnings limit and the personal tax allowance.

  98
  Employers and Employees
  In line with the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, the lower earnings limits for Class 1 contributions is to be raised to £66 a week. It is set at the level of the basic Retirement Pension rate for a single person from April 1999, rounded down to the nearest pound.
  The upper earnings limit is to be raised to £500 a week which is slightly less than 7½ times the new basic pension rate as provided by the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act. These new earnings limits will replace the current ones of £64 and £485 respectively.
  Employees will pay a standard rate contribution of 10 per cent. on that portion of their earnings which exceeds the lower but not the upper earnings limit.
  As announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his 3 November Pre-Budget Report, the Earnings Threshold from which employers will start to pay secondary Class 1 contributions will be £83 a week.
  The multiple contribution rates for employers will be replaced by a standard contribution rate of 12.2 per cent. on all earnings which exceed the earnings threshold.

  Not Contracted Out Employees and their Employers
  Employees will not have to pay any contributions on earnings at or below £66 a week. Employees whose earnings do not exceed £485 (the former upper earnings limit) will pay £1.48 a week less in contributions than at present. This is because the 2 per cent. entry fee on earnings up to the LEL has been removed and a further £2 of their weekly earnings will not be subject to any contributions rather than 10 per cent. For employees with earnings above £485 the maximum possible increase will be £0.02 a week.
  Employers will not have to pay contributions on earnings below £83 a week.

  Contracted Out Employees and their Employers
  Employees whose earnings do not exceed £485 (the former upper earnings limit) will pay £1.44 a week less in contributions than at present. This is because the 2 per cent. entry fee on earnings up to the LEL has been removed and a further £2 of their weekly earnings will not be subject to any contributions rather than 8.4 per cent. For employees with earnings above £485 there will be no increase in contributions and the minimum possible reduction will be 18p a week.

  Employers who operate a Contracted-Out Salary Related Scheme (COSR)
  Where earnings are between £66 and £83 employers contributions will be reduced by £1.92 a week. This is due removal of the entry fee. Employers will pay a reduced rate of 9.2 per cent. on employee's earnings which exceed the Earnings Threshold.

  Employers who operate a Contracted-Out Money Purchase Scheme (COMP)
  Where earnings are between £66 and £83 employers contributions will be reduced by between £1.95 and £2.20 a week. This is due to the removal of the entry fee and the introduction of the Earnings Threshold which means that a further £19 of earnings is not subject to any contributions. Employers will pay a reduced rate of 11.6 per cent. on all earnings which exceed the Earnings Threshold.
  99
  Self-Employed People
  The flat rate Class 2 contribution will be raised by 20p to £6.55 a week.
  Self-employed people with profits less than a specified amount, known as the small earnings exception limit, can apply to be excepted from paying Class 2 contributions. This limit will be raised by £180 to £3,770.
  There will be no change to the rate of Class 4 contributions which will remain at 6 per cent. The annual limits of profits between Class 4 contributions are paid will be raised to £7,530 and £26,000 from £7,310 and £25,220 respectively.
  Self-employed people who pay only Class 2 contributions will pay an extra £10.40 a year in 1999–2000.
  For people with profits between £7,530 and £25,220 (the former upper profits limit) Class 4 contributions will be reduced by £13.20 a year assuming an unaltered level of profits. For those self-employed people with profits at or above the new upper profits limit the annual charge for Class 4 contributions will be £33.60 higher.

  Class 3 (Voluntary) Contributions
  The rate of Class 3 contributions will be raised by 20p to £6.45 a week.

  National Health Service Allocation
  The allocation to the National Health Service is unchanged at 1.05 per cent. from employees and 0.9 per cent. from employers.

  Treasury Grant
  Although benefit expenditure from the National Insurance Fund will broadly match income, we need to ensure that the Fund can maintain a prudent working balance throughout the coming year. In accordance with Section 2(2) of the Social Security Act 1993, we propose to do so by prescribing that the maximum Treasury Grant which may be available to the Fund in 1999–2000 shall not exceed 2 per cent. of the estimated benefit expenditure from the Fund for that year.

  NIC Holiday Scheme
  Finally, we also propose to restrict the employers' NIC Holiday scheme to employments which begin on or before 31 March 1999. This will effectively close down the scheme from 1 April 1999, except for Holidays which are already in place and may therefore run on for up to a year after that date.
  The NIC Holiday was introduced by the previous administration to encourage employers to take on long-term unemployed people. It has had no appreciable effect on employers' recruitment practices. Our New Deal for the long-term unemployed now provides employers with better and more substantial incentives to recruit long-term employed people. This, together with the reduction that employers will see in their National Insurance contributions for almost all employees earning up to about £450 a week from April 1999, means that it is time for the NIC Holiday to go.
  Regulations to give effect to this proposal will be laid before Parliament in due course. We shall be laying a Draft Re-rating Order before Parliament together with a report by the Government Actuary describing the effects of the re-rating proposals on the National Insurance Fund.

  Benefit Integrity Project
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many life awards have been found to be unjustified by the Benefit Integrity Project; and how many were later upheld on appeal. [60916]

  Mr. Timms
  The administration of the Benefit Integrity Project is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.
  100
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mrs. Maria Fyfe, dated 27 November 1998:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many life awards have been found to be unjustified by the Benefit Integrity Project (BIP); and how many were later upheld on appeal.
  Such information as is available regarding the changes made to life awards following BIP action is shown in the table. The data includes changes to the rate of benefit in addition to changes to the length of the award.
  Where evidence of change does become available, as it may well do through BIP enquiries, a life award is reviewed in the normal way and benefit may increase or decrease. People do, of course, have full rights of review and appeal as they do with any change to benefit entitlement.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Changes made to life awards

  Total

  Life award changed to:

  Award still for life but rate changed

  7,191

  Awarded for a limited period and rate changed

  316

  Award remains at same rate but for a limited period

  233

  Benefit disallowed altogether

  14,987

  Total

  22,727

  Decision maintained on review

  9,118

  Decision not maintained on review

  6,517

  Decision maintained on appeal

  483

  Decision not maintained on appeal

  816

  Notes:

  1. Figures are up to and including 30 September 1998

  2. The figures are provisional and subject to change

  Source:

  Benefit Integrity Project database

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether sanctions will be imposed on lone parents if, under the proposed single gateway to benefit, they agree to have an interview in order to qualify for benefit, but then fail to attend that interview; and what form those sanctions will take. [61693]

  Angela Eagle
  As part of the process for claiming Social Security benefits, people of working age will be required to attend a Single Gateway interview. A person who does not attend the interview will not have completed the claim process, and benefit will not be payable. For certain categories of people the requirement to attend an interview will be deferred, and benefit will be awarded in the normal way.

  Widows' Benefits
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what savings the Government expects as a result of the transfer of the SERPS element of the widow's pension to payment under the widowed parent's allowance. [61457]

  Angela Eagle
  Under our proposals, there would be no transfer of SERPS additional Pension between different categories of widows.

  Mr. Bendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his Department will provide a breakdown of the savings expected as a result of the changes to widows' benefits. [61456]
  101
  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Breakdown of the estimated costs and savings associated with the proposed reforms of bereavement benefits

  £ million (1998–99 benefit rates)

  2001–2

  2002–3

  2003–4

  2020

  Increase widow's payment to £2,000 and extend to men

  70

  70

  70

  50

  Introduce Bereavement Allowance and extend to men

  *

  -50

  -100

  -600

  Extend Widowed Parent's Allowance to new widowers

  *

  10

  20

  50

  Extend Widowed Parent's Allowance to existing widowers

  50

  40

  40

  0

  £10 disregard of Widowed Parent's Allowance in means-tested benefits

  10

  10

  10

  **

  Premium for older widows in means-tested benefits

  *

  10

  10

  0

  Total

  140

  100

  50

  -500

  Notes:

  1. +cost; - saving

  2. Estimates are presented net of means-tested benefit offsets, in line with those in "A new contract for welfare: support in bereavement". Means-tested benefit offsets were estimated using the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey and the Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries. They assume a constant offset ratio in order to provide illustrative estimates for 2020.

  3. The underlying contributory benefit effects have been provided by the Government Actuary's Department.

  4. Estimates for the first three years are rounded to the nearest £10 million. * denotes negligible i.e. less than +/- £5 million.

  5. Estimates for 2020 provide broad orders of magnitude and are rounded to the nearest £50 million. ** denotes less than £25 million.

  6. Total may not sum due to rounding.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the total payment in widow's benefits to a woman, without dependent children, widowed at the age of 45 years who claims the benefits until she becomes eligible for the state pension, including the widow's payment, the graduated widow's pension between 45 and 54 years and the full widow's pension. [61691]

  Angela Eagle
  A 45 year old woman without children who was widowed in 1998–99 would receive a one-off Widow's Payment of £1,000 and an age-related Widow's Pension of £19.41 a week (1998–99 benefit rates) for 18 years until she reached State pension age in 2016. The total would be £19,200. In addition, she may be entitled to SERPS which would be based on her late husband's NI contribution record.

  Notes:

  1. The estimate assumes that the contribution record of the husband meets the relevant contribution conditions, and that the woman continues to meet the qualifying conditions for receipt of Widow's Pension.

  2. The estimate is in 1998–99 benefit rates and is rounded to the nearest £100.

  3. Between 2010 and 2020 female State pension age will be raised until it is in line with male State pension age.

  Benefits (Expenditure)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what factors underlie the forecast reduction in social security spending in the pre-Budget report. [61455]
  102
  Mr. Darling
  The forecasts of Social Security expenditure published in the Pre-Budget Report were revised to reflect new economic assumptions and the effects of more active management of the caseload.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what account he has taken of any rise in unemployment in forecasting expenditure on social security benefits over the next three years. [61454]

  Mr. Darling
  Forecasts of Social Security benefit expenditure in the Pre-Budget Report take into account a number of relevant economic assumptions provided by the Treasury, including the level of unemployment set out in paragraph B9 of the Report.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many parents with care on means tested benefits are currently subject to a reduced benefit direction of 40 per cent. as a result of a non co-operation with the Child Support Agency. [61444]

  Angela Eagle
  All children have the right to the support of both their parents wherever they may live. Where the taxpayer is providing substantial support for children who live in lone parent families, it is right that the parent with care should normally seek child support.

  Parents with care in receipt of a relevant benefit who fail to co-operate with the Child Support Agency without good cause are subject to a benefit penalty, known as a reduced benefit direction, worth 40 per cent. of the adult Income Support personal allowance. This penalty lasts initially for three years and it may be renewed immediately if the parent with care continues to fail to co-operate.

  The latest available information is from the May 1998 Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiries which show that 7,000 parents with care on Income Support were subject to a 40 per cent. reduction.

  Figures for parents with care in receipt of Family Credit or Disability Working Allowance who are subject to a benefit reduction are not available.

  The number of parents with care in receipt of Jobseeker's Allowance who have a reduced benefit direction is too small to measure accurately.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children in families where the parent with care receives means tested benefits are in receipt of maintenance from the non-resident parent, for each region. [61451]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  On 31 August 1998 we estimated that 491,400 parents with care with a full child support assessment were receiving a means tested benefit. Of these cases 108,920 received maintenance paid through the Child Support Agency (CSA) in the quarter ending 31 August 1998 and a further 71,160 had maintenance arranged for payment direct from the non-resident parent.

  103

  Parents with care by region of residence

  Payment through CSA

  Direct payment arrangement

  Region of residence

  Estimated number of PWCs

  Estimated number of children1

  Estimated number of PWCs

  Estimated number of children

  Unknown

  980

  1,640

  1,040

  1,380

  North East

  8,080

  12,600

  4,340

  6,660

  North West

  13,720

  20,560

  8,040

  12,540

  Merseyside

  2,760

  3,900

  2,380

  3,960

  Yorks and Humberside

  10,280

  15,680

  5,760

  9,060

  East Midlands

  7,140

  11,280

  4,080

  6,340

  West Midlands

  10,780

  16,020

  6,640

  10,720

  Eastern

  7,540

  12,020

  5.160

  8,400

  London

  7,280

  11,280

  4,600

  7,540

  South East

  12,500

  20,820

  8,640

  13,960

  South West

  9,500

  15,600

  8,000

  13,300

  Wales

  8,520

  12,560

  5,940

  9,000

  Scotland

  9,840

  15,200

  6,540

  10,120

  Total

  108,920

  169,160

  71,160

  112,980

  1 The estimate of the number of children is based on the average of 1.6 children per family

  Source:

  CSA Quarterly Summary of Statistics, August 1998

  Income Support
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate what the lower and upper capital limits for income support would be in April 1999 if they had been uprated by(a) prices and (b) the higher of earnings or prices since introduction. [61460]

  Angela Eagle
  The value of the lower capital limit was set at £3,000 in April 1988. In April 1999 it would be £4,825 if it had been uprated by the RPI and £4,610 if it had been uprated by the ROSSI.

  The value of the upper capital limit was set at £8,000 in April 1990. In April 1999 it would be £11,291 if it had been uprated by the RPI and f11,160 if it had been uprated by the ROSSI1.

  If the limits had been uprated by the higher of prices and earnings, in April 19982 the lower capital limit would be £5,426 and the upper capital limit would be £12,124.
  1 This uprating has been carried out from the respective start dates of the capital limit rates up to September 1998 (which corresponds with April 1999 benefit rates).
  2 The publication of the Average Earnings Index for September 1998 has been delayed by ONS while they conduct a review of the Index. Uprating has therefore been calculated up to April 1998.

  Notes:

  1. The figures have been rounded to the nearest pound.

  2.The figures exclude residential care and nursing home cases, for which the capital limits are £10,000 and £16,000.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the average payment is per week for a lone parent on income support with(a) one child. (b) two children and (c) three children. [61730]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Average weekly amount of Income Support to lone parents on Income Support by number of dependants—May 1998

  Family size

  Number

  Average amount £ per week

  All families

  961,000

  79.67

  1 dependant

  434,000

  69.63

  104

  Average weekly amount of Income Support to lone parents on Income Support by number of dependants—May 1998

  Family size

  Number

  Average amount £ per week

  2 dependants

  318,000

  81.85

  3 dependants

  143,000

  92.48

  Notes:

  1. Lone parents are defined as those single people with dependants who are not in receipt of a disability or pensioner premium

  2. Includes dependants aged 16–18

  3. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and as such are subject to a degree of sampling error

  4. Numbers of lone parents are rounded to the nearest thousand

  5. Families with 1 to 3 dependants do not sum to the total for all families as there are also families with 4 or more dependants in receipt of Family Credit

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many new claims for disability living allowance and attendance allowance were made in each month between September 1996 and September 1998. [61692]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the table.

  New claims for disability benefits

  Disability Living Allowance

  Attendance Allowance

  1996

  September

  43,190

  37,315

  October

  48,468

  41,467

  November

  42,545

  36,637

  December

  33,541

  30,093

  1997

  January

  39,699

  36,568

  February

  42,420

  40,669

  March

  42,162

  37,692

  April

  45,988

  42,078

  May

  42,617

  37,127

  June

  43,487

  36,129

  July

  44,434

  36,593

  August

  36,435

  31,449

  September

  40,198

  33,035

  105

  New claims for disability benefits

  Disability Living Allowance

  Attendance Allowance

  October

  42,612

  36,793

  November

  37,022

  33,084

  December

  31,179

  28,235

  1998

  January

  29,764

  29,610

  February

  31,634

  32,320

  March

  35,989

  35,797

  April

  32,181

  34,657

  May

  29,747

  32,444

  June

  34,197

  35.145

  July

  36,890

  37,234

  August

  31,180

  32,440

  September

  34,991

  34,737

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division: 100 per cent. data

  Family Credit
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families are in receipt of family credit with(a) one child, (b) two children and (c) three children. [61734]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Family Credit families by number of children

  Number receiving Family Credit

  All families

  767,000

  1 child

  292,000

  2 children

  271,000

  3 children

  135,000

  Notes:

  1. Figures based on a 5 per cent. sample of Family Credit awards and as such are subject to a degree of sampling error.

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

  3. Figures include dependants aged 16–18 who are included in the calculation of the Family Credit award.

  4. Families with 1 to 3 children do not sum to the total for all families as there are also families with 4 or more children in receipt of Family Credit.

  Source:

  Family Credit Quarterly Statistical Enquiry May 1998

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many babies were born in families which were(a) already in receipt of family credit and (b) qualified for family credit as a result of the baby's birth in each of the last three years. [61732]

  Angela Eagle
  Information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Children born into families with Family Credit 1995–98

  Children born into families in receipt of Family Credit

  New Family Credit claimants with a child aged under one

  1995–96

  23,000

  70,000

  1996–97

  28,000

  75,000

  1997–98

  29,000

  71,000

  Notes:

  1. It is not possible to identify families who qualify for Family Credit as the result of the birth of a baby; however, information is available on the number of families who make a new claim to Family Credit and who have a child aged under one.

  106

  2. The number of children born into families may include a number who are adopted. It is not possible to identify whether a child entering a benefit unit is the natural child of the parents, or an adopted child.

  3. Estimates of the number of children born into families whilst they are in receipt of Family Credit may be subject to an undercount as it has not been possible to accurately identify the number of multiple births children. It is not anticipated that this would greatly increase the estimates.

  4. Numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand and may not sum due to totals.

  5. Each year is representative of the period June to May inclusive.

  Source:

  Family Credit Quarterly Statistical Enquiry May 1998

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the average weekly income is for families in receipt of family credit broken down between the amount received in (i) pay and (ii) family credit for a two-parent family with(a) one child, (b) two children and (c) three children. [61728]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Average weekly income of two-parent Family Credit recipientssplit by number of children, net earnings and weekly Family Credit

  Number of children

  Number of cases

  Total average income from net earnings and weekly Family Credit (£)

  Average net earnings (£)

  Average weekly Family Credit (£)

  All couples

  390,000

  167.33

  108.41

  58.93

  1 child

  98,000

  145.82

  101.86

  43.96

  2 children

  142,000

  161.23

  107.01

  54.22

  3 children

  92,000

  178.42

  113.47

  64.95

  Notes:

  1. Figures based on a 5 per cent. sample of Family Credit awards and as such are subject to a degree of sampling error.

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

  3. Figures do not include income from other benefits, e.g. Child Benefit, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  4. Figures include dependants aged 16–18 who are included in the calculation of the Family Credit award.

  5. Couples with 1 to 3 children do not sum to the total for all couples as there are also couples with 4 or more children in receipt of Family Credit.

  Source:

  May 1998 Family Credit Quarterly Statistical Enquiry.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) men and (b) women are in receipt of family credit with (i) one child, (ii) two children, and(c) three children. [61733]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Family Credit families by gender of main earner and number of children

  Status

  Number in receipt of Family Credit

  All families

  767,000

  Male main earner

  1 child

  80,000

  2 children

  110,000

  3 children

  75,000

  107

  Family Credit families by gender of main earner and number of children

  Status

  Number in receipt of Family Credit

  Female main earner

  1 child

  212,000

  2 children

  160,000

  3 children

  60,000

  Notes:

  1. Main earner is either the Family Credit claimant, or the partner.

  2. Figures based on a 5 per cent. sample of Family Credit awards and as such are subject to a degree of sampling error.

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand and may not sum due to totals.

  4. Figures include dependants aged 16–18 who are included in the calculation of the Family Credit award.

  5. Families with 1 to 3 children do not sum to the total for all families as there are also families with 4 or more children in receipt of Family Credit.

  Source:

  Family Credit Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, May 1998.

  Social Fund Maternity Grant
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the total amount paid out in social fund maternity grant was in the last year for which figures are available; and how many people received the social fund maternity grant. [61731]

  Angela Eagle
  During the year ending March 1998, 197,000 Maternity Payments were made at a total cost of £20 million.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Pork Products
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received calling for pork and pork products sold in United Kingdom stores from 1 January 1999 to conform to UK standards set by his Department, with particular reference to(a) bacon, (b) ham, (c) gammon, (d) pork pies, (e) sausages and (f) other cooked and processed meats. [61160]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have received a number of representations, both from representative organisations and from individual pig producers. At a meeting earlier this month, the major retailers voluntarily gave the following assurances on sourcing to my right hon. Friend the Minister:own label fresh pork, bacon, ham, sausages and pork pies will come from stall and tether and MBM free systems. This assurance already applies to fresh pork and bacon, and is in the process of being extended to cover ham, sausages and pork pies; and,
  they will not sell imported fresh meat processed or packaged in the UK under a British label.

  The major retailers also told my right hon. Friend that they were doing further work to develop their policies.

  I am sure that these undertaking will be welcomed by the British pigmeat industry.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the 108
  comparative costs of achieving label approval and registration of pesticides in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) other EU countries; and what assessment he has made of the factors underlying the differences. [61181]

  Mr. Rooker
  All European Union countries regulate the safety and efficacy of agricultural pesticides on the basis of scientific data. For the most part, these data are provided by the companies concerned. The cost of generating data will therefore differ between countries according to the standards of safety and efficacy applied in each. EU countries also differ in their policy on charging companies for the costs of the work done by the regulatory authorities. Of the two sources of costs to industry, the cost of generating the data will normally be much greater than the fee.

  The UK is thorough in its evaluation and recovers its full costs, mostly by means of fees which vary from £10 to £65,700 depending upon the type of application. Where regimes are less rigorous or do not recover the full costs of evaluation, the total cost to companies may be lower.

  Under the framework of Council Directive 91/414, regulatory standards are being harmonised at a high level very similar to that presently applying in the UK. At present, Directive 91/414 does not require countries to recover their costs but the UK has pressed for such a requirement to be introduced.

  Dairy Products
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the ban on dairy products to be lifted by the Saudi Arabian Government; and if he will make a statement. [61422]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Saudi Arabian ban on United Kingdom dairy products was introduced in June 1996. The Government are making strenuous efforts to get the ban lifted.

  Artificial Inseminators
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to regulate unqualified artificial inseminators. [60919]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 27 November 1998]:

  Discussions are continuing with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons about a number of issues in relation to veterinary surgery, including the insemination of livestock by unqualified lay people.

  Oilseed Rape
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce guidelines on the cultivation of oilseed rape in relation to its proximity to domestic dwellings. [61510]

  Mr. Rooker
  A report by the Institute for Environment and Health in 1997, based on the most recent scientific research, found that oilseed rape may cause respiratory problems in certain people who already suffer from other allergy and respiratory problems. Currently available data suggest that allergic responses to oilseed rape make very little contribution to the burden of allergy in the United Kingdom. On the basis of its size and very limited distribution into the air, oilseed rape pollen does not
  109
  contribute greatly to the total amount of pollen present in the general environment at the time oilseed rape flowers. We are, however, considering areas for further research suggested by the report but at present have no plans to introduce guidelines on the cultivation of the crop.

  Beef Bones
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to receive further scientific advice on the public health risk from beef bones from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee. [61834]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) reviewed its assessment of the risk of bovine spongiform encephalopathy infectivity in the dorsal root ganglia and bone marrow of cattle when it met on 9 November. I have now received the Committee's scientific report, which is being published today.

  The report is now being considered within Government and in particular by the Chief Medical Officer who will advise Ministers shortly. In addition, we need to take account of the potential effects of the EU Commission's recent proposal for Community-wide controls on Specified Risk Materials. Once this process of consideration is complete, there will be a further announcement about UK controls on bone in beef.

  Copies of SEAC's scientific assessment are being placed in the Libraries of the House and are being made widely available, including on the Ministry's Internet website, with the purpose of informing debate.

  Agricultural Wages Board
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what effect the introduction of(a) the Working Time Directive and (b) the minimum wage will have on the role of the Agricultural Wages Board, Horticultural Growers. [61178]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Agricultural Wages Board cannot set wage rates or terms and conditions of employment that are less generous than provided for in wider employment law such as the Working Time Regulations and the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. The changes from these two new pieces of legislation will impact on all employers of agricultural workers but are likely to be of most significance to those sectors, such as horticulture, which employ large numbers of casual workers.

  Equine Dentists
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to regulate equine dentists. [60920]
  110
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 27 November 1998]: Those equine dental procedures that are considered to be acts of veterinary surgery may be undertaken only by a registered veterinary surgeon or by a registered dentist at the request of a veterinary surgeon.

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to protect horses from unqualified people acting as equine dentists and supervising artificial insemination; and if he will make a statement on the regulation of this area. [60970]

  Mr. Rooker
  Discussions are continuing with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons about a number of issues in relation to veterinary surgery, including the insemination of livestock and the practise of equine dentistry, by unqualified lay people.

  Genetically Modified Food
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the activities of the United States Government in promoting the interests of the genetically modified food industry based in the United States of America; what pressure has been applied by the United States Government to his Department directly or indirectly in this respect; and if he will make a statement. [60931]

  Mr. Rooker
  No specific assessment of the United States' trade promotion activities relating to genetically modified (GM) foods has been made by this Department. However, the US is a major exporter of agricultural commodities and food, which include GM crops and foods containing ingredients derived from genetically modified organisms, and it is known that the US Government, like all governments, engage in trade promotion activity.

  Any organisation which wishes to market GM crops or foods in the EU must meet the rigorous safety assessment requirements established under EC regulatory frameworks governing market approval for such crops and food. No pressure of any sort has been applied by the US Government on this Department in respect of GM crops or foods.

  Kent and Essex Sea Fisheries Committee
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food what support he will give to the Kent and Essex Sea Fisheries Committee to replace their sea fisheries protection vessel; and if he will support their application for EU funding. [61630]

  Mr. Morley
  Council Decision 95/527/EC provides for Community funding of certain expenditure incurred by Member States in monitoring the application of the Common Fisheries Policy. Applications for funding are routed through the Ministry but decisions on eligible expenditure, the rate of Community financial contribution, and the conditions to which contributions may be subject are determined by the Commission in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 18 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3760/92.

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

European Commission: Fraud Prosecutions
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith asked Her Majesty's Government:
If fraud can be demonstrated to have been undertaken by a member of the staff of the European Commission, under which national criminal code such a case might be prosecuted.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Article 12(a) of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities confers on officials of the Communities, in the territory of each member state, immunity from legal proceedings in respect of acts performed by them in their official capacity. Article 18 requires each Community institution to waive the immunity accorded to an official wherever that institution considers that the waiver is not contrary to the interests of the Communities. Each case would need to be considered individually in the light of the jurisdictional rules of the country in question; but, in general, any prosecution might be expected to take place under the criminal code of the country where the alleged fraud took place or, possibly, of the home country of the individual concerned.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that full answer. If I understood it correctly, any country may apply for a waiver of diplomatic immunity if fraud can be shown to have taken place; but the reality must be, since we are talking about direct employees of the Commission, that the offence is likely to have occurred in Belgium and therefore the waiver is likely to be applied for either by the Belgian Government or the government of the home country of the individual concerned. Since the Belgians draw considerable benefit from the existence of the Community institutions within their country, it seems to me that they would be rather cautious about becoming involved. The home country of the individual concerned might be the beneficiary of the fraud and would therefore have a conflict of interest. What steps does the Minister think should be taken to improve this situation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not sure that I accept the noble Lord's premise. The fact that an official may be based in Brussels does not mean that the fraud would take place there. The option of the jurisdiction of the place where the fraud took place or the home country of the national concerned is a fail-safe option—in other words, there is more than one way of enabling a prosecution to take place. The noble Lord
232
may be encouraged to know that, as far as we know, there has never been a request for a waiver of immunity which has not been granted.
Lord Peston: My Lords, can my noble friend clarify another aspect of his Answer? If a fraud were carried out by a member of the Commission staff, it would almost certainly be the case that other people who were not on the Commission staff would be involved and would be beneficiaries. I take it that there is no possible waiver that could apply to anybody else who was involved in such a fraud and that they would be prosecuted under the relevant laws of the country in which the fraud was committed?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend is right; that is the case. He may be reassured to be reminded that, as I am sure he already knows, 82 per cent. of the budget of the European Communities is in the hands of member states and not in the hands of Commission officials.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, can the Minister say how often waivers have been granted in recent years and how often the prosecutions that flowed from them have been successful?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no, not off the cuff. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, is reassured to know that waivers have not been denied. That is surely the most significant factor. It cannot be in the interests of the European Communities for fraud to go unprosecuted.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the important consideration is that some prosecution be instituted in respect of the frauds that have been exposed over a number of years in the reports of the Court of Auditors, copies of which I hold in my hand? Will he take steps to ensure that, so far as the United Kingdom Government are concerned—who are, after all, one of the leading net contributors to the Community budget—these allegations of fraud, of which there is abundant prima facie evidence, are investigated without further delay?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that question. I gave an assurance during the passage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill that the Government take these matters very seriously and are seeking to advance prosecution. Within the next six months we plan to ratify the European Union convention to combat fraud against the European Community budget. That convention will ensure that all member states have adequate criminal law sanctions against fraud affecting the financial interests of the community.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, is it not a fact that the evidence is that most fraud in the European Community takes place in the various member states? If that is so, are not those who have committed the fraud liable to prosecution there? The Question asks whether any

233
member of the European Commission has undertaken fraud. He would surely be liable in that country, would he not?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, will recall that I said that 82 per cent. of the European Union budget is in the hands of member states, not in the hands of the Commission. It is up to the prosecuting authorities in each country to take action against fraud. They have the benefit of UCLAF, the anti-fraud unit of the European Commission, which works closely with the prosecuting authorities.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the Minister implies that charges of this nature have not been brought forward, although they may be brought forward in the near future. Is he satisfied that, should that happen, they will be prosecuted with sufficient rigour?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I apologise if I gave the wrong impression to the noble Lord. I do not believe I said that charges had not been brought forward. I said that no application for a waiver of immunity had been denied. In other words, immunity from prosecution which exists for officials of the European Union and diplomats of all kinds—indeed, Members of your Lordships' House have parliamentary privilege in respect of libel and slander is not a bar to prosecution because there has been no waiver which has been denied. That is rather different from what the noble Lord understands, and it must be my fault.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it not a fact that much, if not most, of the fraud takes place under the common agricultural policy? Would the problem not be solved if the CAP was repatriated to the nation states?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend is entirely right. Fifty per cent of the European Union's budget is accounted for by the common agricultural policy. A further 32 per cent. is accounted for by structural funds. To that extent it is inevitable that a very high proportion of fraud should occur in those two areas. But steps have already been taken, which are gradually working, to ensure that the easiest of frauds under the common agricultural policy—the transport of agricultural goods from one member state to another—can no longer take place.

Freedom of Information Legislation
2.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they intend to introduce a freedom of information Bill.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the Government will publish a draft freedom of information Bill early next year for pre-legislative scrutiny by the House of Commons Select
234
Committee for Public Administration and for public consultation. Following this, the Government will introduce the Bill to Parliament as soon as the legislative programme allows.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. As this matter has featured in Labour Party manifestos since 1974 under both old Labour and new Labour but was not acted upon between 1974 and 1979 and as a parliamentary Answer forecast that a draft Bill would be published early this year, are the Government meeting greater difficulties than they foresaw when in opposition?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we remain firmly wedded to the principle of freedom of information. When published the White Paper was generally welcomed. We must now produce a Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny. Quite a number of noble Lords believe that to be a useful way forward because a number of intricate matters must be dealt with. I expect the period of public consultation to be of the order of three months and therefore there will not be further delay. As to the legislative programme, that is a matter for your Lordships.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the Minister said that the Bill would be available some time early next year. He also stated that it would be available for another place to discuss it through its own Select Committee. Can he give the House an assurance that committees of this House will have the opportunity to discuss the Bill, particularly in the light of the fact that the Bill will appear early next year and I understand that we are likely to be sitting over Christmas? Perhaps we can discuss it then.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I understood on Saturday morning that we would sit on Boxing Day. I have not yet had the nerve to tell my wife. Certainly, if your Lordships' House wishes a committee to scrutinise the Bill that is a matter for the usual channels in the normal way. The fact that we wish the Select Committee to give this matter close scrutiny—after all, it is chaired by Mr. Rhodri Morgan—indicates that we welcome informed, scrupulous examination.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on introducing a pre-legislative Bill. That could have occurred over the past 18 years. Can my noble friend assure the House that the Bill will be widely cast and will cover relationships not only between Ministers and others but also between civil servants and big business and civil servants of the European Commission?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I accept gratefully the congratulations offered to me by my noble friend. The precise detail is presently under discussion. There are a number of difficult areas and my noble friend identifies some quite subtle ones. That is one of the important purposes of having a full period of public consultation during which these various matters can be fully and openly discussed.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that the publication of this Bill has

235
been delayed several times. I believe that the House would be grateful to know the degree of certainty that he now ascribes to publication early next year. We would like to see the Bill and to have a high degree of certainty that it will be published as he says in January or February.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not believe that I mentioned either January or February—doubtless by unfortunate oversight. It may be in the early part of next year. We are committed to the Bill and I believe that we have made a good start.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: How?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord asks "How?". First, in the Home Office Jack Straw set up the Lawrence Inquiry with the fullest possible public scrutiny. He directed that reports of the Chief Inspector of the Prison Service should be published promptly. They are no longer kept mouldering for 18 months. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked for the disclosure of the contract relating to detention at Campsfield House. I said that I would look into it. I promised to see to it, and it was placed in the Library.
We have done well. We believe in the Bill. We shall bring it forward in the early part of next year. I have no doubt about that.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, arising from the question of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, does the Minister agree that because our system of government depends on Cabinet collective responsibility it is essential that the documents passing between Ministers and the Civil Service before decisions are taken by the Cabinet are protected? Otherwise our whole system will have to be changed.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point: that if one wants candid, informed advice either from officials to Ministers or between colleague Ministers it is self-evident, I should have thought, that it cannot all be available contemporaneously. We have to push the balance as far towards openness as we conceivably can.

Channel Islands/Isle of Man: Financial Centres
2.50 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
What benefits the United Kingdom derives from the continuing development of offshore financial centres in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the development of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man over recent years as important international financial centres derives from their handling a wide range of financial business and increasing their dealings with all
236
parts of the world. As indicated in the recent review by Mr. Andrew Edwards of financial regulation in the islands, their business has grown to be genuinely international. It is not possible to quantify the particular benefits derived by the United Kingdom from these developments. However, I refer the noble Lord to the figures in the review which illustrate the continuing close links between the islands and the United Kingdom.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am anxious to consider the costs as well as the benefits. I am sure that the noble Lord has read Article S9 of the Edwards Report, which states:
"Offshore centres generally are sometimes criticised for maintaining tax regimes that divert business from onshore jurisdictions and deprive them of tax revenues".
The remainder of the report deals with the process of sustaining and developing the scope of those offshore centres. Is it in Britain's long-term interests to encourage the further development of centres closely associated with the United Kingdom which exist to encourage the avoidance and evasion of tax?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord asks about benefits. Perhaps I can help him by considering Article 2.6.4 of the Edwards Report. which states:
"The banks"—
in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man—
"invest a high proportion of their deposits and other liabilities in or through the UK".
In Jersey, which has deposits of £100 billion, 48 per cent. is lodged in the United Kingdom; in Guernsey the figures are £50 billion and 34 per cent., and in the Isle of Man, £20 billion and 55 per cent. Plainly there are significant advantages to the United Kingdom financial centres from those transactions.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, will the Minister help me on this point? What right has the European Union to interfere in the affairs of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man so far as concerns their tax structures?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are not fully part of the European Union, as the noble Lord rightly implies. The constitutional position in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man remains the same as that I described, I think last week. They are Crown dependencies. They have internal legislatures; and the United Kingdom, let alone any other party, is only entitled to intervene and impose legislative solutions as a matter of last resort.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the Minister undertake to arrange the transfer of two or three of these financial centres from the Channel Islands to the island of Anglesey where they would be perfectly safe and where they are much needed?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I know that my noble friend is the representative of another

237
offshore island, but so far as I am aware people in North Wales normally keep the cash under the bed rather than in the bank.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, can the Minister spell out the benefits we gain from the tax arrangements in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man? Have the Government any plans to do anything about them, even if the proposals are initiated in the European Union?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we have our European obligations which we attempt to discharge. But we constantly remind our colleagues in Europe that the constitutional arrangements for the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are not the same as the arrangements between Her Majesty's Government and the European Union. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is always alert to see whether or not there is any improper leaching of tax revenue from the United Kingdom exchequer. That is part of his continuing duty.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the Edwards Report which was published earlier this year. The noble Lord will remember that that investigation into the financial affairs of the Channel Islands was announced without any consultation with the Channel Islands governors. Can he give an assurance that any further reviews of the financial regulations of either the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man will be conducted in a spirit of full consultation and co-operation with their respective governments rather than the Home Office acting as the mere agent, it appears, of the European Union?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is quite wrong. The review which the Home Secretary announced was announced publicly for the first time in another place. The Speaker of another place is rightly jealous of the fact that public announcements should be made first in another place. I myself ensured that the lieutenant governors in all the islands were notified in advance. A very harmonious relationship exists between the governments of the islands and the Home Office. They have promised full co-operation. The Home Secretary has asked me to chair a committee which will start work in the early part of next year, namely January, to see how we take matters forward.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, as a loyal Manxman, I declare some interest. May I ask whether I am not right that the Edwards Report praised not merely the Manx finance legislation as being,
"better than that of most European Union countries",
but also praised the contribution that the three Crown dependencies made to UK plc in the form of some £350 billion which are,
"channelled from the rest of the world through the Islands to the UK"?
238
Furthermore, since most of the large institutions in the Isle of Man are branches of UK companies, is it not the case that the profits from those companies earned on the Isle of Man flow through to the UK?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I confirm that the noble Lord has quoted accurately from Mr. Edwards's report. I sought to give figures by way of examples of those large sums of money in terms of bank deposits. I did not include anything to do with unit trusts or insurance matters.
The Edwards Report states that the Crown dependencies have been very successful. They are clearly in the top division of offshore finance centres. I think that that speaks rather highly of them.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, the Minister will be aware, as is the whole House, that we are on the eve of a major European Union tax offensive in order to bring about tax harmonisation to follow monetary union with fiscal union. This, of course, is an opening gambit because we are a little more vulnerable in the Channel Islands than elsewhere. Can my noble friend give me and the House an assurance that on no account will we allow any proposal emanating from the European Union to impose a withholding tax upon interest and dividends paid in the United Kingdom; and in particular that the City of London will not find that it is subjected to a tax which would affect its eurobond business?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am not well aware that there is a massive offensive on tax harmonisation. I read it in the newspaper but that does not necessarily convince me of the accuracy of the report, particularly as it seemed to be based substantially—and wholly innocently I am sure—on a mistranslation and misunderstanding of what was said. My noble friend will know that eager as I am to please him on these occasions, I could not conceivably, nor would your Lordships expect me to, give a permanent guarantee in respect of anything which may be produced by No. 11 Downing Street.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that those of us who do not accept that there is any form of conspiracy theory in that regard would wish to indicate that it is perfectly right for the Government to organise the Edwards Committee examination of our relationship with the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, given our responsibility for the good governance of those islands?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, Mr. Edwards was asked to carry out quite a limited exercise; namely, to review financial regulation in the Crown dependencies. He was not concerned with the question of tax harmonisation nor constitutional relationships. Everyone to whom I have spoken on the islands knows that, in a sense, their reputation is their capital. Therefore, they want the best possible financial regulation in their respective jurisdictions for obvious reasons.

Primary Schools: Male Teachers
3 p.m.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to increase the number of suitably qualified men working in primary schools.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the Government recognise the problem of under-representation of men in primary teaching. Last week the Teacher Training Agency asked all providers of initial teacher training courses to set themselves targets to focus their efforts to recruit more men into teacher training and to produce action plans stating how they will work towards that goal.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am most grateful for that encouraging reply. Does the Minister agree that this is in no way a sexist issue? No one suggests that men teachers are better than women teachers. The problem is that at a certain age, boys begin to ask, "What does it mean to be male? What does it mean to be a boy?" Unfortunately, in many of our schools today boys believe that it is not cool for them to work in schools and that that is what girls do. Does the noble Baroness agree that that is the reason that more men are needed in primary schools to act as role models?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that because we want to attract more men into primary school teaching, it should not be deduced that women do not make very good primary teachers. There are literally hundreds of thousands of excellent teachers of young children who are women.
However, I agree also with the noble Lord that we should actively encourage men to join the teaching profession and that boys should not receive the impression that teaching is only for girls. But it should be noted that the proportion of men in secondary teaching is still around half of the profession. It is just under 50 per cent.
Lord Tope: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in addition to lousy pay and career prospects, one of the main reasons that men are not attracted to primary school teaching is that primary schools are perceived to be less important and to have less status than secondary schools? Therefore, it is perceived that men who wish to be primary school teachers must therefore be unambitious, effeminate or worse. What steps are the Government taking to improve that wholly wrong perception of primary school teaching?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I hope that any man thinking of becoming a primary school teacher would not imagine for one minute that he will be perceived as effeminate or worse.
240
It is important that we raise the status of primary teaching but that we should attach also a great deal of importance to what primary schools do. Indeed, since the Government took office, they have placed an enormous amount of emphasis on primary education. It is the basis for what happens later. The Government have invested substantial additional funds into it and have said that it is crucial to our literacy and numeracy campaign to raise standards.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, before the end of the last Session, my noble friend answered a Question from me which indicated that only 17 per cent. of male teachers are in primary education and now only 47 per cent. in secondary schools. Will the Minister act on the proposition that the situation in primary schools is now so serious that the Government need a crash programme to encourage male teachers in that particular sector of education; and also to ensure that there is not a further decline in the number of male teachers in secondary schools?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I can confirm the figures: 47.6 per cent. of teachers in secondary schools are male and 17.1 per cent. of teachers in primary schools are male. However, the figures for primary schools are not very different from those for 20 or 50 years ago. There has always been a large preponderance of women teachers in our primary schools. The figures have gone down a little, but only marginally. I accept that we do not wish to see a further decline and that, indeed, we wish to encourage more men into the profession. We shall announce measures later this week to improve prospects for teachers in both primary and secondary schools. The Government hope that that will encourage more men into both sectors.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with reference to the noble Baroness's last comment, will she clarify whether specific measures are to be proposed in the paper that is representing the most radical shake-up of the teaching profession in 50 years? Will that particular imbalance be addressed specifically in that paper?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, we should wait until the paper is published later this week.

Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee: Select Committee
3.7 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it is desirable that a Select Committee be appointed to consider the operation of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England and to make recommendations.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, perhaps I may put a question to the noble Baroness the Leader of

241
the House. There seems to be a view abroad that this is to be, in some way, a short-term committee. If that is indeed the case, I believe that that would be a mistake. In this House there is a wealth of expertise and experience of financial services generally and of the subject matter of the Monetary Policy Committee in particular. It would seem to me to be a wholly admirable development that there should be a committee which would sit long term to look at those matters and to discuss them with the Bank.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, about the wealth of expertise and the reasons that lie behind the establishment of the committee, with which I am sure the whole House agrees and accepts. I understand that the Liaison Committee recommended to the House, and the House accepted, that this should be described as an ad hoc committee which, in the first instance, would have its work considered within the time frame of one year. But it is for the Liaison Committee and the whole House to agree if they wish to extend it further.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will my noble friend the Leader of the House give an assurance that when it comes to recommendations as to membership of the proposed committee, she will bear in mind that there are widely diverse views within your Lordships' House concerning the operations and, indeed, terms of reference of the members of the Monetary Policy Committee? Will she assure the House that the voices of occasional dissent may be permitted to be heard by that committee?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the Committee of Selection in your Lordships' House meets later this afternoon and after that, we may have a clearer view of what it is recommending to the House in terms of membership of the committee. I am sure that all views will be vigorously put and taken into account.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will the Select Committee have power to consider the important overriding question of whether the Bank of England should continue to have power to fix the bank rate, bearing in mind that the Government cannot have a complete and credible economic policy without being able to control the bank rate?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord does not expect me to pre-empt the terms of discussion of the committee, although he raises an important central issue which I am sure will be the subject of some of its deliberations. I respectfully remind the noble Lord that it is not a Select Committee but an ad hoc committee of the House.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Bruce that it should be a House
242
committee and not subjected to influence, either before, during or after selection. This is not merely an academic question. When the House recently considered the Offices Committee report, which was supposed to be a matter entirely for the House, I moved an amendment regarding the public expenditure of £2.5 million. I am told by colleagues that the Government Whips were advising people to vote against me and my noble friend the Chief Whip was actually a teller against me, as was the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sure we all hear my noble friend's concerns with interest, but that is a little wide of the discussion in relation to the setting up of this committee. I am sure that those who are considered by the committee on selection will take great heed of what my noble friend, and others, have said.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Tuesday last by Lord Clinton-Davis—namely, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament".
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by saying how much I welcome the fact that six maiden speakers have put down their names to speak in this debate and say how much I look forward to hearing them.
In opening this debate I want to outline how the Government intend to build on their comprehensive programme to raise standards in education, specifically by proposing steps to modernise the teaching profession. I shall also describe our legislative proposals to improve the rights of disabled people and outline the content of Bills coming forward from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
In the debate on the Address at the beginning of the last Session I set out our proposals for modernising education. The four Acts passed since then have laid the foundations to drive up standards and improve access across all the sectors. Following the Comprehensive Spending Review we have been able to announce significant new resources for education—an extra £19 billion over the next three years. That funding will underpin the development and extension of the range of measures that we introduced to support our standards drive. That programme has already seen us announce the Sure Start programme for children under three years old in partnership with the Department of Health; guarantee every four

243
year-old an early years education place and announce plans to almost double the number of early education places for three year-olds; abolish the assisted places scheme and provide the first £62 million to cut infant class sizes, with £560 million more to come; launch a major £59 million drive to improve literacy standards and develop a £60 million national numeracy strategy; provide the further education sector with an extra £725 million over the next two years; and secure the future of higher education with £165 million more this year and £280 million next year.
We are widening participation and bringing the benefits of education and training to more people; improving the nation's chances of competing in the modern global economy and attacking inequality and social exclusion. The massive new investment in further education announced last week by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will help us make significant progress towards an extra 700,000 students in FE by 2001–2002. New arrangements for student support—amounting to £69 million in 1999–2000—will include pilots of the education maintenance allowance to help develop longer-term arrangements for students from low-income families in schools and colleges.
We shall be laying student support regulations before the House under the Teaching and Higher Education Act relating to financial support for students in HE in the next academic year. Later next year, we shall lay regulations before the House governing repayment of student loans.
These regulations will enable us to make progress in implementing the improved student support arrangements which we announced following the publication of the Dearing Report. They will fulfil our commitment to make basic student maintenance support available through partially means-tested loans, and enable the extension of loans to students aged 50 to 54 who intend to return to employment. They will also put into effect the arrangements for students to repay their loans on a genuinely income-contingent basis.
The arrangements in these regulations for providing support and for repaying loans will continue to ensure that support goes to those students who need it most, and that graduates only repay their loans as and when they can afford to do so. That our new approach to funding higher education has been accepted as fair is evident from the latest figures for students taking up places this autumn which shows the total has exceeded the final figure for 1996.
In schools, our comprehensive package of measures to raise standards has had to start from first principles in order to address an inheritance from the previous government that saw, for example, four out of 10 11 year-olds failing to reach the standard for their age in maths and English. So we have set a series of demanding targets, which are key to raising standards, to improve levels of achievement, including targets to raise the fundamental skills of literacy and numeracy. We are taking steps to establish a culture of continuous improvement in our schools by establishing
244
challenging but realistic targets for their improvement. For example, 4.3 million children are already benefiting every day from the literacy hour.
We have also invested in areas of social deprivation where education action zones are uniting business, schools, local education authorities and parents to modernise education and encourage innovative ways to raise standards. By early next year, 25 zones will be operating, funded by additional public and private money of up to £1 million each, in rural and urban areas across the country; and 50,000 pupils in some of the most difficult areas will benefit from those partnerships. We have shown ourselves willing to take action to tackle under-performance in individual schools and local education authorities.
With these initiatives we are setting in place a framework to deliver a more effective education service, giving better chances to all our children. Underpinning this programme of action to raise standards must be an acknowledgement that teachers are fundamental both to the success of each of their individual charges and to the success of these reforms. We have created the framework for improvement, and have begun to invest in the infrastructure of education. But, reform and modernisation of the teaching profession is needed if we are to ensure that the improvements we have set under way in the schools system secure higher standards in our schools. We want to give teachers the support they need and the rewards they deserve for raising standards.
Therefore, the Government will issue shortly a Green Paper outlining our vision of a modernised teaching profession. It will outline a new structure for the profession with opportunities for good teachers to progress further and achieve better rewards for good teaching. Every school needs strong leadership to meet the challenges of the standards agenda. We shall beef up training for heads with the national college of school leadership announced last month, and we have already said that we shall reward the best heads with up to £65,000 to £70,000 a year.
Much of our reform programme for education has been concerned with raising participation and improving access for learners so that more people can take advantage of the education and training opportunities available. At a fundamental level, we are similarly committed to improving access and securing opportunity for disabled people. The announcement in the gracious Speech of our intention to legislate to set up the disability rights commission is an integral part of fulfilling our manifesto commitment to secure comprehensive and enforceable civil rights for disabled people. It is central to our wider objective to achieve a genuinely inclusive society where every citizen has access to their civil rights.
Within months of taking office, we set up the disability rights task force. That body agreed unanimously at its first meeting last December that its most urgent priority should be to work up its recommendations on the role and functions of the disability rights commission. Its recommendations formed the basis of July's White Paper. The task force

245
has now moved on to consider wider issues such as employment and education and is due to provide its final report by July next year. We look forward to that next stage of the process. But, having considered carefully the recommendations of the task force, we have decided to legislate to seek to introduce a disability rights commission. We propose that its main duties should be to work towards the elimination of discrimination against disabled people; promote equalisation of opportunities for disabled people; encourage good practice; and advise the Government on the operation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and whether changes need to be made to it.
We are proposing that the DRC be given specific functions to assist disabled people; provide a central source of information and advice, particularly to disabled people, business, service providers and employees; prepare and review statutory codes of practice; make arrangements for conciliation in the field of access to goods, facilities, services and premises; undertake formal investigations; and carry out research.
In establishing this new body we shall be addressing our commitment to give disabled people the civil rights that they should all enjoy. Disability groups have recognised this as an historic decision. I hope the House will agree that this is indeed an historic moment.
Moving on from the business of my own department, I want now to say something about the legislative proposals that come forward from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. During its short period in office, this Government have done more to return government to the people than any since 1918 when women first won the vote. We shall continue to take bold and imaginative steps to increase accountability, modernise our democracy and overturn the centralising shifts of the previous 18 years of Tory Government.
One of the least justified and most damaging of those shifts was the destruction of strategic city-wide government for our capital city. Since then, London has lacked the strategic oversight needed to make the most of its undoubted strengths and address its many problems.
The Bill to create a Greater London authority fulfils our manifesto commitment to the people of London. It implements the proposals set out in the White Paper published in March and approved by the referendum on 7th May.
The authority would consist of a directly elected mayor and a separately elected 25 member assembly, each working closely with London boroughs, business and the voluntary sector to tackle pan-London issues, providing the right mix of strong, strategic leadership and democratic accountability that London needs and setting the strategic agenda on planning, transport, economic development and the environment.
246
The Bill will propose that two new executive bodies be established: transport for London and the London development agency. They will be tasked with implementing the mayor's strategies for integrated transport and economic development in the capital.
Transport is a clear candidate for a more strategic approach. Establishing transport for London will unify responsibility for transport in the capital. The new body will take on the powers of London Transport and responsibility for key roads—for the first time a truly integrated approach to addressing London's transport needs. New powers to introduce road user charging and a workplace parking levy will be included in the Bill to allow the mayor the scope to tackle the traffic congestion that besets part of the city.
The Bill will also propose two new authorities to be established—for fire and emergency planning, and for the police—each containing a majority of assembly members appointed by the mayor. For the first time, policing in London will be made democratically accountable to the people of London.
That is what will lie at the heart of the Bill—openness, real democratic accountability and strong strategic leadership for London.
To ensure that the benefits of accountable and efficient local government reach beyond the capital, a local government Bill will be focusing on the duty of best value to local authorities—a central part of our agenda for modernising local government in England and Wales. It seeks to address the issues which mean most to local people—the delivery of efficient, high-quality services.
Local authorities would be required to be pragmatic in deciding how services are to be delivered; proactive in forming effective working relationships with others; and participative in consulting with their local communities.
The Bill would mean a comprehensive framework for performance measurement, audit and inspection, and a range of powers to tackle failure—in short, a platform for reforming and modernising local government, building public confidence in best value.
Compulsory competitive tendering would be abolished. It has proved inflexible and divisive. Our best value framework is less dogmatic and much more practical. That is why the local authorities involved in the pilots have welcomed our proposals. The new best value powers would require local authorities to review their services over a five-year period; set and publish targets for each service; and introduce new external audit and inspection arrangements. It would also allow Ministers to intervene to assist local authorities in providing best value.
The Bill would also replace crude and universal capping as introduced under the previous government with more flexible and discriminating powers to control council tax increases. These could be applied to individual councils or larger groups. They will allow Ministers to look at a council's budget increases across a number of years before making decisions,

247
and will equally allow councils to reduce budgets over several years, avoiding any need to make immediate savings.
Fundamental to the modernisation of local government are our proposals to reform the organisation of local government. An additional draft local government Bill will cover a new ethical framework and political management structures designed to bring it closer to the people and to ensure the highest standards in public life.
The proposals are in draft in recognition of the need to consult widely over reforms which challenge the traditional models for local government working. The three models for councils set out in the White Paper were a directly elected mayor with cabinet; an indirectly elected mayor with cabinet; and a directly elected mayor with council manager.
Through these options, we are looking to bring councillors closer to their constituents by allowing councils to separate their executive and scrutiny roles. This will streamline the decision-making process to make for more efficient governance, but at the same time strengthen accountability by freeing up backbench councillors to challenge the executive more openly. To complement these reforms we will establish a new ethical framework for local government to include a code of conduct for councillors; a standards committee to uphold standards within a council; an independent standards board; and an employees code for council staff.
One area where the Conservative Government flagrantly overrode the interests of the people was in their disregard for rail travellers. In their ideological rush to hand over our railways to the private sector they left in place a token regulatory system without the means to promote rail transport in a strategic way.
A draft railways Bill will meet our manifesto commitment to establish a strategic rail authority and to make regulation more effective and accountable.
We shall again be responding to the needs of consumers, and picking up the pieces of ill thought through Tory privatisation policy, by introducing a water industry Bill to create a fair and sustainable system of water charging in England and Wales. This will be based on three key principles: that water is essential to life and health; we must protect those who are vulnerable and less well-off; and in setting a framework for charging we want to introduce greater consumer choice.
In order to implement those principles, the Bill would prohibit the disconnection of household water supplies for non-payment of Bills; allow for a continuing system of unmeasured charges based on rateable values so that there remains a real alternative to water metering; prevent universal compulsory metering; give domestic consumers the option of a free meter; and take a power to specify protection to be given to vulnerable groups with high water consumption.
Among other measures there will be a short Bill on pollution prevention and control. Demonstrating our commitment to high environmental standards and better
248
regulation, this would enable us to preserve the coherence of our pollution control systems while implementing the EC directive on integrated pollution prevention and control. A rating valuation Bill would ensure that property subject to non-domestic rating continues to be valued consistently, expressing explicitly in legislation the position that has underpinned the rating system until now. In addition, the nine English regions will be boosted by the establishment of regional development agencies. RDAs will mean effective, properly co-ordinated economic development and regeneration.
Our commitment to the interest of rural communities has also recently been shown in the success of my right honourable friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in persuading the European Union to lift the ban on the export of British beef. Through the close co-operation with European counterparts that my right honourable friend has established, the Government have created the conditions to ensure that the beef industry can look positively to the future and to winning back the markets that have been lost. That welcome announcement came shortly after the announcement of significant measures to support the livestock industry. An aid package of some £120 million will address the issues of concern to farmers—especially hill farmers—and demonstrates clear evidence of the Government's commitment to assist the rural economy.
I take this opportunity to explain to the House the Government's position in respect of a food standards agency. As my right honourable friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made clear in answer to a Parliamentary Question on 25th November, the Government remain committed to establishing a food standards agency along the lines proposed in the White Paper. It has not been possible to fit all of our commitments into a single Session, but we will publish a draft Bill for full public consultation.
As my right honourable friend said, the safety of the consumer lies at the heart of our decision-making. For this reason we have already taken a number of positive steps to improve existing arrangements. Work on food safety and standards within the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Health has been organised into a joint group, reporting through a single head direct to Ministers in both departments. This in itself is an important step in improving the co-ordination of work in government.
We have also taken action to make more and better information available to consumers. All the scientific advisory committees which deal with food matters now include lay or consumer representatives to assist the flow of views and information to and from the committees. The Government are thus acting in line with the principles on which the agency itself will be based.
The programme that I have outlined has a number of important aims—raising educational standards, ensuring civil rights and strengthening democracy. It demonstrates the Government's commitment to press on with their mandate to build a modern, inclusive and

249
competitive Britain. These Bills complement the other measures in the Queen's Speech designed to meet this objective.
3.32 p.m.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, I regard it as a privilege to respond to the gracious Speech on the environment, education and agriculture. Later today, my noble friend Lord Bowness, who shares Front Bench duties with me, will address in more detail issues relating to the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Perhaps I may add my welcome to the maiden speakers. However, I understand that it is not six but seven speakers who will make their maiden speeches today. There are too many for me to comment on individually, all I can say at this stage is that I very much look forward to hearing what they have to say.
I was deeply offended by the remarks made by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and by the Prime Minister in another place when they suggested that the only issue of real interest to your Lordships was the reform of this House. I know that I speak for my noble friends on these Benches, and, I suspect, for noble Lords on all Benches in this House, when I say that not only do we take all legislative matters that come before us with the utmost seriousness, but we also fulfil our task of scrutiny with enthusiasm, diligence, skill and with an independence unmatched by Members in another place.
I have often heard it said by noble Lords, including noble Lords opposite when they were in opposition, that Bills almost always leave this House much improved. Indeed, I believe that all governments have come to rely upon the work which is done by your Lordships in this House. I listened with great interest to the gracious Speech and I have to say that it was, at times, more reminiscent of Prorogation than the opening of a new Session of Parliament. There was much reflection on the past legislative Session. When one sets aside references to legislation already enacted—for example, the Scottish devolution Act, the Welsh devolution Act and the Regional Development Agencies Act—followed by those matters for further consideration and consultation—for example, a food standards agency, an integrated transport policy and much else—there is nothing in the Government's programme which will help to raise educational standards or that will help to create more jobs.
Once again, we have had the umpteenth announcement of the £40 billion expenditure for education and health. Schools and local authorities can be forgiven for believing that there is so much money coming from on high that tight settlements and cautious pay awards are a thing of the past. The more astute will know differently.
When one looks more closely at the Government's programme, one is tempted to ask: whatever happened to special educational needs, early years education, a university for industry, life-long learning, all of which, throughout the year, have been subjected to much spin-doctoring and detail in glossy brochures with
250
promises of legislation? Like so much else, I suppose that they must be subordinated to hastily, ill-thought-through parliamentary reform.
We shall, so we are told, be invited to consider several draft Bills which are to include freedom of information, reform of party funding, the improvement of councils' conduct and a strategic rail authority. Will the Minister tell the House what is so special about these subjects which qualifies them for pre-legislative scrutiny, when such constitutional matters as proportional representation for elections, devolution and reform of the House of Lords do not qualify for such scrutiny?
There is nothing in the Government's legislative programme relating to agriculture. However, if we are to believe only part of what we understand is being considered by the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for increasing taxes on fuel, then farmers and rural communities will have a great deal to worry about. When he responds to the debate, it really would help if the Minister could disabuse the House of any such proposals.
On a more positive note, we welcome the "aid package" which was announced for farmers last week. However, it provides only a short-term measure for one year and for only one part of the food production industry. What the farmers and livestock industry are waiting to see is the Government's long-term strategy for farming and the food production industry. Farmers' incomes are at their lowest level for 50 years. Indeed, they fell by almost 50 per cent. in 1997 and they are expected to continue falling during the coming year. Moreover, it is arable as well as livestock farmers who are suffering.
Above all, farmers are asking for a level playing field. For example, how are they expected to compete with other imported produce which is grown, reared and/or manufactured abroad under conditions which are no longer acceptable or even lawful in this country? This applies to pigs and poultry in particular. Will the Government consider a ban on imported food, which does not meet the standards laid down for our own farmers in this country and of course the producers?
There also appears to be some confusion about a commitment by retailers not to sell imported meat processed in the United Kingdom but under a British label. The Minister for Agriculture repeated that commitment in another place. However, we now understand that the British Retail Consortium was referring to fresh meat only. Therefore, can the Minister please clarify the situation when he comes to reply to the debate?
There is considerable speculation that a Bill to outlaw hunting will be included in "other measures". Can the Minister confirm or deny this? Whatever the answer, I have to say that country people would do well to be vigilant.
Since the election last year, the Government have given a very high priority to the establishment of a food standards agency—until now, that is. The manifesto stated that the case for a food standards agency was unanswerable. In the White Paper, published 10 months

251
ago, the Prime Minister said that the setting up of an agency was a long overdue reform. As recently as 28th October, the Prime Minister, in answer to a parliamentary Question in another place, said that the Government remained committed to setting up a food standards agency "as soon as possible". Will the Minister tell the House the reason for the delay, or how soon is "as soon as possible"?
The real point at issue is the creation of uncertainty among Britain's food producers. Can we, for example, be told that a food standards agency will not create over-burdensome and costly bureaucracy? Can we be told that whatever form it takes it will be seen to work effectively without being a burden on small businesses and, of course, on farmers? Can we be told that it will be accountable to Parliament? In the meantime, and in the absence of a food standards agency, who will take responsibility for the work?
Following months of robust, if not always the most articulate, lectures from the right honourable gentleman Mr. Prescott on the environment, with promises of legislation almost on a weekly basis, there is hardly anything relating to the environment in the gracious Speech. Furthermore, the abolition of compulsory competitive tendering, which has saved millions of pounds in local government expenditure, will lend scope to many local authorities to return to the bad old days. And the Government resort to a depressingly familiar pattern: the setting up of yet another quango (a "best value-for-money inspectorate") endless consultation and yet more bureaucracy for local government.
On another matter, is the Minister in a position to clarify the role of local government in the new asylum and immigration arrangements? As he will know, this has been a vexed and expensive issue for many local authorities. As I said earlier, my noble friend Lord Bowness will address the DETR issues in more detail.
Education also has no place in the legislative programme. In some ways, I shall miss the energetic and lively interchanges with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone! However, I am mightily relieved not to be party to legislation such as the Teaching and Higher Education and the School Standards Framework Acts. As predicted, there are problems for students with tuition fees and the abolition of maintenance grants. The class-size pledge is costing much more than predicted and is proving problematic to implement. As a result of the Acts, the bureaucratic burden is building up for local authorities and teachers. The literacy hour is causing great angst for the best teachers and the best schools in the country. Such a blanket application of policy on all schools will hold back the best and may just help the least effective in the education system.
The realisation of the impact that organisational committees and the all-powerful adjudicator will have on local authorities and local democracy is now beginning to dawn. However, the effect of a rigged balloting system to abolish grammar schools is the most mean-spirited politics of envy and will do nothing to raise educational standards. In fact, it will have the opposite effect. The petition and balloting system will result in a relentless war of attrition on those schools.
252
Already one can see evidence of precious energy, time and money having to be used to prepare for what will be a form of guerrilla warfare on their existence. Does not the Minister agree that this continuous assault on the grammar schools will have the utmost unsettling and damaging effect on staff, pupils and parents?
We know that there is nervousness about this policy in No. 10 Downing Street. However, we also know that Mr. Blunkett, supported by the Government's partners in policy, the Liberal Democrats, and many of his "old Labour" friends, including the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, cannot wait until the last grammar school closes its doors. Some grammar schools, especially those which own their own land and buildings, will be able to raise sufficient funds to go independent. This of course will result in yet another rung removed from the ladder of opportunity for bright children from low-income families.
We are told to expect a "radical" consultation paper, proposing the most far-reaching reforms of the teaching profession for 50 years. The only details we had, until the Minister spoke today, were what we read in our Sunday newspapers, heard on the radio and saw on television. My goodness, the spin doctors have had a busy time this weekend!
Having listened to Mr. Blunkett yesterday, I can say that there will be much excitement in the teaching profession because, as he said, very large numbers of teachers will be able to access the new awards. Head teachers can expect to receive between £60,000 and £70,000 salaries and a fast track will be created for new teachers to attain and pass salaries of £23,000. This, as we understand it, will be underpinned by a performance-related pay system using external assessment. The most important feature of performance-related pay will be the degree to which the teaching profession is confident in the assessment system. It must be objective and it must he sufficiently robust to stand up to rigorous challenge.
Can the Minister tell the House who has been consulted on the preparation for the paper and when we can expect to see it? Can the Minister also say whether the money will increase the quantum for teachers' pay? And will the money come from the £40 billion which was announced at the weekend, or is it to be "new money" and will local authorities be compensated for paying that? What proportion of teachers are expected to receive awards higher than under the present system? And what is the timescale for implementation, taking into account both the consultation period and the need for legislation?
In just 18 months we have witnessed, among other things, the abolition of assisted places; the announcement of a phased withdrawal of collegiate tutorial fees from Oxford and Cambridge universities; the ending of interviewing and testing of children for entry into schools; the loss of autonomy for grant-maintained schools; the introduction of a rigged balloting system to abolish grammar schools; the banning of enforceable school contracts; the ending of further selection; and powers being given to the adjudicator to end selection where it already exists. No

253
one, but no one, can argue with the Government's aim to raise educational standards. They have done many things which we support.
However, the Government have chosen to stifle choice and diversity; to remove opportunities from the brightest young people from low-income families; to believe that by attacking what works-for example, grant-maintained schools, grammar schools, selection on the ground of academic ability and assisted places—education for all will improve. You cannot make poor schools better by attacking or destroying good schools. A policy of what cannot be made available to all shall be made available to no one is pure socialism and should have no part in an education system in this country.
What is needed is a rich tapestry of comprehensive and denominational schools; city technology colleges; modern schools; technology and specialist schools; wholly, partially and non-selective schools; bilateral schools; single-sex and mixed schools; grant-maintained schools; all forms of special schools, including for the most as well as the least able; and a robust independent sector to provide appropriate education to meet the needs of all children. Why do not the Government concentrate their energy and resources on addressing those parts of the education system which are not working and allow those parts which are to flourish?
Finally, I understand that the Government are to introduce a Bill to lower the age of consent for practising homosexuality. It goes without saying that this is a highly contentious issue. But perhaps I may say in the context of education that lowering the age of consent to condone sexual activity between the same-sex couples from the age of 16 is not only a moral issue, it is a child protection issue. It is not only children in care or in some form of adult supervision but all of our children who are vulnerable. The Bill, if it should reach the statute book—I hope that it does not—will impact on millions of young, impressionable people who are still only school children.
There are at least two practical dangers from such a proposition. First, it sends out the wrong message to young people and weakens all efforts to strengthen the institution of marriage. Secondly, what is commonly known as Clause 28—which precludes schools and local education authorities from proselytizing about homosexuality—will be vulnerable to amendment. I know the Bill will probably be given a free vote. However, let me say now, I shall oppose this measure as strongly as the parliamentary system allows.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I too begin by saying how much I look forward to hearing the seven maiden speeches to which we are to be treated today. If I may single out one, I look forward particularly to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, who is a long-standing friend, with a small "f", and a colleague from local government. Indeed, he is a fellow member of the European Union Committee of the Regions. There are now six of us in this House who are or have been members of the Committee of the Regions. We may have enough one day to have a debate on the subject.
254
I intend to say nothing about agriculture because that reflects my state of knowledge on the subject in spite of heroic attempts by the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, with whom I share an office, to better my education. I shall try to resist the temptation to speak on the environment, about which I know rather more, except perhaps to comment that it seems to be the big hole in the Government's legislative programme and where it most dramatically fails to live up to its words and, we had thought, its intentions.
As a London borough council leader, I may well be tempted to say something about local government—especially about London government—but I want to concentrate mainly on education and employment. I do this not to rehearse the battles that occurred in the last Session of Parliament but to look forward to the coming Session. I was not alone in your Lordships' House in heaving a huge sigh of relief on learning that there is no new primary legislation on education this Session. Certainly those of us who battled through the pincer movement of the Teaching and Higher Education Bill and the School Standards and Framework Bill when both came together in your Lordships' House must share that feeling. The very much more embattled teachers in school are even more certain to welcome a legislation-free period in order to digest what has gone before. I know only too well that the permanent revolution that successive governments have inflicted on the profession will barely pause in its stride. Before the week is out we shall have Mr. Blunkett's recipe for the future of the teaching profession.
There can be no doubt that serious rethinking is urgently necessary. We face an unprecedented crisis in teacher recruitment. Half of all the trained teachers we have in this country choose not to work in schools. Teacher training colleges are failing to meet Mr. Blunkett's targets in maths, physics and modern languages. In secondary schools male teachers of English are an endangered species and so, consequently, are boys sitting A-level English. Male teachers are vanishing from our primary schools, as we discussed at Question Time this afternoon. The sixth formers that we do persuade to take education degrees have worryingly low A-level grades. In no way are we attracting the high fliers.
Many people will say that most of the problem is due to low pay and to the dismal financial prospects of those talented teachers who choose to stay in the classrooms. At this point I need to declare, as I always do, that I am married to a primary school teacher. That is certainly a problem which we on these Benches wish to see the Secretary of State address.
But we also see a much more deep-seated difficulty, and so do the teachers. Teachers and those entering the teaching profession should be imaginative, inventive, with inquiring minds, eager to get pupils to think for themselves and to develop not only competencies but creativity. As the years since the establishment of the national curriculum in 1988 have ground on, teachers have found themselves more and more constrained. First, it was what they were to teach; now, under this

255
Government, it is how they are to teach, with squads of inquisitors and gauleiters of every kind to enforce compliance.
We on these Benches are here because we are liberals with a small "l". Because of that we believe in the development of individual human potential. Schools where everything is "done by the book", where endless boxes are ticked, are not friendly places for that freedom of the imagination. Government have succeeded in making teachers into operatives, dispensing a pre-packaged product to the customers. High-flying graduates do not choose a profession which reduces its members to check-out cashiers and shelf-stackers.
I commend to your Lordships my party's established policy for a minimum curriculum entitlement. But we need more than that. The Teaching and Higher Education Act set up a General Teaching Council earlier this year. We should hand over to that body a large measure of self-determination for the teaching profession and stop telling professionals how to do their job.
It is customary on these occasions to indicate what we on these Benches would have liked to see in the Queen's Speech. I admit to being a little schizophrenic here. I was very pleased by one omission. On the other hand I shall now indicate four areas which I would have liked to see mentioned and which, I think I can safely say, the teaching profession and parents alike would also have welcomed. The first is an early years education Bill to establish a foundation key stage and universal provision of early years education for all three year-olds whose parents want it. I remind the Minister that the Labour manifesto promise is still unfulfilled. In an answer on the 11th November the Government admitted that their funding plans would only be sufficient for 66 per cent. of this age group to have places by the year 2002. I think we are all agreed that high-quality early years education is the essential foundation for all that we wish to build for the future.
Our second Bill would be a life-long learning Bill to ensure that provision is available and, where possible, free at the point of delivery. We remain the only party in England to fight tuition fees for university undergraduates and to campaign for fair funding for part-time students. This occasion is timely in that it gives me the opportunity to give a very warm welcome to the announcement of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, on Friday of government funding for our most talented drama and dance students with a £17 million scholarship programme. I gently pass over the fact that this was promised for the summer and that there are now just 25 shopping days to Christmas. The essential point is that it will be in place in September 1999. The noble Baroness knows how vitally important this scheme is. Our investigations back in the spring revealed disgraceful hardship among the young people involved.
256
In view of that, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether—and I quote from the DfEE press release—the,
"special help for people from low-income families to ensure that they can complete the training",
will be available to those students already in training who are living on the breadline? Will student loans be available to them?
While on the subject of life-long learning, is it not time that something was done for further education by resolving the dispute between NATFHE and the Association of Colleges? This dispute has been going on since 1993 and strike action is now threatened for the new year. You cannot build a learning society while the lecturing profession is at war with its employers.
A few moments ago I indicated our considerable concern over the crisis in teacher recruitment. There is also an issue about teacher retention. A very large proportion of the teaching profession is over 40 years of age. Polls suggest that an alarming number of them would leave teaching if they could afford to do so. Our third Bill, therefore, would be an age discrimination Bill. This seems perhaps, like the Freedom of Information Bill, to be a Labour dog that has ceased to bark. Some of the anger among older teachers stems from the fact that they are suffering age discrimination. They are told at interview that they are the best candidates but that the schools simply cannot afford to employ them. Age discrimination is also making it difficult for "returners" to get permanent teaching jobs rather than agency and supply posts.
Finally, it will come as no surprise that we wish to see a class size reduction Bill. I hope the Minister will acknowledge that the Government have under-funded their programme to reduce class sizes at key stage one. They crucially failed to take account of the knock-on effects on both schools' admission policies and on class sizes at key stage two—the junior school children—which are still rising. Perhaps they will now accept that their piecemeal approach, which was Treasury driven, was a false economy which will hamper the Government's efforts to raise school standards.
Before I leave education matters and turn to employment, I want to say just a few words on bidding, target setting and forward planning. The announcement the Secretary of State made last week about spending on school buildings was of course welcome. It is interesting that in 1996 my party was arguing for a school buildings renewal programme of roughly this size. What is troubling is that once again we are back to bidding—the politics of the lottery. It is unclear to me, and I think it will be unclear to your Lordships, why the Government have rejected no fewer than 16 bids from Derbyshire for the removal of outside toilets. Why the Government should make this a matter for bidding bewilders me. No one in government seems in the least concerned about the sheer waste of public money in the bidding process. For instance, Oxfordshire submitted a staggering 1,115 bids and has been successful with only 113. Has anyone calculated what was the cost in time of county council staff in preparing the 1,002 unsuccessful

257
bids? It is not only Oxfordshire that has experienced this problem. Nearly two-thirds of all LEA bids for government funds fail.
We are also deeply uneasy about the effects of government target setting. The targets for key stage two pupils leave nothing for the bottom 20 per cent. of pupils to aim at. They distract attention from those who have little chance of meeting the target. We feel that this target-setting approach is exactly the way to make social exclusion worse. I remind the Minister that the Labour Party manifesto also set a target. It was that all—I repeat, all—children will leave primary school with a reading age of 11 by 2007.
Finally, on education, it has to be said that too many unanswered questions remain after the comprehensive spending review. According to our latest estimate, only about 65 per cent. of the extra money announced for education has been allocated so far. The great beauty of three-year spending plans should be that they create an environment of certainty and enable long-term planning. My worry is that the detailed announcements that we should be getting, the announcements on which providers depend, are being delayed for purely party political considerations.
I turn now to employment. Ministers are in real danger of putting far too many eggs in the New Deal basket. Great claims are being made for it. It is presented as central to employment policy, education and training policy, economic policy, competitiveness policy and even crime prevention policy. Understandably, the Government are keen to declare it a success. The Government's case is that youth unemployment is coming down and therefore the New Deal is working. Youth unemployment certainly is coming down, and that is very welcome, but the number of unemployed young people peaked as a percentage of total unemployment in April 1993 and it has been falling fairly steadily ever since. It came down at a greater rate between July and October this year. That is welcome too, but was not entirely unexpected.
After all, everyone leaving the New Deal gateway comes off the JSA claimant account. It is still too early to say whether their employability has really been improved in the longer term. Some of the earlier evidence is worrying. It is already clear that many young people leave the New Deal to take up very short-term work and end up claiming benefit again. The employment service needs to monitor that very carefully and publish the results. It also needs to keep better track of the "disappeared". Up to the end of August the destination of more than 9,500 individuals was officially unknown. The gaps in the Government's information are alarming. It is as if we have the Cheshire Cat's smile but not the cat.
In the past few weeks the Government have been unable to tell my colleagues in another place how many subsidised vacancies there are, the size of companies taking on New Deal trainees, the courses people are taking on the full-time education and training option and with which providers, or anything at all about the progress of former offenders other than the numbers who have joined the scheme early. It is becoming clear
258
that 20 per cent. fewer people from ethnic minorities are finding subsidised employment than the rest. Previous schemes of this kind have suffered from similar biases. Before Ministers claim that the New Deal is better than all its forebears, that will have to be corrected.
It is also clear that some regions are performing better than others. The figures published last week show that my region, London, and indeed the south east, is falling further and further behind the national average. Too many are failing to leave the gateway and too few are finding either subsidised jobs or full-time education and training places. As of 11th November the Government still did not have an employer database. Without it the Government will not be able to pinpoint success and failure and to put those biases right.
I am glad that the Government are taking some action. They started collecting information on the full-time education and training option the day before the Minister for Employment replied to the request of my colleague in another place for it. But however keen we may be on constructive opposition, we do not expect to do the Government's job for them.
Before I conclude, I want to turn to the issue of London government. As I said, I speak as the leader of a London borough council. I understand that the Greater London authority Bill is to be published later this week. Furthermore, I understand that the Bill will contain approaching 300 clauses and 20 schedules. I remind the Minister that that is twice the size of the School Standards and Framework Bill. My noble friend Lady Hamwee will say more about this when she speaks later in the debate but I wish to make one or two comments now.
We opposed the abolition of the GLC. We said rather that the GLC should be reformed in order to play a more strategic role than it was doing at that time. Perhaps, some 14 years later, we are going to be proved right. But we take no great joy out of 14 wasted years. It is well known that we on these Benches opposed a directly elected mayor. We preferred a parliamentary model, with the mayor being elected by the assembly. But we do not intend to re-fight that battle. We accept that we shall have a directly elected mayor and we shall concentrate instead on the relationship between the mayor and the assembly and between the mayor and the London boroughs.
I became a London borough council leader on, I think, the day the GLC was abolished. I accept that one of the good things to come out of the abolition of the GLC has been the increasing self-confidence of the London boroughs themselves. Boroughs have learnt how to work better in partnership within their own local communities and, perhaps even more importantly, how better to work co-operatively and in partnership with each other. That is a great strength in London government. Much though I welcome the establishment of a Greater London authority, we shall watch very carefully to ensure that it does not weaken London borough government. Furthermore, it must not be forgotten that the mayor will inevitably be in the media spotlight and that pressures will come upon the mayor

259
to intervene in matters for which he or she has no responsibility. That, if it happens, will undermine London borough government even more.
The Government's legislative programme is in many respects welcome. What is not welcome is what is not in it. It is the programme of a cautious and timid government, not one which will be remembered for its brave radicalism.
4.10 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester: My Lords, I never climb into a pulpit, even in the smallest of the country parishes in my diocese, without experiencing a proper mixture of anticipation and nervousness. Your Lordships can well imagine that today's debate has induced in me that same mixture, with perhaps a good deal more nervousness than I have ever felt in Church. It is indeed a great privilege to address your Lordships' House.
I greatly welcome the reference in the most gracious Speech that education will remain the Government's top priority, with a strong commitment to raising standards in our schools. I believe this is vital to the development of a democratic and more equitable society and it is absolutely right that resources should be targeted on where they can make the most difference, for example through education action zones.
Our collective aim should be to secure a world-class education system, and for this we need a first-class teaching profession. It is encouraging to hear that a consultation paper is being brought forward on the most far-reaching reforms of the teaching profession for 50 years, which will enhance the status of teachers and reward high performance to secure the delivery of high standards. I believe this could do much to ensure that the best graduates are recruited and retained for the profession. Sadly, this is not the case at present with high drop-out rates both on the part of those in training and those in the profession.
We must therefore continue to build a growing trust between politicians and the profession. Quite rightly this requires tough and rigorous accountability, but it also requires proper recognition of teachers and their inestimable value in the community so that their individual and corporate morale is raised. For this we need effective initial training, an enhanced career structure, systematic professional training and development for all teachers in service, and an appropriate reward system.
The Government have achieved a great deal in building on the work of their predecessor. The gracious Speech heralds further development designed to raise standards and the esteem of the teaching profession. I greatly hope that this will encourage the public at large to esteem the teaching profession more highly. A profession that is highly valued by our society today will readily attract good quality candidates, including many more men, and keep them for the whole of their career.
I make two pleas: first, that we should work creatively with all the partners in the education process, teachers, parents, governors, unions, local education authorities
260
and higher education institutions, and not least with the Churches which have played a hugely significant and historic role in the formation of the public education system of our country; and, secondly, that we should remember that, while it is absolutely right to concentrate school education on the basic skills of literacy, numeracy and science, a healthy democratic society also requires spiritual vision and spiritual values. The Churches working with other faith communities will wish actively to support this agenda and to work with these other partners to see how this also can be taken forward in the context of the reforms the Government are proposing. I believe that all our Churches—my own Church is part of this—can make an important contribution by encouraging their members to see teaching as a noble and Christian calling.
Finally, I should like to add that as well as being conscious of the great privilege of belonging to this House, I am most grateful for the kindness and generosity which have been shown to me as the most junior on the Bench of Bishops. I thank your Lordships for the courtesy with which you have listened to me on this first and rather daunting occasion.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Sheppard of Liverpool: My Lords, I have never known how decisions are made about who is to follow a maiden speech and to be the first to congratulate the maiden speaker. It might be supposed to be a little incestuous for me to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester on his maiden speech! It might be thought doubly so as I consulted his CV and discovered that he is a member of the MCC. I congratulate him on being so cheerful on the day following a particularly damaging England defeat. I congratulate him warmly on his maiden speech and I am delighted to be the first to have the opportunity to do so. His speech was based on the experience of his regular visits to all the parishes in his diocese and to schools, and his meetings with teachers, governors and many others. I am so pleased that he spoke of the Church of England as a partner with the other Churches and with those of other faiths. I know that other noble Lords will join with me in hoping that we will hear from him on many other occasions.
I am glad that right at the top of the priorities of the gracious Speech is the Government's determination to raise standards in education services and to stimulate greater opportunities of work for all those who can. I want to focus particularly on those young people who have left school and have not moved into further or higher education. Among the education services a key role needs to be played by the Youth Service, of which little is mentioned. I hear varied accounts of how the New Deal is working out. From Liverpool I hear encouraging comments on the sensitive way in which staff of the employment service are assisting young people through the gateway to the New Deal. I also hear some anxieties that sometimes there is over much pressure to achieve measurable outcomes which might damage the hard-earned relationships of trust. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, some young people have

261
"disappeared", although the numbers which I have heard quoted are not as large as in the year following the removal of benefit to 16 and 17 year-olds.
The greatest anxiety is that there may not be real jobs at the end of the training process. That has discredited good training schemes in the past. It will cut away the motivation to learn in school too. I have no quarrel with the call for education, education, education, but in areas of high unemployment young people need to believe that there are jobs to go to before we can expect any marked improvement in the achievements of school leavers.
The Social Exclusion Unit's call for a new deal for the most damaged communities underlines still more the need for real jobs. Somehow a whole culture that has had no expectation of employment—in some cases for three generations—has taken over communities. Turning that around needs a huge change in attitudes. A community police officer told me that in her outer estate in Merseyside youngsters had such a low opinion of themselves that they would have at least three mountains of self-confidence to overcome before they could risk applying for a training course. Who is going to have the skill and the commitment to build the relationships that will encourage young people to attempt those mountains?
Shortly before I retired last year, my wife and I visited a detached youth work project in inner city Liverpool. We were enormously impressed by the dedication of the adult team in building up trust. There is a full-time member of the team, who has himself been unemployed, part-time members and volunteers. They meet young people on neutral ground. A number of those youngsters have been excluded from school. The team described the liveliness and potential of the young people they meet, and the moments when, having won the right to challenge them, they sometimes take on the youngsters about some of the values they boast of.
I believe that we need a variety of provision in the youth service. There is a continuing and important place for club-based work and for detached youth work. The colleague of my noble friend on the Front Bench who has responsibility in the department for life-long learning and the youth service, George Mudie, addressed a seminar on alienated youth, organised by the Church of England's national youth officer, last Monday. George Mudie said,
"The Youth Service is the key service. It is a bridge on which relationships of trust can be built".
He then told us that the Government are working on a consultation paper, and were hoping to offer an expanded youth service.
There is much ground to be recovered. There has been a steady erosion of funding for the youth service. The youth workers present at last Monday's seminar were clear that their first need was security of funding. Local authorities under pressure to find cuts have turned regularly to discretionary items. The youth service, both under local authority and voluntary management, has
262
been drastically cut back. A review in 1996 of London's youth work by the Sir John Cass Foundation concluded,
"There is now no slack: successive cuts have long ago removed any fat, and are now eating into the bone of Local Authority provision".
Youth leaders in voluntary organisations have to spend disproportionate time and energy designing strategies, writing reports and approaching donors, simply to be able to stay in business. That is not what they were trained for. It takes them away from the face-to-face relationships that are so crucial if the youth service is to provide that bridge of which George Mudie rightly spoke.
During our years at the Mayflower Family Centre in East London, our youth leader died. There was a year's gap in finding a new leader, so I dropped everything else and became a full-time youth leader for that year. I tell your Lordships that it was the most demanding and draining job I have ever done in my life. We need to set youth leaders free from the worries of fund-raising and survival.
I press my noble friends the Ministers on the Front Bench to recognise that the consultation George Mudie spoke of must lead to legislation. The youth service must be put on an unequivocally legal basis. That means laying clear responsibility on local authorities, which are the regular funders of youth work. So I would ask the Ministers from the DfEE to assure us that they will draw those from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions into the consultation. When the next local government Bill is brought forward, or perhaps the next education Bill, but in any case very soon, I hope, it should include at least two clauses. The first should ensure that a duty is laid on every local authority to secure sufficient youth services in co-operation with voluntary organisations. It is hard to believe that has not been the case in law for years. Secondly, the Secretary of State should make recommendations on what should constitute sufficient youth services. There needs to be a clear policy framework. Those recommendations were at the top of a list put forward by a consortium of youth organisations before the last election, and they are even more urgent today.
Until the youth service is put on an unequivocally legal basis, there will be a haphazard service, and a most insecure career for youth leaders. The ratio of youth leaders to young people varies erratically and dramatically across the country. The audit of England's local authority youth provision showed that at one end of the spectrum the ratio of leaders to young people is 1:266; at the other end it is 1:4900.
Liverpool City Council, for example, to its great credit, has kept something like £6 million in its budget for discretionary items and services for the youth service. The previous leader, Frank Prendergast, told me how, when the council was struggling to balance the budget—that is, every year—Government Ministers would tell the council that it must cut its discretionary grants.

263
The Thompson Report of 1982, like four Bills introduced by Back-Benchers over the past 30 years, proposed firm legislation. If we want to put this key service, as Mr Mudie put it, onto a secure basis, we must grasp the nettle of legislation this time.
Voluntary bodies, generally supported by grants from local authorities, provide much of the youth service. That partnership needs to be maintained. As with voluntary bodies receiving grants from social services, a contract culture must not seek to impose a straitjacket, which prevents voluntary bodies from offering their distinct service to young people, and their freedom to experiment. They should indeed be subject to proper evaluation.
My noble friends on the Front Bench will not make the mistake sometimes made before, of assuming that voluntary bodies are entirely manned by volunteers. We need professionally trained and equipped youth leaders, paid as professionals, for this sensitive and demanding task of bridge-building. They will often mobilise and support volunteers too. So grants from the public purse generate outstandingly good value for money. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations says that no less than £2.5 billion is added to our GNP through voluntary youth work.
Securing a proper structure for youth leaders must be the basis for an effective youth service. One-off projects and grants have provided buildings for youth work. They will not be put to proper use, unless there is committed and skilful leadership. That can turn bricks and mortar into the bridges on which young people can find the trusting relationships that life-long learning and training need from the youth service.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I hope that the Government will listen to what the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, has just said. I endorse every word.
Twenty-three per cent. of the population are children—that is, nearly a quarter. Fourteen departments of state make decisions which influence the welfare of children, but I cannot find in this five-day debate any reasonable slot in which to discuss the effectiveness of government structures for children. I am taking the liberty of speaking this afternoon on that subject because, unfortunately, if the Government have their way, I shall not have very much longer to nag your Lordships on the subject of children. Therefore, I am taking every opportunity that I can to do so. The reason why I decided to speak in the debate on education will emerge in a few moments and I hope that it will bring a smile to the face of the noble Baroness.
The issue of effective government for children is high on the agenda of almost all those who work with, and for the interests of, children. There is a widespread belief outside government—indeed, it is also acknowledged within government—that the current structures of government are failing children. There is substantial evidence to support that view.
In 1994 I was involved with the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Parenting and the International Year of the Family in a series of four hearings on the
264
family in the Grand Committee Room. Witness after witness drew attention to the need for closer co-operation between departments of state, departments of local government and between the centre and local authorities on matters which affect children.
One key witness at the hearings said:
"Responsibility for policies affecting families and children is split between numerous Departments of Central and Local Government—often leading to incoherent policy making and patchy service provision—creating gaps which some families fall through".
Another said:
"We need a better structure in social services to prevent Departments pulling in opposite directions, always to the detriment of families and children".
Today's structures in Whitehall were set up following the Haldane Report in 1918. Departments are organised by function rather than by reference to the particular population groups that they serve. That is a perfectly reasonable arrangement and there are strong arguments in favour of it. But it is failing children.
Children are rather a special case. As I said, 23 per cent. of the population are children. They have no vote and no power, and are therefore of little technical interest to politicians—although there are notable examples, like the present Home Secretary, whose personal dedication to the issue of families and children is remarkable.
Children have no real lobby; that is, not comparable in its power and determination to the lobby for women's interests or that for the disabled. Moreover, children have no department of state dedicated to their needs. Yet children are probably more affected by the activities and inactivity of government departments than any other group. The financial and social costs of failing to ensure that children develop in a full and healthy way are very high, not only for the children themselves but for society.
In 1996 the Gulbenkian Foundation published a report which I commend to the House. I have had a copy placed in the Library. The report, entitled Effective Government Structures for Children, identifies the need for a clear government strategy in regard to children; effective co-ordination between departments, both central and local; information about how policies affect children—there is very little statistical information that is specific to children—and funding structures which do not set departments in conflict with one another but enable them to work together to the benefit of children.
At local authority level there are also problems. I cannot do better than quote the Gulbenkian Report, which states:
"Local Departments are locked into different statutory frameworks, priorities and cultures and are driven by officers and members who are as determined to secure funds for their 'patch' as are their counterparts in central Government".
It is interesting that one or two local authorities have recently decided to merge their children's social services into their education department. One such authority is Milton Keynes. A recent report by the Social Services Inspectorate said:
"The SSI concludes that the integration of functions has assisted the process of creative thinking particularly in the preventive field".

265
I hope that the noble Baroness will encourage further integration of services, at least on an experimental basis.
That brings me to my final point and to the reason why I have raised this issue into this debate on education. I believe that the Government should give serious consideration to making the Department for Education the lead department for children. It should be the "Department for Education and Children". It would have key responsibility for children's welfare and for all children's policy from birth to age 18 and a budget to meet the costs. It would, of course, have to sub-contract technical services to health and central departments.
Such a change would have three great advantages. It would mean: one Secretary of State for children, to fight for children in Cabinet and to answer for government policy on children at the Dispatch Box; one budget for children; and one department to drive forward change for children.
Whether or not the Government accept that solution, it is incontestable that something needs to be done to improve the effectiveness, creativity and efficiency with which government deliver services to children. This is a reforming Government and a strong Government. I hope that they will address this problem.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Stafford: My Lords, I am told by a noble friend that a maiden speech should be three things: short, not too controversial and eminently forgettable. I shall try to bear all three factors in mind.
I am grateful for this opportunity to speak to the House on the subject of the environment and particularly the landfill tax credit scheme which was introduced at the same time as the landfill tax on 1st October 1996. Landfill tax is the United Kingdom's first environmental tax designed primarily to reduce the amount of materials deposited in landfill sites. As I am sure your Lordships are aware, the landfill tax credit scheme is overseen by Entrust, the regulatory body set up by Customs and Excise which is responsible for the landfill tax and its collection. Here, I must declare an interest as I am a voluntary director of the Staffordshire Environmental Fund, a leading independent enrolled body which acts as an intermediary between contributing landfill site operators and environmental projects within the county.
The Staffordshire fund currently has 190 environmental projects under consideration, of which 63 have been approved by Entrust. That accounts for some £2.47 million of the scheme's money. Many projects simply would not take place without the landfill tax credit scheme, which in Staffordshire contributes £1 to every £6 of other funding. Contributions to the 63 agreed projects range from £700 to £170,000 and cover the spectrum of the scheme's overall objectives.
There are other benefits of the landfill tax credit scheme which are less obvious. Its funding counts as "private sector" and consequently acts as a catalyst in relation to other UK and European grants. It also brings together agencies. We have developed relationships with, among others, single regeneration bid teams, English Heritage and the local community council, with
266
many recipient projects creating jobs and training opportunities and by improving the environment helping economic regeneration.
The scheme is becoming increasingly successful, but there are possibilities for further improvement. First, there are just over 1,100 environmental bodies, of which perhaps 100—that is an estimate—are umbrella organisations. The vast majority of the remainder are mostly single project, fund-seeking organisations which understandably make incessant demands on landfill site operators for support. They also create costly audit work for Entrust.
To reduce bureaucracy and speed decision-making, and to avoid duplication of costs and provide a more uniform system of application and appraisal, it would be valid to consider revamping the scheme through a fixed number of independent enrolled environmental bodies appointed to manage the scheme in franchised areas. Local organisations would simply seek assistance via the appropriate enrolled body which would oversee and be responsible for the completion of their projects. Other appointed bodies would handle schemes to be operated on a national basis. That, in my opinion, would make Entrust's life much easier.
Secondly, with effective independent and franchised environmental bodies, there would be a further argument to review the provision whereby an operator receives only 90 per cent. tax credit for the contributions made. That would be a beneficial development, as the 10 per cent. required to be paid off the bottom line by operators can, and does, act as a disincentive to their taking part in the landfill tax credit scheme.
Thirdly, there is at present no requirement for landfill tax moneys to be spent in the locality in which they have been raised. Further amendments should be considered to ensure that the tax collected is given to local enrolled bodies. Currently, tax collected in Staffordshire could all be spent on projects in Scotland. Perhaps there should be a requirement that 80 per cent. of the tax collected locally should be spent locally and the remaining 20 per cent. given to environmental bodies handling national projects.
Fourthly, it is sad that none of the 190 projects we have seen so far has been for recycling or waste administration. Perhaps some of the additional funding which will arise from the increase in landfill tax from £7 to £10 proposed from 1st April 1999 should be directed towards this area and the guidelines set down by Entrust should be widened to cover not just pilot schemes or schemes operated by local authorities.
Finally, since the introduction of the landfill tax there is undoubtedly increased evidence of fly-tipping due to the higher waste disposal costs. Fly-tipping is a serious environmental problem affecting landowners, farmers, local authorities and the police. It is an area in which Customs and Excise should be involved as it is clearly tax evasion.
I have much to commend this scheme for. Approximately £500 million is currently raised under the landfill tax for the Revenue, £100 million of which can be returned for local environmental projects. The landfill tax credit scheme has potential for the future,

267
but it needs a robust and competent regulator in Entrust as well as good, professional, independent environmental bodies at local level to handle it. Once these are established, they could be used as a vehicle for future environmental taxes such as the proposed quarry tax or water-polluting tax.
Perhaps I may take the opportunity to digress. I hope that this maiden speech is not the first and last speech that I shall make to this House, possibly closing a chapter in our family's history as I do so. It was in 1299 that the first member of my family was called to Parliament, 700 years ago next year, while just over 600 years ago we were elevated to the peerage. In the succeeding six centuries three members of the family had their heads chopped off—not entirely careless to lose one ancestor every 200 years, particularly as we kept choosing the wrong side. The first was in 1485. The last, in 1680, was Viscount Stafford who, along with a number of other Catholic Peers, was tried before this House under the false evidence of Titus Oates. If there were a headmaster's end-of-term report, which sadly seems likely, it might say that Stafford was a good and hard-working pupil, but he will go down in history and religious studies. I hope that he will not have to resit his politics exam in another place.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, it gives me very great pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stafford, on his maiden speech. I can assure him of one thing: it was certainly not forgettable. He shared with us his considerable experience in making use of the landfill tax credit scheme in his county of Staffordshire. I congratulate him on the success that has clearly been achieved there. Furthermore, from his experience, he told us how this important scheme for the benefit of the environment, with the recycling of moneys raised for specifically environmental purposes, can be improved. We are most grateful for that and hope that he will return to the subject on future occasions. We were also most impressed with the addendum on the history of his family. Let us hope that there may still be much time in which, in one way or another, he can continue to serve the nation through Parliament. After all, even if he has to leave this place, he will be eligible to go into another place and continue his contribution there.
I am particularly pleased that the noble Lord referred to the environment, because it is the subject on which I wish to dwell. As was previously noted by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and my noble friend Lord Tope, the environment is a matter which is not much dealt with in the Queen's Speech. In fact, the word itself is not mentioned at all. I find that surprising in view of the fact that, to be fair to the Government, they have taken environmental issues very seriously, as did their predecessors. The previous government took a leading role in the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 and the present Government took a lead in the Kyoto conference in 1997 and the recent Buenos Aires conference in October this year. These were concerned, as your Lordships will recall, with the problem of climate change, on which the Government recently issued an important consultative document.
268
The issue I should like to raise is the extent to which practical progress can be made in dealing with climate change in the coming year, even though very little relevant legislation is proposed. I wish to declare that I have a continuing interest in the energy sector, and particularly in the promotion of energy efficiency.
Let us first consider the Government's climate change objectives. There are, in fact, two. The first has been taken within the context of the European Union to reduce emissions by 12.5 per cent. below 1990 levels over the period between 2008 and 2012. The average reduction for the EU as a whole is 8 per cent. and so the UK aims to go a good deal further than the average. In addition, the Government have set a manifesto objective of a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2010. These are both extremely demanding targets and they must be seen against the background of low and reducing energy prices and plentiful supplies. Therefore, market forces are operating at present against energy saving.
The UK is likely to be among the few countries which will meet the objectives fixed at Rio in 1992 for CO2 emissions to be no higher in the year 2000 than they were in 1990. This achievement is largely due to the substantial switch from coal to gas (which itself created other problems which the Government have recently tried to deal with) and industrial restructuring on a less energy-intensive basis. But those factors are unlikely to occur to anything like the same extent in the period between 2000 and 2010. Therefore, specific measures will be required for greater energy efficiency and reduced emissions.
The document on climate change issued last month contains an analysis of various options to achieve the targets. There has also been the report from the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Knightsbridge, which examines the implications within the industrial sector for emissions trading and energy taxes. However, both the Government's climate change document and the Marshall Report require further consultation. I consider that there is a strong case for more immediate action while these consultations are proceeding, and I have four proposals to make.
The first concerns the Government's commitment, made last July, to issue statutory guidance on social and environmental objectives, including energy-efficiency objectives, to utility regulators. It now seems clear that a utility reform Bill is unlikely to be introduced in the present Session. It is nevertheless important that guidance should be given soon to regulators on energy-efficiency objectives. Can the Minister, in replying, indicate the Government's intentions in this regard?
Secondly, one of the most successful energy-saving initiatives of the present time is represented by the standards of performance scheme operated in the electricity industry. This scheme, which has been in operation since 1994, represents a partnership between the electricity regulator and the electricity supply companies. It is funded by some £26 million a year raised by charging electricity companies £1 a year for each domestic consumer supplied. In return, the

269
companies accept an energy-efficiency obligation, based on a specific reduction in electricity consumption fixed by the regulator. The scheme has exceeded expectations. In a report issued last July the National Audit Office showed that under the scheme,
"savings are being achieved at an average cost of 1.8 pence per unit of electricity saved".
This compares with the average pool price of electricity of 2.5 pence per unit. Therefore, this shows that it is cheaper to spend money saving electricity than to produce it.
I should like to put two questions to the Minister in this connection. In view of the undoubted success of the standards of performance scheme in relation to the domestic use of electricity, do the Government seek to apply it also to gas, bearing in mind that such a scheme was introduced by the first regulator Sir James MacKinnon and abandoned by his successor? Quite apart from energy saving considerations, there is a strong case for treating gas on all fours with electricity as most suppliers now handle both fuels. For them to persuade their customers to save on electricity but not gas is, to say the least, anomalous in present circumstances.
Secondly, there is also a case for extending this scheme which currently applies to domestic consumers to industrial and commercial consumers. While consultations take place on the recommendations of the Marshall Report it should not be difficult to introduce a standards of performance scheme for the industrial sector. A relatively small amount of money, say I per cent. per consumer, raised on the distribution of gas and electricity might equate to about £100 million per annum, which could be used to stimulate a large number of energy-saving schemes.
My third recommendation is that we should build on another successful scheme. I refer to the non-fossil fuel obligation scheme (NFFO). The Fifth Renewables Order has recently been announced. There is no doubt that this scheme has contributed to the development of renewables in a major way, and certainly has achieved more than might otherwise have been achieved. However, the bulk of the energy consumed in Britain still comes from fossil fuel sources. There is therefore a case for extending the NFFO principle to stimulating new ways of using fossil fuels as well as non-fossil fuels more efficiently. The one major example in this category is clean coal technology; another is a further extension of combined heat and power to which the Government are fully committed. Last year I introduced a Private Member's Bill to that effect. Although the Bill fell by the wayside, in discussions that I had with the DTI I was assured that the Government would introduce their own measure to deal with this issue. I should like to know from the Minister what the Government are doing about this.
My final proposal relates to local initiatives. While much depends on an effective policy framework from the centre, local initiatives will also play a vital part in achieving the necessary energy savings. Many such initiatives arise from the Home Energy Conservation Act, in which my noble friend Lady Maddock played
270
such a large part, and the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme. These cover the domestic sector. However, there is a case for more wide-ranging local initiatives including all sectors of energy usage. Such an initiative has been taken in Nottingham in a project in which I am personally involved. The Nottingham Energy Partnership has been created between the City of Nottingham, on the one hand, and a private sector energy services company, of which I am chairman, on the other. Under this partnership a comprehensive survey of all forms of energy usage in Nottingham has been made and objectives set for energy savings in the individual sectors of consumption. An energy saving register has been established. From this it is clear that, arising from measures already taken, there will be a reduction of 1 per cent. in CO2 emissions in 1998 with commitments to a further 1 per cent. reduction. At this rate of annual reduction, if continued until the year 2010, Nottingham would, within its boundaries, easily achieve the CO2 reduction target set by the Government. It is therefore in my opinion desirable that Nottingham-type schemes be applied more widely.
In view of the likely dire consequences of climate change, I believe that there is a strong case for an energy efficiency obligation to be applied to producers, distributors, suppliers and also users of energy. Market forces, based on low prices, are moving the other way. They must be counteracted. The Government are considering longer-term measures. Meanwhile, more immediate measures, based on existing successful practice, should be introduced as a matter of urgency.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Bragg: My Lords, first, I should like to acknowledge the warmth and generosity of those in this House from the Door to the Dining Room—attendants who offer compasses, doorkeepers who offer cheerful omniscience and officers everywhere who are alert to the confusions of a new Member. Noble Lords I have never before met are kind and helpful. It feels like an academy of courtesy, and I am well aware of the privilege of being here.
I should like to employ this occasion briefly to put forward an idea to which I hope to return later. It is hinged onto education for it speaks to that crucial gap where education must bridge over into experience. Just as the last couple of years of a long craft apprenticeship see the apprentice do a real job, so in the area of broadcasting—on which I want to concentrate—there is a similar need for a specific, targeted place for media students to move on to work.
One may say that these students will get jobs anyway. A tiny proportion might. But we are talking of an industry that is increasingly casualised—over 60 per cent. and rising—in which many well educated graduates plummet to unnecessary disillusionment, too many of them as runners, favour-beggars and tea-makers, draining their enthusiasm as short-term, short-paid and short-changed media skivvies. We are neglecting a source of intelligence and potential. They are well trained and full of ideas. Then the majority are dumped and wasted.

271
I realise that statistics can stunt growth, but there are more than 30,000 media students coming out of our universities each year and many more thousands of students in other fields who see the media as a possible career. In my opinion, these young people are absolutely right. The media, television in particular, is on an upward curve which continues to out-perform all predictions. For reasons which continue to amaze me, television—which already creates a huge number of jobs across a wide range of crafts, skills and professions—is set to become an even greater factor in all our lives. Perhaps soon it will be the greatest of employers and a major, ever-advancing economic and cultural force in the next millennium.
Television is on the march, even on the rampage. Sky has just introduced at least 150 new channels; On Digital has 30; the BBC has its channels; and there are cable channels everywhere. But the larger point is that, as one senior executive said to me, "You can now have just as many channels as you want". Even Sky is not the limit. It is difficult to grasp the changes that this will bring, whether we like it or not. Young people like it and are preparing for it by following that young instinct which operates a bit like the migrating power in birds. They know what we do not know and they sense that it is time to go.
There is a real lust for technology among many of the brightest young people in this country. We have the highest per capita video penetration in the world. Under this Government computers are flooding into schools, and libraries are linking up on the Internet with enthusiastic take up everywhere. The young United Kingdom is wiring up and knows that it is time for take-off.
There is, however, a problem. How are these students to be translated into work? When we train people and then employ them—as we have done over much of this century in science, for instance—we turn out simply the best. Your Lordships need no reminding that in science in the 20th century the UK has won the biggest number of Nobel Prizes per capita in the world. Now we are intensively educating media students and they respond with vigour, but the completion of education by real experience is the telling factor and it is scarcely available. Students have to be enabled to go into work which is viable, reasonably well funded and, above all, shown publicly on air so that it can be discussed and criticised. Only then can their talents flourish.
These new hundreds of cable and digital channels are the answer. But for our purpose, for a start, we need only one. I am not proposing a government subsidy. The Government need be neither a regulator nor an overseer. What I propose is that the Government be an enabler. But it is to the television companies I turn. This is in their basic interests. Carlton, Granada, Scottish, United, Sky, Channels Four and Five and even the commercial arm of the BBC should set up an investment fund of up to £40 or £50 million a year between them in cash or in kind. This would be for young people between the ages of 22 and 35 to spend three years making programmes across the board: entertainment, drama, comedy, soaps and documentary. These could be shown on one channel perhaps called the Opportunity Channel—the OC. It
272
would become a cult channel among the contemporaries of those making the programmes. It would brand itself immediately. And what is the return for companies? A very good deal. They would have some ownership of the programmes, the right to sell advertising and sponsorship and, above all, a golden investment in proven talent, not only trained but fired by experience—our talent; an investment that in my reckoning would be unique in the world.
We have a world language and we have long traditions of making television programmes. We simply could not be better placed. We could at last truly challenge the United States' world television supremacy—I believe this—by starting younger; for by using this new environment we could create new teams of writers and programme makers and supreme craft-workers. This is an extraordinary opportunity which will most likely never recur.
There are precedents. In the 1940s it was predicted by experts that five computers would satisfy all the world's needs for the rest of the century. Bright young people did not think that was the case. A number of the brightest assembled in Silicon Valley in the United States. They radicalised the industry and re-directed the USA economy.
The UK could become the Silicon Valley of the small screen. There is no reason such a force of invention could not happen here. It already has done so more than once, but we keep giving it away.
Since the war, almost 70 per cent. of Japan's successful industry comes from ideas worked out by our best brains here, but they were work-tested and exploited on the other side of the globe. Surely it is time to stop this excessive generosity. When Britannia ruled the waves, it could waive the rules—the greatest of which is self-preservation—but no longer.
Two hundred years ago a silicon boom, even mightier, happened in this country, in Lancashire and Yorkshire, when brilliant young people and investors who would take a small risk saw the opportunity to invent and create and to make new. Out of that came our Industrial Revolution which enriched us primarily and then moved to other countries. And it is not too fanciful to point to exactly the same circumstances of competition and talent, of opportunity and private investment, creating the great drama of Shakespearean England, the great art in Michelangelo's Florence, and we could add more examples. Again and again we are talking about pressure points of growth, whether cultural or economic; and what they have in common is a unique opportunity, a number of talented young people and something of risk in far sighted investors.
We have almost all of that in place now. All we need is an injection of creative enlightened commercial self interest. I thank your Lordships for your patience.
5.3 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, first, on behalf of your Lordships' House, I congratulate the noble Lord on his fine maiden speech. He has both entertained and educated the nation for many years through his writings and broadcasts, and I have no doubt

273
that in your Lordships' House he will prove to be both entertaining and informative over a range of subjects. He may have stood down as presenter of "Start the Week", but we look forward to him standing up frequently in your Lordships' House to make many speeches on a range of subjects.
He has whetted our appetites this afternoon with his characteristically enthusiastic and perceptive remarks on the crucial gap between education and experience in the media industry, and in particular in television which he tells us is "on the march". Perhaps even we in your Lordships' House will have the possibility of appearing on his "Opportunity Channel" if it sees the light of day. We look forward, as he has promised, to the noble Lord developing his thoughts in future speeches in your Lordships' House.
I wish to make some brief points regarding the implication for education in the gracious Speech. As noble Lords are well aware, almost a third of schools at present are voluntary aided, controlled or grant maintained. The majority of those are Church of England voluntary aided and controlled schools. We take seriously our share in the responsibility of educating the nation's children. We appreciate the fact that Church schools are held in high regard by both parents and governments.
We further appreciate the recent changes which give governors more flexibility in confirming their school's category of status. The indications are that more governing bodies will opt for voluntary aided status, and we shall do our best to respond to that new opportunity.
I regret that government plans for bringing in a value-added category into school assessments have been delayed. I realise that such a scheme is not easy to devise, but it is necessary. Last week I visited two Church schools in Battersea. They were situated in two of the most deprived estates in Europe. Both had come under special measures in the light of critical Ofsted inspections. Now, some three years later, under the leadership of new heads and with better motivated staff and supportive governing bodies, including foundation governors from the diocese, both schools have come off special measures and are making remarkable progress. In league tables of pupil achievement, both schools would still not compare well with pupils from schools in the leafy suburbs. But I question whether there is a school in the country which has added more value to pupils' lives and educational performance in the past few years. It is simply unfair not to have a method of recording that.
We look forward to receiving the consultation paper on reforms of the teaching profession promised in the gracious Speech. We note the recent proposals for a fast-track graduate entry to the profession, but, as did my noble friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, I hope to see further proposals to enhance the status and morale of all teachers.
My main point is different. It is this. Since the 1944 Education Act, the Churches have worked in partnership with local authorities in providing the best possible schooling for children in their areas. We have greatly
274
valued this partnership which we believe has been of benefit to all. However, in the gracious Speech we believe that there is a danger of the Government's joined-up thinking unravelling a little and threatening that partnership. Under Section 499 of the Education Act 1996, committees with strategic functions for education must include as full voting members representatives of English diocesan boards of education, Welsh diocesan boards of finance, and the Roman Catholic bishops' diocesan schools commission. But legislation is promised to modernise local government in England and Wales. We are told that it is the intention of government to enable local councils to create new executive structures to replace their committees, including their education committees. Indeed, some local councils are pre-empting that legislation. Often we find that such reorganisation involves denying diocesan representatives a voting place on committees where decisions relating to education are now being made. We very much regret that development which we believe could change substantially the partnership between local education and the Church which has been developed since the 1944 Education Act.
It may be argued that that change is compensated in part by the new structures proposed in the School Standards and Framework Act which we welcome. But we believe that that in no way compensates for the removal of voting places for diocesan representatives on council committees dealing with education. We do not believe that it was the Government's intention to change the present creative balance between Church and local government and we hope that with a little legislative knitting, the damage will be repaired.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bragg. I add my congratulations to him on his excellent and stunning contribution to this afternoon's debate. So taken was I by his enthusiasm for the creation of new channels of communication that I pondered, wearing my local government hat, as to whether he might find the time to invent some enthusiasm for new television outlets for local government. I promise him that that would be a challenge indeed because it is not easy to persuade people to be excited by local government, even using the broadcasting medium.
I look forward also to hearing the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. I am sure that given his breadth of experience and reasoned and moderate approach to local government matters, his contribution will be extremely positive and one from which, in our different politics, we can learn.
Before I embark on my comments on the gracious Speech, I offer my apologies to the Minister for the fact that I shall be unable to hear his response later in the debate because I have a little local difficulty in my own back yard, in my local council, to which I must attend.
I turn to the issues of substance in the gracious Speech which concern local government matters. I believe that the Government are owed a note of congratulation on what they have brought forward. Over

275
much of the past year, I have spent many hours and days meeting with colleagues in local government and debating and discussing with them the Government's modernisation agenda. The debate has been earnest, hard, and, indeed, sometimes contrary, but several themes have emerged very valuably from the debate and discussion that have taken place. Those themes very much echo what is before us in the gracious Speech and the programme of legislation which comes from it.
There are seven themes which I have identified over that period of time. First, there is now an acceptance in local government that it needs greater visibility and accountability. That argument has been won by the Government in bringing forward their White Paper, following on the Green Paper consultation. The second theme is that there are also few in local government who defend the appallingly low turn-outs which have undermined for many generations the democratic legitimacy of local government.
Thirdly, I believe also that most elected members in local government now accept the case for a more streamlined decision-making and decision-taking process. Fourthly, most accept the case for a clearer definition of the roles of councillors as regards executive and non-executive scrutiny and representational functions which the Government set out for us in their consultation document.
The fifth theme which has emerged is that there is now a consensus about the need to abolish crude capping and move away from excessive reliance on central government grant aid for local authority services.
The sixth theme which has emerged over the past few months is the acceptance of efficiency gains from CCT, but also a recognition that new models of service provision through best value are now required in local government to take it into the millennium.
Finally, one important strain of debate which has emerged is an acknowledgement by local government that it needs to do much more to regain the trust and confidence of local residents by raising standards of behaviour, by encouraging improved performance and by listening and consulting local residents.
All those themes have emerged strongly over the past few months. Therefore, the Government's programme goes with the grain of that for which we in local government have been trying to argue for a long time. The legislative programme has got it right by bringing forward best value and the capping Bill first. That concentrates on value-for-money services and greater financial freedom. While it is right that political management issues and issues relating to standards come next, it is right too that we first highlight efficiency and effectiveness in local government.
As regards the second Bill which is to be presented in draft form for consideration on standards and conduct, the notion of having pre-legislative scrutiny, which is proposed by the Government, is valuable indeed. That should enable us to set up a framework for local government so that local government can respond more fully and can raise its concerns, ideas and thinking in the pre-legislative scrutiny process. We can then begin to clear the ground of arguments and concentrate
276
on the detail and on getting the legislation right when finally it is brought before the House. That pre-legislative scrutiny should be welcomed on all sides.
In drawing attention to that, we should see it as an opportunity. After all, it is an entirely new approach by government, something which has not been attempted before. As a keen advocate of scrutiny in local government, it is something which we, in this House in particular, should welcome. By carrying out the scrutiny process in advance of the legislation, it seems to me that there should be no excuse, particularly for noble Lords opposite, to block the local government standards and conduct Bill on the spurious grounds that it may raise other constitutional issues. Those grounds will have been taken away and therefore we shall be provided with an important and valuable platform from which we can consider the detail of the legislation.
This is an extremely imaginative government programme for local government. We shall be very busy indeed in looking at the detail of what we can achieve and what we can undertake by modernising local government and by making it more relevant to future generations. We need to lift turn-out in local government elections and we need to lift enthusiasm. We need to lift spirits. The Government's programme, going with the grain of popular opinion—in some ways, leading popular opinion—will do a great deal for those of us in local government who care about the value and the quality of local government.
Reform of local government will strengthen civic life. It will renew public confidence in its institutions and, I trust, will lead the way to reforms elsewhere in the public sector. In that regard, I refer to best value. That is a tool from which we can learn and which we can use in other areas of public life and in other parts of the public sector.
My view is that in five years' time, best value will be seen as a tool which raises efficiency not only in local government but also in public service more generally. Already it is beginning to have a powerful impact on the way in which we in local government develop and deliver local services to people who rely on those services. If we can build upon that and the progress being made in advance of the legislation, not only will public confidence return, but it will be strengthened and the health of local democracy will be restored.
5.17 p.m.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I begin by saying how welcome I have been made as a newcomer to your Lordships' House. I have very much appreciated the kind advice and welcome from both colleagues and Officers of the House in preparing for this, my maiden speech.
I am grateful also for the kind remarks made by the noble Lords, Lord Tope and Lord Bassam of Brighton, today. In particular, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tope, on his birthday. It is also Winston Churchill's birthday today. That is a very significant date for me as I was born on the night of the Battle of Britain and carry Winston as my middle name.

277
I join your Lordships today at a time of great change. In particular, we face considerable constitutional changes over the coming years. Those changes will be made not just here at Westminster but in the country at large and in particular in local government.
I declare an interest quite freely and proudly as I am the leader of Essex County Council and a councillor of nearly 30 years' standing. I welcome the fact that the Government are committed to the reform of local government. The process of such reform is evolutionary and follows many reforms put forward by the previous government.
Change is needed to refresh local government. When I first joined Essex County Council, I was the youngest councillor. Some 20 years later, I was amazed to find that I was still the youngest councillor. I should record at this point my particular thanks to two of my predecessors from Essex, my noble friends Lady Platt and Lord Dixon-Smith, who have both helped me in my progress in local government.
However, as with changes being made here, storm clouds are looming over government proposals regarding local government. The Government signalled moves to greater regionalism in England. On that issue my homeland, Essex, was once a great kingdom. It is an area large enough to be considered a region in its own right in other European countries, but this Government have seen fit to merge it with five other counties. The boundaries of the regional development agencies are flawed and moves to create regional government are not welcome in all parts of the country.
Local government and local democracy is fundamental to the way we are governed. Together our local councils have a constitutional role in safeguarding our nation against over-centralisation by government. Many of the reforms proposed by the Government are centralising and local government will resist those proposals. Local government is local government. Councils are not simply administrative arms of the central state. We have a role to play in delivering services according to priorities determined by local communities not the national priorities of the centre.
We need to re-invigorate local government, not by electronic gimmickry or supermarket polling stations but by giving back genuine powers to local councils. When my party was in government it made mistakes and disengaged from local government, losing sight of the valuable role which the latter can play. We now realise that not all our decisions were the right ones and our policies are already changing to reflect this.
Yes; change is needed and is welcomed. But not simply change in the image decreed by central government. We need to respect local diversity, local autonomy and local choices. Through the years local government has been a central component in our way of life, from its origins as village elders meeting around a camp fire to the multi-billion pound entity which it is now. There is a proud history in local government and we can all recall the great town-hall leaders like Joe Chamberlain who made a real difference to their own community. I hope that we will see over the
278
coming years a renaissance of local government and if that means new forms of political structure, including elected mayors, whether in London or elsewhere, then that is to be welcomed.
I look forward positively to the day when once again local government leaders are major players on the national stage. The introduction of best value is also welcome, although my own council, like many others, will tell you that we have been seeking out best value in the services we deliver to our local communities for many years.
We must seek to re-awaken the sleeping giant which is local government. We need to reinvigorate local democracy and empower local communities. We need to transfer powers and responsibilities back to local government and we, at the centre, need to trust local government. We also need to recognise that councils will not get everything right all the time. But the heavy hand of central government should not be there to stifle and snuff out local innovation when it goes wrong but to guide, help and support the efforts of local councils.
In conclusion, I urge your Lordships to ensure that any reforms which come about are "for" local government and not simply "about" local government. I thank your Lordships for listening to me.
5.23 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to have the duty of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, on an excellent maiden speech. He has had a distinguished career in local government in his own county, in the Association of County Councils, the Local Government Association and many other bodies. He joins a sturdy band of workers in the same field of whom I am proud to say that all Members of my Front Bench as presently constituted are part. I am sure that his doughty defence of the independence of local government will always be heard with great approval. I look forward to discussing with him in this House some of the measures that are to come before us during this Session of Parliament.
In speaking in today's debate I shall concentrate on transport issues and the content—or perhaps the absence of content—of the Queen's Speech. It is not that I am oblivious or unappreciative of other government actions to promote a more sustainable approach to transport and traffic reduction, but I am aware that there are 36 speakers on today's list and that it is already 25 minutes past five.
My party's commitment to a sustainable transport policy long antedates the last general election. It has been the basis for action by local council groups for many years. We thought that this Government shared that commitment and were prepared to legislate to promote it. But the gracious Speech does not encourage that view. Its first deficit in relation to transport is the Government's failure to introduce legislation to ensure that local transport authorities can levy a charge on business parking and hypothecate the revenue to improve public transport. That was a suggestion in the White Paper which was widely welcomed and apparently relatively easy to accomplish.

279
Much has been made of the introduction of a Bill to establish the new London authority. That Bill will allow for road pricing and a levy on workplace parking, and the hypothecation of that revenue for public transport. Those provisions are welcome as far as they go. But we have not yet seen the detail and road pricing is not universally accepted as a route to traffic reduction. In any case, road pricing is largely irrelevant to the problems of local authorities in non-metropolitan areas. In those areas it is control of business parking which is the recognised key to success. Charging for business parking would be a good place to start.
As a result of past planning policies which required minimum parking provision for most larger commercial and business premises, there is an enormous amount of business parking available in most smaller towns. Yet the journey to work, in general terms, is the one that is most susceptible to the use of public transport. I do not underrate the problems involved, but my sense is that business is ready for this move, which could be combined with the travel-to-work plans and other initiatives which have been sought from businesses under modern planning permissions. More importantly, the scheme would allow non-metropolitan transport authorities to raise and spend their own money to solve their own problems. That would be a major step forward, allowing a far more rapid and locally targeted approach than current funding mechanisms permit.
Perhaps I may return for one moment to the London Government Bill. Today's news also puts into question one of its other provisions; namely, that the new mayor would take control of the future of the tube. It suggests that the transfer of that control is not to be completed until after Ministers have completed the whole leasing of the track to private sector companies; in other words, until long after the mayor takes office in May 2000.
A second major omission from the Government's legislative programme is the absence of a statutory strategic rail authority. The creation of such an authority was a key part of the sustainable transport strategy unveiled in the White Paper. It has an important role to play in reintroducing coherence and the public interest into the fragmented and privatised rail industry left as a malign legacy of the previous government. The omission was well trailed. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the rail industry as a whole is disappointed. There is apprehension that a shadow authority will not have the necessary clout to deal with some fairly urgent problems, not least the current uncertainty of a franchise renewal which is to discourage further investment at the present time.
There are fears that it will prove difficult to make a start on developing the remit of a strategic rail authority next year. Can the Minister reassure the House on that point? Will work be done on identifying the role of rail within transport as a whole? Will a start be made in assessing the social and environmental value of that role so that continued public investment can be justified? Does the Minister anticipate that a suitably high calibre staff can be attracted to a shadow authority?
Another example of damage which may be done in the absence of a mechanism for injecting the public interest into the privatised rail industry is the difficulty
280
of ensuring that sufficient pathways are made available for freight by Railtrack. I was lucky enough to go to Chicago this year on a visit made possible by the Rail Freight Group. I was particularly struck by the regeneration of rail freight in the US after its near oblivion in recent years, and by the wealth that that industry can inject into the local and national economy.
I return to the issue of availability of freight paths via Railtrack. The apparent reluctance of Railtrack to provide sufficient pathways for freight is despite the fact that the Government and the major freight companies are both committed to a rapid rise in the amount of freight carried by rail.
Some noble Lords may have noticed my recent questions for Written Answer on the subject of access for freight—and particularly for piggyback freight services—to the west coast main line after its projected upgrade. Some noble Lords may have noted the replies from the Minister.
The answers were admirably prompt in arriving but their content seemed to reinforce the impression gleaned from other sources—and pretty widely shared—that the Government have given up on piggyback and are no longer pressing Railtrack to accommodate the works to provide for a suitable gauge for such rolling stock within the general west coast main line upgrade.
In view of the urgency of the problem, I have a question for the Minister of which I have given him notice. Can he tell the House the last date by which an agreement to accommodate full grade piggyback freight within the upgrading of the west coast main line must be concluded? I ask that in the context of the timetable for letting out contracts for work.
I turn briefly to the wider scene. I welcome the change in the system of local government bids for funding of local transport schemes. Local expenditure should be linked to broadly based five-year transport plans. It is sensible to incorporate local traffic reduction targets into such plans. The three-year basis for public expenditure should assist local transport authorities to plan expenditure. However, it should be noted that that is still a method for total control of local expenditure by central government and no doubt a major purpose of the new criteria will still be to ration funds. My noble friend vividly illustrated the evils of the bidding system as it affects education. It has been affecting transport in the same way for many years.
Responding to one of my honourable friends in another place, the Prime Minister claimed that the Government were committed to solving the environmental problems, among others, of the 21st century. My fear is that after gross delay on the part of both Conservative and Labour administrations over 30 years, we have not even begun to solve the environmental problems of this century. It is never the right time to put difficult ideas into practice. The ideas may be unpopular, the time is not right, the legislative programme is already filled. But, the fine words of the White Paper on sustainable transport must not remain just fine words. The time for action is now. We must not miss the bus again.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Sawyer: My Lords, in addressing your Lordships' House for the first time, I thank noble Lords for the warm welcome I have been given. Indeed, it has been a particularly generous and almost forgiving welcome in some quarters because your Lordships on all sides discovered that in my previous occupation I was an architect of Labour's closed list system.
I have spent my life in the Labour movement, a movement I have to thank for everything: my education, development, growth and any contribution I have been able to make to public life. I spent many years as a trade union organiser and latterly as a leader. I was proud to organise and represent fine people: manual workers, men and women—often low paid—who do essential, important jobs in our public services. Latterly, as the General Secretary of the Labour Party, I helped to modernise our party. I helped to open the excellent Millbank headquarters and strengthen our regions and helped with the finest general election victory in our party's history.
In all that time and in all that work I came to understand and appreciate that the difference between success and failure often depended on educating the workforce, valuing people and giving them a chance to grow and develop with the goals and the aims of the organisation. That is why I passionately support the education policies of this Government. I believe that life-long learning must be at the heart of government policy and that we must give education opportunities to all our people, regardless of their age or financial disposition.
In my early years as a trade union organiser I used to wonder at times why it was so difficult to get middle-aged men and women to take on the responsibilities of running a local trade union organisation. I refer to branch secretaries, branch chairs, administrators and jobs of that kind. After some research I came to understand that middle-aged men and women in those occupations were often nervous about taking on responsibilities because they could not read or write. My union at that time, NUPE, organised the first basic literacy and numeracy skills course for those people. There has been nothing more satisfying in my life than being able to present a degree or similar qualification to a man or woman who could not read or write until middle age. The important work done then has now been taken on by others and the Government, who have incorporated basic literacy and numeracy skills into their life-long learning policy.
As I moved on in life to trade union and Labour Party management, I learnt that those who manage others also require education, training and development, as well as those who work for them—perhaps on some occasions even more so. With John Monks and others I had the honour to help found the Centre for Strategic Trade Union Management at Cranfield University School of Management. That experience, and my work as a senior manager in the Labour movement, reinforced and strengthened my belief in education and training at all levels of any organisation.
282
However, perhaps the most important contemporary experience for me was when I became my party's general secretary. After its 13 difficult years in opposition, though ably and well led through so many of those years by my noble friend Lord Whitty, it was inevitable that staff morale and confidence had suffered through all those years of election failures.
I soon discovered that the best policies and campaigns and the sharpest fingertip control of a party machine that all politicians demand would amount to nothing without a clear mission for the staff, a business plan that they could work to, and proper appraisal and training to help the staff in the Labour Party to meet their goals and objectives and to see how that, together with the work they did, could contribute to the overall success of the organisation. So that is what we did, and we won the general election; but we also won the prestigious Investors in People Award for high quality training and development of our staff. We were the first and only political party to win that award, and that puts us among the top 30 per cent. of UK companies for high quality management and training and development of staff. I am proud of that.
I tell noble Lords about these experiences to underscore what I believe to be the most fundamental and important strategic and operational decision that this Government need to hold to; namely, to put the education, the training and the growth and development of our people at the centre of all their policies for social and economic advancement. There is still much to do: tackling the problem of the 7 million people in the workforce today without any qualifications; replacing failure with success in our education system; turning mediocrity into a desire for the highest achievement; and ensuring that in our industry and business we really do put people first. These are matters to which I hope to return during my time in your Lordships' House. I hope that I can join with other noble Lords, many of whom have distinguished records in this field, to help improve the prosperity and well-being of our nation.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I am like Huckleberry Finn, following Tom Sawyer in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain. It is a great honour for me to congratulate the noble Lord on behalf of the whole House on his exceptional maiden speech. In his life, the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, has had a long and distinguished career in the trade union movement for over 20 years. As he said, he was General Secretary of the Labour Party for five years. He was hand-picked by the now Prime Minister in 1994 and charged with ending the shambles in the party structure. Indeed, Mr. Blair said that he would construct the best political fighting machine in this country. As the noble Lord said, the Labour Party won the election. I am sure that we shall hear a lot more from him in the weeks and months to come.
The noble Lord mentioned the education of young people. That is a theme which I shall develop in a different context in my speech.

283
I speak as chairman of the European Secure Vehicle Alliance, which has been a registered parliamentary group for the past six years, and also a non-profit making company limited by guarantee whose aim is to reduce vehicle crime and fraud in the United Kingdom and Europe. The Government are to be congratulated on their efforts to reduce vehicle crime and I draw the attention of the House to two recent initiatives: first, the enactment of the Crime and Disorder Bill in the summer, which requires that local authorities and police take the lead in conducting community safety audits in their area and publish a three-year plan aimed at reducing crime and its effects.
Bearing in mind that vehicle crime at 24 per cent. of all recorded crime remains the single largest category, one can confidently expect that a good deal of attention and ingenuity will be deployed by local partnerships to reduce it. I am proud to commend to your Lordships a detailed guide entitled, Tackling Vehicle Crime, jointly written by Crime Concern and the European Secure Vehicle Alliance, with Home Office support and sponsored by Vauxhall Motors, which describes and suggests various approaches that local partnerships can consider.
Secondly, the setting of a target of a further 30 per cent. reduction in vehicle crime over the next five years, together with the formation by the Home Office of the Vehicle Crime Reduction Action Team, is a further initiative which provides us all with the opportunity to make some significant and sustained progress. The action team's adoption of a 14-point plan developed by many key partners, but especially the Association of Chief Police Officers and the previously constituted Vehicle Crime Prevention Working Group within the Home Office, is another excellent starting point.
One of the key points that I wish to make is to highlight the many partners within government and society at large who can make a contribution to reducing the scale of vehicle crime within the UK, which is significantly higher than in any of our other European neighbours. Our own officials in the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, consider that six of the 14 points fall within their remit rather than that of the Home Office. It is most encouraging that the two government departments see the value of working more closely together.
We must utilise the energy and expertise of our many potential partners, while also identifying key projects that will impact seriously on both the reported theft of vehicles and largely unreported crime in the case of theft from vehicles. For example, I would draw noble Lords' attention to the CrimeStoppers "Stop Motor Crime and Ring Today" campaign, and the work of the Office of Fair Trading, which has a particular interest in consumer protection issues associated with the sale of used cars.
It is a fact that older vehicles are at a greater risk of being stolen, a car registered in 1985 is five times more likely to be stolen than a new vehicle. Often these older vehicles are stolen for their components so any step such as the draft European Directive on End of Life Vehicles, which aims to increase the legitimate recycling of components at the end of their life, will be a positive one.
284
If one applies the proven 4E road accident reduction strategy—Engineering, Enforcement, Evaluation and Education—to vehicle crime reduction, what observation can one make? In engineering, the vehicle manufacturers are focusing on inbuilt security, while aftermarket tracking and security equipment systems fitted to older vehicles also make a valuable contribution. It is also encouraging to note the progress being made on the fitment of laminated side glazing.
Considering enforcement and evaluation together, there is much to be gained by the sharing of more accurate data between the police, the DVLA and the Vehicle Inspectorate, who are responsible for the MOT, as well as insurers and trading standards officers. All the processes associated with vehicle registration, certification and identification, have too many "wrinkles and anomalies" which are exploited by the experienced vehicle criminal and fraudster.
The secured car park initiative has a vital role to play, especially in reducing theft from vehicles, and accurate data will improve evaluation and expansion of the scheme. I would commend further investigation of the policing strategy which confiscates and scraps vehicles of unknown provenance that have clearly been stolen and/or have been rebuilt using stolen components.
While existing legislation is available to support much determined enforcement activity, I would urge the Government to add their further support by introducing legislation in two areas: first, to protect manufacturers' marks on vehicles and make it an absolute offence to trade in vehicles and components where they have been removed; secondly, to extend the existing scrap metal dealer legislation to prevent trade in stolen vehicles and components.
Finally, I turn to education, where the European Secure Vehicle Alliance has worked unremittingly to change the attitudes of young people towards vehicles with the aim of reducing both crime and accidents. The approach of using vehicles as the means to educate young people to become responsible young citizens has proved to be well worth progressing.
More help and advice is needed to evaluate this approach. I am greatly encouraged by the appraisal conducted by the Avon and Somerset Constabulary on its "Operation Impact" initiative, which was launched in 1992. Since then, vehicle crime has fallen by 37 per cent. in its area, versus 32 per cent. in England and Wales overall.
The force's own assessments concludes that the work of its diversion team for young people was the most significant element within its programme. For example, on average, 13 young people lost their lives in accidents involving stolen vehicles in 1992–94. In 1997, there was only one fatality involving a stolen vehicle—that is, 12 fewer. In addition, in 1992, its research revealed that 33 per cent. of car thieves were aged under 16, some being as young as 10, 11 and 12. The percentage of the offenders aged 16 or under fell from 33 to 13 in 1997. Engaging with and educating young people as part of the vehicle crime reduction strategy will not only reduce crime and accidents but also play an important part in helping them become successful citizens.
5.50 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I wish to concentrate my remarks on the measures proposed in the gracious Speech to provide more equal chances for disabled people. I believe that I am the first speaker today to do so. I wish to refer in particular to the nature, functions and role of the disabled rights commission. First, I must declare an interest as the honorary president of the British Epilepsy Association and the honorary vice-president of Action for Disabled Adults.
There is no doubt that even today disabled people still suffer widespread discrimination. It can arise from many causes, sometimes through ignorance, but the principal causes are those which can be tackled only by legislation. The hard fought for Disability Discrimination Act was a step in the right direction. But because of a serious lack of an enforcement body it failed to provide a proper framework for the Act to be implemented effectively. Rights on paper are not good enough; they cannot be enforced in practice. I hope that the Bill which we shall have before us will make sure that they are enforced in practice.
Equally, for any such legislation to be truly effective, there has to be a holistic and civil rights approach. You cannot move from benefits to work without the necessary educational skills and without access to transport and buildings. The special educational needs action programme will make mainstream schools more accessible. The new contract for welfare will help those who want to work to find employment. The introduction of the disabled persons tax credit will be an incentive to work, with its guarantee of a minimum income of £220 a week, as will be the implementation of the minimum wage. That is a package of measures for which 7 million disabled people have waited almost 20 years.
Most important in all that is to be the establishment of a disability rights commission. As my noble friend the Minister said in her opening speech, it is an historic decision. The disabled rights commission is to advise the Government on changes to the Disability Discrimination Act. I hope that in doing so it will look at the definition of disability within the Act. There are too many people who find themselves outside the Act principally because they do not fit the definition.
In defining disability, the DDA states that a person is disabled if she or he has a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his or her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. The narrowness and complexity of the definition and the criteria on which it is based exclude from the Act people who suffer from what might be termed "hidden" disabilities. Included in that category are people in the area of disability with which I am associated and to whom I wish to refer specifically.
There are two categories of people with epilepsy who may find themselves outside the statutory protection unless they are using anti-epileptic drugs to control this condition. These are people who suffer only in the mildest form and would therefore in all probability fail the "substantially adverse effects" test; and people who were once covered by the clause and whose epilepsy
286
was short-term but might still occur. However, their medical history may be viewed adversely by a future employer and yet they have no protection under the law.
The previous government took the view that a definition of disability which encompassed perception or reputation of disability would offend common sense and be unacceptable to employers. That view was not supported by the Labour members of the Standing Committee on the Bill and I hope it is not supported by the present government.
There are 20,000 new stroke victims each year who are left with either a physical handicap or the long-term communications impairment of dysphasia, or both. Dysphasia affects both speech and movement, criteria recognised under the Act, but there is concern that if it is not recognised as a disability in its own right people with communication impairments may not fall under the definition of disability as described in the legislation. This has serious implications for enforcing the rights of people with dysphasia to have equal access to all areas of life, including welfare benefits.
The irony of the situation is that while their physical disabilities may be covered by the Act, depending on their severity, it is more likely to be their communication impairments which are the major stumbling blocks in their being able to participate fully in society. Yet it is that element of their disability for which there is no protection. There should be a legal definition which is sufficiently inclusive to protect the many disabled people, some of whom I have mentioned, who fall into these and other categories of hidden disabilities.
There are other areas of the DDA which should come under scrutiny by the commission. In its present form, the Act is littered with exemptions, qualifications and loopholes which allow and endorse the continued discrimination against disabled people. One of the biggest barriers to ensuring equal access to employment for disabled workers is the prejudices not only of the employer but also of the other staff. In partnership with disabled people, means have to be found to overcome those fears and concerns for businesses to be assisted in understanding the law and in developing good practice procedures. It is encouraging that the disability rights taskforce will be considering such issues. It is estimated that the employment level for the disabled is currently 32 per cent. as compared with 77 per cent. for non-disabled; yet 1 million disabled people who are not in work say that they want to work.
The six pilot schemes under the new deal for disabled people will, it is hoped, test, expand and develop options for work and provide a real prospect of permanent jobs. That is to be welcomed, as is the personal adviser scheme. However, I have one concern and that is that there is no downgrading of skills; that disabled people are involved in judging their own suitability for a particular job and, as appropriate, are given support in securing training and retraining for posts. Such a process would be helped if employers were required to specify detailed job functions in job advertisements. This might prevent rejections on grounds of suitability which can be devastating to the applicant. Disabled people are six times more likely to be turned down for a job.

287
However, it is no good having a job if you cannot get to it. Under the DDA, minimum standards were set for public transport vehicles which were not enforceable. Existing vehicles were not covered and aeroplanes and ferries were exempt altogether. Having recently had a dispute with an airline operating in the British Isles about the restrictions and additional costs it imposed on disabled people, I, together with many disabled people, know only too well the effect of that exemption. Nor does the Act prevent the harassment of disabled travellers or the refusal to carry a disabled traveller. Surely that situation can no longer to be tolerated. Under the provisions of the DRC, there will be the ability to provide an enforceable code of practice to cover such discriminatory practices. I trust that the code of practice will take account of all forms of disability, whether physical or hidden.
The introduction of the 1970 laws against discrimination on the grounds of sex and race created a climate of opinion which was opposed to unfair and prejudicial treatment for all disadvantaged groups. But it has taken until the late 1990s to see effective action for the disabled. Partly that was because the nuances and issues around disability are complex. So while the experiences of EOC and the CRE are important, and the legislation which governs them sets useful precedents, their structure should not be followed absolutely. There has to be a third element to the legislation which is particular to disability. Provision must be made for the practical and physical alterations to premises to allow for easy access. There may have to be adjustments to work benches and desks so that they are the right height for a person in a wheelchair. Computer equipment may have to be adapted for the blind. But if one remembers the objections raised to the minimal requirements needed to enforce equal opportunities for women—particularly the need to provide separate toilet and changing facilities—how much greater will be the objections raised when such provisions are required on a bigger scale, unless the necessary enforcement provisions are specific in the Bill? The legislation must cover failure to take reasonable steps to remove socially constructed and physical handicaps. I hope that the Minister will assure us that that will be the case.
Anti-discrimination legislation can send a clear message to society that discrimination is totally unacceptable. It can offer disabled people redress against those who discriminate against them. It can force the change of pace of welfare reform, knocking down the barriers that prevent people from participating in every aspect of life.
But the acid test is in seeing the practical benefits. It cannot be right for a restaurant to turn away a blind person with a guide dog, or for a person in a wheelchair not to have access to toilet facilities, or for people with communication impairments not to be able to travel because they cannot follow the announcements made over loudspeakers. One could go on and on and on giving example after example of discriminatory practices. One can only hope that with the establishment of a disability rights commission with real powers we shall at last have a law which will enable disabled people to participate in and contribute fully to society.
6.1 p.m.
Lord Clwyd: My Lords, it is a great honour for me to make my maiden speech. I am very grateful to fellow Peers and members of staff for all the help that they have given me. I would like to speak briefly about music in schools.
I have benefited greatly from music tuition. I learnt the piano and clarinet at school and sang in the choir. One of my sons also had an excellent music education, having been at the Royal College of Music junior department until the age of 18. He was fortunate enough to be sponsored by the London Borough of Sutton.
Britain once had a system of music education that was the envy of the world. Many houses had a piano and it was normal for children to have piano lessons, before the arrival of television.
Music tuition exists, but it must be paid for. Discretionary grants, on the whole, have been discontinued. In the past 10 years there have been savage cuts in the funding of music services. Since 1990 £100 million has been lost from music services. Instrumental music teaching has suffered. Money which schools used to use to pay music teachers has been spent on more pressing matters such as leaking roofs. There is a place for music in the national curriculum, but in some schools head teachers have axed music lessons if they interfere with the literacy hour. Many musical instruments in schools have been unfortunately lost or stolen. Since the statutory music element in the national curriculum came into force, pupils' skills in composing, performing, listening and appraising have improved markedly—but the situation is patchy. There is an unduly wide difference in pupils' achievement in different schools. Millfield School, for instance, has a composer in residence, and music teaching there involves digital technology and even recording a school CD. In strong contrast, only 8 per cent. of primary schools have a qualified music teacher.
It has been said that several now eminent musicians would not today have been able to afford their musical education. It cannot be right that the chance of musical tuition should depend on money, further emphasising the gap between those who have resources and those who do not.
The Prime Minister said in spring 1997:
"I would like music to be part of every child's experience as they grow up."
It is encouraging that the Government have had several projects on hand. For instance, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Chris Smith, has set up a Youth Music Trust. The trust will receive £10 million of lottery money for each of the next three years, but this is a far cry from the funding which has been lost in the past. The Government believe that the best way of safeguarding LEA music is to transfer authority-wide funding of music services to the Department for Education and Employment. Hence, facilities, including music, would be freed from local pressures. These are welcome signs that the Government are taking music seriously. But the Youth Music Trust is still at the ideas stage, and it is not certain how the lottery money will be spent. There is a crying need to reverse the effect of the disastrous cuts in music funding.

289
Music has been thought important since the dawn of history. Plato valued music and thought it reached the innermost soul. Educational research has recently shown how the study of music improves the general academic record. In the 1950s experiments were carried out in Hungary where there are special music primary schools. The academic record of children attending the music schools was significantly higher than that of children at the regular primary schools, even where normal school subjects were concerned.
When children sing or play music together they have to listen to one another. Competing behaviour is not compatible with the making of music. One of our greatest musicians, Lord Menuhin, has said that he has never known any school of music to produce a criminal. This may not be a universally held belief, but when children sing and dance, they think better, understand better and are more communicative with each other and the world.
Educational research has also shown that music is extremely important to the UK economy. There is statistical evidence which proves that music contributes as much to the UK economy as the steel industry. The value of the domestic music industry has been estimated to be £25 billion. It provides the equivalent of 15,000 full-time jobs.
It is vital that music in schools should receive adequate funding. I hope that the Minister, when he comes to reply, will offer some reassurance on this point. It is only by this method that the Government can realise their long-term aim:
"to ensure that any young person anywhere in the country who wants to play a musical instrument will have the opportunity to do so."
6.8 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, it is my pleasant duty to congratulate the noble Lord on his speech. It was all that a maiden speech should be. It was well researched, it was on a subject that he knew and cared about, and he put it over extraordinarily well. I thought he was having some effect on the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and I trust that he will push home his message and come back with more speeches. If I may ask, what took the noble Lord so long since he took his title to make that excellent speech? It was a joy to listen to and I hope that he will now attend and push the Front Bench into action, because that is what is needed. I congratulate the noble Lord.
Now, the House will be surprised to hear, we come to the mundane subject of agriculture. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, whose educational qualifications I admire so much, mentioned it. She read out a little about agriculture with great clarity. I do not think she did so with much passion, but there it is. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is to reply to the debate. I looked up his entry in Dod's, but I could find very little reference to agriculture in a long and distinguished career. However, I see that the noble Lord is a Friend of the Earth. Now these Friends of the Earth are not often friends of farmers, but I trust that I will be able to
290
educate him a little about his duty to agriculture, which is an enormously important industry and an enormously important part of the life of this country.
The Government need to do something to clarify what they mean by "pesticides". It is a curious word. Accordingly to many organisations in this country, the people of Britain are being poisoned by the farmers. That is obvious rot. All the tests show very small residues. Perhaps the Government can tell me how many people have died from eating the food produced by farmers in this country. It is very bad for farming that this story gets about.
Since the end of the war, farmers have done what they were supposed to do. They have produced the food. They have used the available techniques and they have learnt to use them better. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, and others have achieved a great deal in pointing to the dangers of handling some pesticides. The Government need to look to those dangers and to set up organisations which give credible answers instead of the speculation we have at the moment, which does a good deal of harm to farming and to the industry as a whole.
The gracious Speech states:
"My Government will play a leading role in preparing the European Union for the historic challenge of enlargement. In particular, they will work to secure reform of the Common Agricultural Policy".
One of the great cries we hear is that the common agricultural policy is a bad thing. The common agricultural policy has gone too far. It has failed to stop the rise in production. It has in it foolish aspects such as set-aside and so on. However, the CAP has produced a lot of food and has maintained the countryside. Great numbers of people throughout the European Union depend on agriculture. Economies depend on it as well. Agenda 2000 is extremely important. If it is a preparation for enlargement, we need to think carefully about what will happen when Poland and Hungary join.
I know a number of able young men from this country who have gone into farming in Poland and Hungary. In Poland these young men have raised cereal yields in the areas they farm to more than 3.5 tonnes per hectare. Their neighbours are beginning to emulate them. They have done the same with potatoes. They have increased the yield of potatoes and they lift them in 24 hours. They have done well with their men. They have not tried to exploit them. They pay good wages, they try to co-operate with them and they try to learn the language. The same is true in Hungary. In fact, it is happening all over eastern Europe. Beyond Hungary, there is that amazing plain right down to the Danube in Romania. It is badly farmed at the moment but when the experts are brought in the plain will produce a very large amount of food.
This is being done far more cheaply than we do it in this country. It is being done more cheaply because the wage of a good man in, for example, Hungary is 88p to 90p per hour. One hopes that that rate will increase, but it has a long way to go before it is anywhere near the wages paid in agriculture in this country, which are not the highest wages in the world. How the common agricultural policy can expand into these countries—if they are to come in, they must have the same

291
treatment—I cannot see unless the standard of support, which has now stopped being for the crop itself but is paid to the farmer direct as a straight subsidy, drops. How one takes in those countries—perhaps by 2003—and pay them the same money is a difficult issue because the budget will not stand it. Therefore, we need some explanation of what the Government are prepared to do.
If we want to keep up the countryside as we know it, it is necessary for the subsidies to continue. If we do not pay a reasonable amount, the land will be formed into larger units and a good deal of it will go back to some form of desolation. That might please the Friends of the Earth—I am not sure—but the land will certainly go out of advanced production.
We have an immediate and pressing problem. The Government say that we have to be competitive in farming. We can be competitive, but I doubt very much whether the standard of living, which the Government say the farming community should have along with the rest of the community, can be kept at anything like its present level if we are to compete on world prices. The Government should recognise that they have a problem and perhaps the Friends of the Earth will become a little more friendly to farmers.
6.17 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, perhaps I may begin my speech by making an apology to the House for being unable to be present at the beginning of the debate.
I feel very lucky to be here and to have the opportunity to speak on all the subjects about which I feel so passionately. I am honoured to have the opportunity to strive for protecting the key aspects of our institutions, principally education, an institution which we need to protect and enhance.
I am proud to stand before the House today as a product of our fine grammar school system. Education has two primary purposes; first, to motivate our children to want to learn; and, secondly, to prepare them for the world of work. This Government champion enterprise, opportunity and competition, which is good, because in today's world each generation faces much tougher competition in every endeavour. We need to prepare our children for that. It therefore seems strange that we have a Government who are now poised to abolish competition throughout education.
I am pleased that this Government are making education their priority. However, if we are to improve our education system, surely it is logical, sensible and desirable to take the best that we provide already and to use that as a bench-mark to improve standards in all of our schools; to set new standards in all of our schools; and to make them reflect what we once had; namely, a world-class system of education.
I make no apology for being subjective in this matter. I want to protect and to enhance grammar schools. We should use them as our bench-mark. We all want equal opportunity for all. That is good as it involves setting goals for all of our children and giving them all a chance to succeed in developing the best of their potential. We all want to encourage achievers as well as those who
292
are of average ability. We need a system that streams according to potential and recognises that we are all different. What equal opportunity for all is not about is trying to make us the same because we are not the same.
In contrast, the comprehensive system offers all of us the same system in spite of our differences. A system that is exclusively comprehensive is blind to excellence and it denies differences. I hope I may use an analogy. The comprehensive system in its truest sense is akin to taking everyone who has a right to sit in this Chamber, placing them in one locked classroom and throwing away the key for seven years. I speak from experience as I was educated in the state system. From my own experience I understand the difference between the comprehensive system and the grammar school system. I understand the system of streaming in which one was given a chance to succeed, to work hard and to be promoted on merit. I am talking about diversity and giving our children goals. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with a competitive element? After all, that is what the real world is all about.
My grammar school education gave me the chance to become an achiever. It was a first-class grammar school and my education gave me the confidence to read for the Bar, to have an extensive career in business and now in politics, as well as becoming a mother. The system that worked for me 25 years ago is just as relevant today. Some people say that the grammar school system is elitist and that it is only for the middle classes. That is absolute nonsense. I refer to Slough which is but half an hour from here where I fought in the previous general election. In Slough there are four excellent grammar schools and a fifth on its border. Most of the pupils in those schools are first generation British. Many of their parents have been here for fewer than 20 years. However, those children are achieving astounding results. Are they privileged? They are not privileged in the material sense but, arguably, they are privileged in the cultural sense because they have a strong and dynamic work ethos which is born from a strong commitment to family, to community and to education. They are the leaders of tomorrow. Are we to deny them that fantastic springboard of opportunity? Are we to deny them the chance to show their true potential in so short a space of time? Children have but one chance.
To abolish the grammar school system would diminish aspiration. If you diminish aspiration, you diminish endeavour and you diminish that one opportunity. There are two ultimate effects of that. First, every parent wants the best for his or her child and therefore they will seek an alternative. Already 7 per cent. of the children in this country are taught in the private system. I believe that if we abolish diversity in our education system, more and more parents will seek every opportunity and make every sacrifice to enable their children to participate in the private system. That will create a deeper division in our communities and in our society. That cannot be right. That, coupled with a diminution of the aspiration to endeavour and to achieve across the board, would make us all the poorer.
I believe that we have a duty and an ambition to provide as much diversity and opportunity as possible for all of our children in all of our schools. We must

293
give them the opportunity to excel. The opportunity is there if we are brave enough to take it. If we are brave enough to accept that which worked all those years ago for me, and has continued to work for thousands and thousands of children, we should allow it to continue into the future. I thank noble Lords for giving me this opportunity to state my case.
6.25 p.m.
Baroness Goudie: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, on her maiden speech this evening. The noble Baroness is well known for her service to local government and for promoting women's achievements at all levels in public life. I look forward to hearing the noble Baroness contribute to many more debates in this House.
I wish to concentrate my remarks in the debate this evening on those aspects of the gracious Speech that relate to the local government best value and capping Bill, the draft local government standards and conduct Bill and the Regional Development Agencies Act. I welcome the abolition of compulsory competitive tendering and its replacement with the principles of best value. Compulsory competitive tendering imposed inflexible rules upon the way in which decisions were taken as to how and by whom services were delivered. These rules forced local authorities to contract services on the narrow basis of cost. People throughout Britain have felt the impact of this inflexibility through deteriorating standards of local services. Best value will give local authorities greater discretion to decide how best to provide these services at competitive cost and at constant and acceptable standards.
One of the key differences between compulsory competitive tendering and best value is partnership between local government, the voluntary and the private sectors, and flexibility in methods of service provision. Ministers must be allowed to remove the obstacles that prevent local authorities from working with others to provide best value. There are various measures apart from simply contracting out by which competition can be used as a management tool. These could include forming a joint venture or partnership following a competition for an external partner, or local authority participation in private companies. Local authorities cannot do this at present with confidence because there are basic uncertainties as to their powers. New, broader and simpler powers with appropriate safeguards are required.
Due regard should be paid to the fact that local authorities consist of representatives elected by the public on a wide franchise for comparatively short periods on the basis of an election manifesto. Local authorities should not be regarded as mere creatures of specific statutes. To enable them to act, to innovate and to integrate on behalf of their local communities and to provide civic leadership, they must not be restricted to the extent that they have been.
I further welcome the new ethical framework for local government. There are several aspects of this framework. First, there is ethical consideration at the
294
local authority level. It should be made clear that local authorities can lawfully regard ethical considerations as a relevant factor in their decision-making processes. There should be, for example, no doubt about the lawfulness of an authority deciding on ethical grounds to ban hunting on its own land.
Secondly, on ethics for members, we have the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, on which to build. As a former councillor, I welcome the proposed local government codes of conduct, enforced by local standards committees, and a new independent national standards board. That will bring greater accountability and transparency to local government. The draft Bill proposes to strengthen protection of the public interest through vigorous standards and enforcement of the conduct of public officials, while at the same time protecting the rights of councillors, officers and public employees accused of wrongdoing from slur and innuendo. In line with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which will shortly become part of the United Kingdom domestic law, they will be entitled to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.
Thirdly, part of the ethical framework for local government relates to officers. I hope that the rules imposed in 1990 governing the political activities of many local government officers will be reviewed. Those of us with experience of those rules are convinced that they have been too restrictive, and that the dogmatic application of them has been, frankly, an unnecessary bureaucratic constraint and a slur on the integrity of thousands of professional workers who run our local services.
I close by welcoming the implementation of the Regional Development Agencies Act, which provides for eight regional development agencies to be established in England later this year and one in London in the year 2000. Those agencies will be working closely with local government to bring economic prosperity to both our inner cities and our rural areas. I look forward to future debates on these measures and I commend them to the House.
6.31 p.m.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye: My Lords, on two recent occasions I have found myself the sole speaker on the arts in debates following the gracious Speech, so it comes as a positive luxury today to find that I am joined by two other speakers. In particular, I should like to welcome the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Clwyd, although, unfortunately, he said quite a few of the things that I want to say.
I do not think that the arts have fared badly this year in your Lordships' House. Earlier this year, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, initiated a debate which drew 32 speakers, while more recently my noble friend Lord Clancarty instigated one on the need for a strategy for the arts. I did not participate in the latter because I feel that the arts need not so much a strategy as a reappraisal in the context of some of the issues that we

295
are discussing this evening. Not surprisingly, there was no mention of the arts in the gracious Speech. There never is.
Last Wednesday, I regret that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, using, I thought, somewhat unattractive phraseology, attacked some of us on these Benches as "closet Tories". I think that we have heard enough about "closets" in recent times. I reiterate that I can support the Government in a lot of their programme, but I regret that the arts are not part of that programme. I deplore the Government's excessive, albeit not exclusive, concentration on "popular culture" and their indifference, even hostility, towards what is called "high culture". Nowhere has this been shown more than in musical matters, and, since music is the art form in which I have been principally involved, I shall devote most of my remarks to it, believing it to be an important part—along with the other arts—of education. Furthermore, this speech is probably my swan-song, too, and I doubt whether the subject will receive an airing unless my noble friend Lord Menuhin should speak.
One or two noble Lords may know that I have rather defective hearing and ask why on earth I am speaking about music. The curious thing is that I can hear music but not conversation. The other day in the Library a noble Lord said, "You hear the better part".
The Government made their intentions clear from the start. We soon read of parties at 10 Downing Street at which pop stars were out in force; Ministers witnessed the Britpop awards; and we were informed that the Foreign Office planned to whip rock bands into our embassies so that we can use the best of British culture to promote exports and show a modern face to the world. "This is a serious proposal and should not be trivialised", said a Foreign Office official, to which one columnist rightly rejoined, "Can you imagine anything more pathetic'?".
At the G8 summit in Birmingham in May, world leaders were regaled after dinner with a concert in Symphony Hall featuring various rock bands. What an opportunity was missed on that occasion. Why were not Sir Simon Rattle and the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra invited to take part? Here is a conductor whose skills as a musician and a communicator have turned a provincial orchestra into a world-class one. In doing so, he has transformed a city where the previous idea of culture was stand-up comedy into one of the country's most vibrant artistic centres. For his services to the arts and the social scene in general, I think that Sir Simon deserves a place in your Lordships' House. On the other hand, he might well echo the words of Kurt Masur, the distinguished German conductor, who, when after the revolution was offered the highest office in the former German Democratic Republic asked, "Why, am I so bad a conductor that I have to become a politician?".
However, I was pleased to read that two Ministers, including the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, attended the gala concert of the National Youth Orchestra and that the Home Secretary and the Leader of the Opposition were present at the concert in February when Mr. Anthony Payne's marvellous
296
realisation of Elgar's sketches for his third symphony was first heard—an occasion rightly described as the most important event in British music this decade.
The Government arrived with promises that creativity would be cherished and honoured, and with the backing of the majority of those involved in the arts scene, who will have recalled the generally impressive record of previous Labour administrations compared with that of the Conservatives. But how disappointed many of them must feel today! Who would have thought that there would have been a demonstration like the one outside Downing Street earlier this month when the Government were taken to task by distinguished performers who accused them of, among other things, "Backing pop groups that will be forgotten in three years"? It is obvious that this Government's commitment is primarily to what are called "cultural industries" that make big money. They would like all the arts to resemble rock music, relentlessly lowbrow, vastly profitable and nakedly populist. We must put up with tacit governmental approval of music that celebrates drug-taking and law-breaking and produces performers whose behaviour in public is too often coarse, vulgar and aggressive.
I have enjoyed the privilege and pleasure of working with students at one of our leading colleges, the Royal College of Music, where one cannot fail to be impressed by their dedication to making great music and their ability to do so. It is worth remembering that often in the past, care has had to be taken in the European youth orchestras to ensure that not only British youngsters were playing; in addition, British orchestral players, choral and solo singers have a reputation with international conductors for being the best prepared, the quickest to learn and, by a long way, the most versatile. All this is impressive: nevertheless the future for the musical profession is, I think, uncertain. Our youth orchestras achieve wonderful results, yet are living on borrowed time; fewer and fewer local authorities are investing in peripatetic music services, while a total of about £10 million has been axed from music teaching by education authorities. The worst hit have been inner cities and isolated rural areas, with the sharpest decline in the Midlands, which used to boast some of the best orchestras.
A survey has revealed that the proportion of children playing musical instruments has fallen further, from 45 per cent. to 41 per cent. since 1994, the decrease being entirely among the youngest children needed to form the orchestras of the future. Of those who are learning, increasing numbers are having private lessons without taking part in any school music activities; most of the decline, sadly, is among children from poorer families. I was, therefore, heartened to read that money from the National Lottery is to be made available for a rescue operation for school orchestras. I think I am right in saying that this has been initiated personally by the Secretary of State, in which case I express great gratitude to him.
I also welcomed the meeting in Downing Street to which the Prime Minister summoned leading luminaries in the arts, including, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, and pledged a new commitment to state-funded

297
arts and, I have read, acknowledged their neglect by this Government. After a barrage of criticism, that may be along the lines of a Pauline conversion. All the same, I doubt whether any of the Prime Minister's predecessors would have convened such a gathering.
Until a few days ago, when I read of the plans for our remaining grammar schools, I would have been prepared to hand another bouquet to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment: instead he will just have to be content with my support for his crusade to repair the ravages of 30 years' disastrous educational policies. I think he is right to give priority to teaching literacy and numeracy and I am glad that lessons in the arts will reappear in junior schools when the national curriculum is revised in 2000—not a moment too soon, I think. I would also like to remind the Minister of the interesting results of recent studies which have shown that children who have music lessons before the age of 12 have a better memory for words when they reach adulthood. Music doth soothe the savage breast, but it can also stimulate the somnolent mind.
I have long argued that the arts and education are natural bedfellows and ought to go together. The present rag-bag of Culture, Media and Sport is ill-assorted. Incidentally, a friend of mind told me the other day that the present Minister of Culture in France was promoted from the Ministry of Health. Can one envisage such an estimate of the arts in this country by any government?
I now turn to a misconception that is unfortunately held by many and constantly voiced in many of the media; namely, that the arts are "élitist". That word seems to be applied particularly to the more durable and elevated forms of music, which are, I consider, one of the glories of Western civilisation. The concept of elitism has taken root to an extent that no one could have dreamed of 30 years ago. My dictionary defines elitism as excellence—the pick of anything. I cannot see what is wrong with that. I stand here as an unashamed elitist, but emphasise that it has nothing to do with affluence or social position. I wish that everybody were an élitist. Art is there to be enjoyed by all and sundry. In that connection I should like to quote the closing paragraph of the very fine maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Attenborough, four years ago:
"The arts are not a prerequisite of the privileged few; nor are they the playground of the intelligentsia. The arts are for everyone—and failure to include everyone diminishes us all".
In that connection, I was therefore happy to read of how an ardent fan of Elgar's music was also an ardent supporter of Wolverhampton Wanderers—Elgar once took "Dorabella" of the "Enigma Variations" to watch a match at Molyneux—and that his efforts have led to the club commemorating its most famous supporter with a plaque in the ground and plans to play some of his works before matches. I read, too, how sales of Prokofiev have increased dramatically in the record shops in the North East as a result of an orchestra, in tails, playing selections from the composer's ballet, "Romeo and Juliet" before kick-off in Sunderland's new "Stadium of Light". I hope that both clubs are promoted at the end of the season.
298
Since it seems to have become the norm in your Lordships' House to quote taxi drivers, I shall refer to a conversation I had with my cab driver in Glasgow earlier this year concerning the merits of Mendelssohn's overture, "Fingal's Cave", which was then playing on his excellent stereo system. I also welcome the presentation of operas at venues like the Albert Hall and the Empress Hall in London, and hope that the crash barriers at both venues are as crowded as the crush bar at Covent Garden. I shall refrain from saying anything more about that institution beyond commenting that the fiasco there has done more to tarnish the reputation of the arts in this country than any other single event. It has provided the Philistines with a field day—several field days, in fact. Finally, I was pleased to read in a newspaper yesterday that an opera company is to give performances in one of the most deprived boroughs in London. That and the other events I have mentioned are examples of what I wish "populism" in culture to mean.
While I consider that the low standard of education may be partly responsible for the growing use of the term "élitism" in a pejorative sense, I believe that there is another, deeper reason. Since the end of the war we have often been lectured that an egalitarian society is the ideal for which we should aim. That doctrine has been enshrined in certain ideologies and frequently enacted in legislation. We are all declared to be equally talented, regardless of age, class, colour, sex or creed, and are held back from excellence only by our environment. As T. S. Eliot pointed out, it is mediocrity that tends towards uniformity. Unfortunately, the desire of the egalitarians flies in the face of one fundamental fact: we have all been born different, some with greater brainpower than others, some with genius, some with talent and many with neither. So jealousy has become one of the besetting sins of society, with the result that only too often we have grown envious of excellence, suspicious of success and acid about achievement. I read the other day a review of a biography of Potter, the playwright, in which it was said that every time he saw a Rolls-Royce he felt like spitting at it. To me, that just about sums up the attitude of too many today.
Another offshoot of this passion for egalitarianism is what is called "cultural relativism", whereby we are led to believe that all art is equally valid and nothing is better than anything else. Well, no doubt I am being fearfully "élitist" when I suggest that the value and end product of a young musician with years of training to bring him or her to perfection is likely to prove more valuable in the long run than that of a youngster who is given a huge contract by a record producer after half an hour's warbling of a pop song. The preoccupation with cultural relativism has led to so much "dumbing down" that anything that is not accessible—a weasel word for laziness or ignorance—is considered unacceptable.
A few years ago my late and much lamented noble friend Lord Tonypandy delivered a fine speech during which he deplored the declining standards in so many aspects of our lives today. He may have been correct in many ways but not, I think, in matters pertaining to the arts, at least not until the 1980s. Between 1945 and the start of that decade, there was a veritable renaissance in cultural matters in Great Britain and many artists,

299
writers, composers and conductors were happy to settle here. Labour governments were particularly sympathetic to the arts, culminating in the appointment of Jennie Lee as the first Arts Minister.
I believe that the decline mentioned by my noble friend began in the 1980s with the onset of "market forces", which led to the polluting of minds with the cynicism of "popular culture". Of course I accept that many both need and enjoy that level of entertainment—I just do not think that it is the role of any government to promote it. I am also sure that it leads to a lowering of standards of behaviour and a coarsening of our everyday existence. I wonder how many of the 40,000 people who sat out in Hyde Park during the last night of the Promenade concerts in September were arrested for theft, possession of drugs, unruly behaviour and so forth—but I suppose I am being too politically incorrect in asking that question! Of course, in the eyes of some, no doubt, it was sinful to have taken part in the singing of "Land of Hope and Glory" or "Rule Britannia". Happily, this Government appear to have cooled over the concept of "Cool" as opposed to "Rule" Britannia: it was always as trivial as it was tasteless, as meretricious as it was meaningless.
I have no doubt that the pervasive cult of youth in so much of the media, most shamefully the BBC, has also inflicted cultural damage on this country as well as ensuring that insufficient attention is paid to the older members of society. Sometimes I feel like a criminal, being over the age of 45. Furthermore, we are forever being told that Britain is a young country while simultaneously being told of the need to modernise, rebrand, restructure—I cannot recall all the terms used to describe this utter nonsense. In fact, Britain is a very old, very civilised land, with its traditions and culture extending over centuries. What foreign visitors come here to see and admire are our museums, galleries, libraries, theatres, concert halls and stately houses, as well as the pomp and pageantry associated with our past history, which we now seem so keen to demolish or abolish. Tourists certainly do not come here to taste the delights of "Cool Britannia".
Where will the current downgrading and dumbing down lead us? Roger Scruton, the apostle of political incorrectness, may have supplied us with the answer in an article in The Times this summer. He contrasted the icons of the Czech Republic and those of this country. Top of the poll for the Czechs came Masaryk, the philosopher-statesman and creator of what was once the most prosperous state in central Europe. He was followed by Karel Capek, the writer; Vaclav Klaus, the former Prime Minister, whom the pundits had consigned to the dust-heap of history; Cardinal Tomasek, the Catholic Primate, who constantly reminded Czechs that Communism is incompatible with Christianity. President Havel came fifth, followed by Leoš Janaček, the composer, with Jaroslav Seifer, the poet, as seventh. Only one sportsman, the Olympic runner, Emil Zatopek, made it into the top 30. Of the rest, most were cultural heroes, writers, composers, conductors or anti-Communist martyrs—not one footballer or racing
300
driver, not one pop singer or film star, and only one industrialist, who made it on account of his charitable works.
Scruton read the list with astonishment and went on:
"There is a nation which defines itself, not by its stars but by its culture. Even statesmen such as Masaryk and Havel owe their position to their intellectual standing. It is as though the readers of a London broadsheet were to nominate Winston Churchill as the greatest Englishman of the century, and after him Auden, Lawrence, Virginia Woolf, Vaughan Williams. Britten and Kathleen Ferrier, with Sir Stanley Matthews as a concession to sport and Baroness Thatcher as the sole acknowledgement of recent politics. In fact a similar questionnaire in Britain would see Diana, Princess of Wales at the top of the list, after her, the pop and piffle industry, with football as the dominant item. Neither religion nor culture would get a look-in. Indeed as a nation we no longer know what culture means".
Sadly, I fear that there is much truth in that.
6.49 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I am reminded of the phrase: "Follow that!". I very much enjoyed the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour. I have a certain amount of sympathy, because I am about to raise an issue that has not been raised during the debate; namely, housing.
I belong to two groups in this House which are fairly numerous. One group, which has already been mentioned, consists of those who have come from local government. Another consists of those who have served time in another place. When I was a local councillor, for nine years I was a member of a housing committee in a large city authority. In another place I was spokesperson on housing for the Liberal Democrat Party. Because I spent so much time last year talking about education, people may not realise that I am actually the spokesperson on housing for my party in your Lordships' House. Your Lordships will not be surprised if I express disappointment at the lack of measures on housing in the gracious Speech. I believe that decent homes are the bedrock of stable families and stable communities and of citizens who want to reach their full potential and play a part in the life of their communities.
I wish to focus on four main areas: first, the failure for far too long to tackle the lack of flexibility between different tenures of housing; secondly, the problems of security in different tenures; thirdly, the inequality of treatment across tenures with regard to supporting individuals, particularly financially, to keep a roof over their heads; and, fourthly, the quality of the homes in our country, particularly the extent of disrepair and the poor insulation of so many of our properties.
I fear that for many housing means "social housing", and for the previous Conservative government it meant pursuing ever higher levels of home ownership, whatever the consequences.
The lack of affordable housing, poor quality housing and poor safety nets to enable people to stay in their homes have serious effects on other areas in our communities and our lives, particularly health, educational attainment, crime levels, and the quality of urban and rural environments and of the global environment.

301
Returning to my first point, a flexible labour market needs a flexible housing market. Many of us had expected to see legislation in this Session to speed up conveyancing in the housing market. That was promised last year, and indeed there has been some consultation; but, as has become all too common with this Government, the rhetoric and intention do not always translate into concrete action and results.
Leasehold reform is another area about which we have received promises. During the passage of the 1996 Housing Act in another place, Mr. Nick Raynsford spoke at great length about how we needed properly to reform leasehold tenure. Since then, there has been much talk and many promises, but there was nothing in the gracious Speech about this matter.
Moving on to my second point—security—a recent study by Shelter shows that about 2.5 million home-owners are at risk of losing their homes, either because they are unemployed or because they have insecure jobs. A further study produced the possibility that by 2006 11 million people may be in insecure employment. At present only one-quarter of home owners have any kind of mortgage insurance. Ironically, that is the quarter that probably need it least. We know that home owners in insecure work are three times more likely to face repossession than those in permanent employment.
When the previous government reduced help to home owners with interest payments through the benefits system, the Labour Party and my own party protested. Despite protestations in the gracious Speech about modernising the Welfare State on principles of security and fairness, nothing has changed and repossessions are rising again.
That brings me to the third point which I wish to explore: the inequality of treatment in regard to access to financial help for people to keep a roof over their heads. Those in rented accommodation receive far more generous help with housing costs through benefits than do home owners. I have said for a number of years that I would very much like to see a Bill to ensure that there is fair access to help with housing costs for both tenants and home owners alike when they fall on hard times.
The council housing sector is another area where some of us had hoped the Labour Government would act. There has been great unfairness to council tenants. Many of them subsidise the housing benefit bill for poorer council tenants through the housing revenue accounts. That is another matter about which the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats complained when the Conservatives were in power. Much has been talked about it since, and the housing Minister in another place has promised action—but not yet, it appears.
Before I move on to my final point, perhaps I may stop the griping for a moment. I welcome the "best value" proposals in the gracious Speech. We know that compulsory competitive tendering is to end. My noble friend Lady Hamwee will say more about that later. We know how important this is in providing decent housing services and good tenant participation.
302
The final point on which I wish to expand is the quality of housing, particularly the poor energy efficiency of so many of our homes. My noble friend Lord Ezra and I have instigated, and taken part in, many debates on these matters. In reply, government Ministers have recognised our concerns and have often made some quite good noises, but there have been very few firm commitments. My noble friend Lord Ezra almost begged for some more definite answers today. I join him in asking the Minister to be as forthright as he can be on that matter. Hundreds of elderly people are still dying of hypothermia each year in this country; many elderly people live in housing that is in disrepair and is poorly insulated; and there is an enormous backlog of disrepair in every housing sector in this country, whether it is the social sector, the privately-owned sector or the rented sector.
I and many others would have liked some recognition of these facts in the gracious Speech; in particular, an energy efficiency Bill to require energy supply companies to be involved in energy-efficiency work, a point made earlier by my noble friend Lord Ezra. There are plenty of data to ensure that resources for improvement, repair and energy efficiency can be well targeted.
Some indication that VAT on home improvement and energy-efficiency products needs attention would have been welcome. I understand that the matter is being discussed in the Treasury department, and that may be the problem. It is a matter that we do need to look at. In considering how we can provide all the homes that we need in the next century, we know that the tax on building on greenfield sites is zero; yet, if one tries to improve buildings in our inner-city areas, one has to pay VAT.
I feel passionately about housing and I am disappointed that in recent times governments have not shared that passion across the board in all areas of housing. The Prime Minister is fond of claiming that this will be a great reforming Government. The two widely recognised reforming governments of this century were the 1906 Liberal Government—of which I am, obviously, particularly proud—and the 1945 Labour Government, many of the architects of which had been Liberal Members of Parliament in earlier times. Both those reforming governments had housing far higher up their agendas than this or any government since the war. I shall continue to strive to get housing higher up the agenda, but I confess that I am disappointed that today I am the first to speak about housing at any length in your Lordships' House.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, I should like to deal with agriculture and the environment. I shall concentrate on what I believe to be the most important sector of the farming community that requires financial support: the hill farmer, the lowland farmer and those who operate in less favoured areas. These farmers must be first in line to receive support not only through the Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance now—not in February and March of next year—but also under the new measures that emerge from the Agenda 2000 package. It is this better targeting of aid that is all-important. These farmers have virtually no options

303
to adapt. I suggest that farmers in more prosperous parts of the country will have to play their part. I do not believe that a mixed farmer on arable land should be able to expand his beef production for example at the expense of his cousin the hill farmer.
As we approached Europe in the mid-1970s I was already milking 250 Friesian cows under the Farm Capital Grant Scheme. It was then that the political call came for British farmers to produce more food from their own resources. On joining the Common Market I made a seven-year commitment to expand with funding from the Farm and Horticultural Grant Scheme. I more than doubled my dairy cow numbers and milk production and carried out further land drainage and hedge and field realignment. Within no time at all a milk lake was declared in Europe. To curtail milk production and to reduce output on an annual basis milk quotas were introduced. This was a hard pill to swallow, but I believe that it saved the dairy industry and put it in better heart to face the future—until BSE restrictions came into being.
Set-aside, too, was massively unpopular and hugely expensive. In some respects it enabled many arable farmers to use set-aside to their advantage in a vast overheads cost-cutting exercise. But as far as we in Europe were concerned, it cut back the huge stocks of grain in intervention and made the best of a bad job.
The two examples of arable set-aside and milk quotas tempt me to make the following suggestions. We are advised that trading conditions will remain tough. For the farmers I support tonight to be told to adapt is still not good enough. There is only so much bed and breakfast. It is agreed that some forestry is possible but not all farmers are tarred with the same brush. The farmers of whom I speak are, with the greatest of respect, not wealthy with cash in the bank. They cannot just enter a woodland grant scheme, produce a small forest and from day one enhance their income.
I believe that organic meat production when properly supported by the Government within Europe, and the fast-growing requirements of the modern housewife, will show returns to the producer. But if we are to produce a group blueprint for a viable future and a sustainable agriculture that will in turn create a more prosperous farming community, and therefore a more prosperous countryside, we need a managed quota on beef output. This quota system would not be across the board. Its aim would be to restrict production on land that could adapt, thus giving the hill farmer, the lowland farmer and the farmer in less favoured areas the opportunity to maintain output and, in turn, sustain our green and pleasant land. One knows that to increase the Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance by 55 per cent. from the reserve is only to buy time, as grateful as we are for it. There must be imagination and flexibility.
I welcome the commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, to consider the greater use of environmentally sensitive areas in that they discourage further production surpluses but at the same time give support mostly to small farmers in difficult areas.
As regards beef, what does the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, intend to do with the stockpile of 92,000 tonnes of beef held under the Euro beef scheme? I am told that
304
this meat is equivalent to 600 million meals. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, asked for a definition of "pesticide". Like my noble friend, Lady Blatch, I and many hundreds of thousands of members of the public demand to know when a food standards agency will he in place. In particular, I read in yesterday's Sunday Times that there was pesticide in 40 per cent. of fresh food and vegetables. Is this or is this not a problem?
I move on to the environment. Given the Government's very busy legislative programme and the many competing demands on parliamentary time, I am not surprised that there is no Bill on the countryside this year. However, I very much expect that there will be one next year, and I would welcome the Minister's commitment in that respect. I anticipate that a countryside Bill would be wide ranging and would include measures to protect areas of outstanding natural beauty, common land and access. As to access, I shall look to the Government to introduce legislation to implement a statutory right of access to open country within national parks.
The Council for National Parks, of which I am a vice-president, believes that there should he a statutory right of access to open country supported by a voluntary management agreement and that this will benefit land owners and those who seek enjoyment of the countryside. This would provide for the certainty, permanency, quality and extent of access that is sought by the Government. Further debate on this subject is required bearing in mind the public's expressed preference for clearly waymarked paths and access nearer to where people live. Within government there is no single officer who is charged with responsibility for policing and overseeing the rights of way process in order to make things better than they are now. Is it not time for this position to be filled?
There is also the possibility of including measures for the future protection and management of an area that the Government are considering currently: the New Forest. I believe that the New Forest should be designated as a national park with a free-standing national park authority, although legislation is not necessarily required to achieve this as the necessary provisions already exist under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, as amended by the Environment Act 1995. This option was not available when the National Parks Review Panel chaired by Professor Ron Edwards reported in 1991 or when the previous government said in 1992 that they would pursue a tailor-made solution. However, if the Government were minded to go down the tailor-made route for the New Forest special legislation would be required and time would have to be made available for it.
National park status would bring a number of benefits to the New Forest including a 75 per cent. funding contribution from central government, a permanent and fixed boundary—the present one is subject to change under the local plan process—a recognised high planning status and well understood powers and responsibilities. The Government will want to introduce measures to ensure the better protection of sites of special scientific interest. A very important element of

305
this should be the introduction of a nationwide trade ban on the sale of the incredibly precious and irreplaceable resource of limestone pavement.
A countryside Bill of this omnibus nature would also provide a good opportunity to tie up some loose ends. For example, the duties placed on public bodies and statutory undertakers by Section 62 of the Environment Act 1995
"to have regard to National Park purposes"
does not apply in the Broads. Amending legislation to ensure that this duty applied in the Broads would strengthen the protection of that area and help to emphasise that the Broads are very much part of the national parks family. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is aware of the need for this updating. All of these points could add up to a very significant year for the countryside with some measures in legislation and some not, for example the need to designate the South Downs as a national park.
I believe that 1999, the 50th anniversary of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, as regards which my grandfather played such an important role, provides the ideal opportunity for achieving an enhanced countryside.
7.9 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, the combination of subjects which provides the slightly blurred focus of our debate today includes education; and I wish to address my remarks to education but, above all, to the boundary, about which the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, spoke, between education and employment.
I begin by echoing the words of my noble friend Lord Tope when he congratulated the Government on the fact that this year's gracious Speech does not include the announcement of another education Bill. I have long hoped that the time would come when we would not have a Bill but a little space and time to settle down and work within the existing framework. Let me say this in passing. I believe that the quality of government is not measured in terms of the number of Bills. Indeed, I was surprised during the run-up to the gracious Speech at a kind of legislative machismo: "Did you get a Bill in?"; "Did he?"; "Did she?". As a Liberal (not just with a capital "L" but with capital letters throughout!) I think that not having legislation is on the whole better than having it. After all, legislation is regulation. Perhaps we need a little more deregulation, of which we have not seen much yet under this Government. In any case, we must not deceive ourselves into believing that legislation by itself creates a better reality. More often, it is an irritant for real people in real situations.
However, that is an aside. I return to my main theme. If I had anything to do with devising a programme for a reforming government at this time—which I do not—three main subjects would stand out. First, we have to redefine the boundary between what is properly in the public domain and what is best left to private initiative. We also have to make sure that the public domain—public spaces, public services—enhances the lives of all
306
citizens. Thus the approach to education, health and transport in the gracious Speech is to be welcomed, notwithstanding the need to debate detail.
Secondly, the devolution of power from the centre to the people is crucial for a vibrant, free society. In my view, this is only partly about the nations within the United Kingdom, and even less about regions. It is about strong local government which promotes people's identification with the communities in which they live. That is why as a Londoner I welcome the forthcoming arrangements for a directly elected mayor and a separately elected authority, although I hope that the electoral system chosen will not take away with one hand what the other has given. I look forward also to the creation of a framework for similar changes in the cities and towns, preferably along the lines of the "experimental arrangements" Bill which unfortunately did not get on to the statute book.
Thirdly, there is an area which is underdeveloped in the Government's thinking and on which I wish to spend a few moments. It has to do with work and employment, with changes in the world of work and their consequences for education, employment policies and indeed welfare services, including pensions.
This Government have placed great stress on work. The second sentence of the gracious Speech mentions reforms of education, the health services and the welfare state based,
"upon the principle of work for those who can and security for those who cannot".
Later the "modernisation" of the welfare state is said to be based,
"upon clear principles of work, security, fairness and value for money".
Work in the sense of employment is at the heart of the objectives of education, the New Deal programme for the long-term unemployed, and the entitlement of single mothers, widows and the disabled, as well as of pensioners.
All that is fine so far as it goes. But like other pronouncements by the Government (indeed, not just by the Government) it assumes an unchanged world of work. However, we are experiencing important changes in the nature of the labour market as well as in the "personal consequences of work", to quote Professor Richard Sennet, one thoughtful author on the subject. Unless those are taken into account, many of the well-intentioned policies proposed will fail.
The Government—the Home Secretary—recently published a consultation document on the family, Supporting Families. That interesting document begins with a few paragraphs of analysis. It states that families are at the heart of our society. But families have changed. It states that they are under stress. Divorce is mentioned, and single parent families. It states that the family structure has become more complicated; and a modern family policy needs to recognise these new realities. That is well said, but analogous statements could and should be made about work. The image of the job for life has become as outdated as the image of the nuclear family of mother, father arid two children; or, rather, those images still correspond to reality for many

307
but they are only one part of a more complicated picture and we are not likely to get back to the models which they imply.
In the decades to come, normal employment relationships—that is, full-time jobs of indefinite duration, with career opportunities and well prepared retirement at the end—will increasingly become a minority phenomenon, or at any rate one which no more than half the employable population enjoys. Instead, part-time employment, limited term employment, contract work, self-employment, voluntary work and other less orthodox forms of activity will spread further. Women have long known those alternatives to traditional jobs, which is perhaps a reason why on the whole they cope better with the new condition than men, especially young men.
This is not the place to analyse such changes in detail, although a government consultation document on the new labour market might be helpful. But it is the place to say that if such deep changes in the world of work are real and "structural" rather than just "conjunctural", the consequences for government policy are numerous.
Let us take the New Deal programme. Mr. Andrew Smith, the Minister responsible, recently reported that 167,400 young people have so far entered the scheme. That is good news; but where are they now? Recent figures from the Department for Education and Employment show that of every 100 who joined the New Deal in January this year 25 have dropped out or gone on benefits; another 22 are still on the scheme; 11 are in education or training; 11 are in subsidised jobs; 12 are engaged in charitable or environmental activities; and only 19 are in unsubsidised jobs.
Those figures are not cited to criticise the scheme or the government. The achievement of the New Deal is considerable. But it demonstrates also how difficult it is to find normal jobs for those young people. It probably does not help that most of them are led by their parents, teachers and peers to expect such normal jobs.
My point is that such expectations should not be confirmed by government. On the contrary, the Government should operate the scheme on the understanding that there are many forms of work—orthodox and unorthodox, old normal and new normal. The New Deal provides just one example of the consequences of changes in the structure of the labour market. The ramifications reach far and wide. Education for employability is fine but it must be an employability of varied and changeable positions. Entitlements based on work income are fine but they must include recognition of complex work experiences. A second or even third tier of pensions is fine but must not be based on an assumption of permanent normal employment. In fact, all entitlements must be transportable in a world in which jobs as we know them will continue to be important, just as the family, as many of us have known it, will he important but will be available to perhaps only half the population.
A reforming Government need more than catching words. I counted the words "modern", "modernised" and "modernisation" 11 times in a short Queen's Speech without being much the wiser about their meaning.
308
A reforming government need clear objectives and well-argued principles, but they need also a compelling analysis of real trends in people's motives and opportunities. I hope that it is not too much to wish for such an analysis with regard to the new world of work and its consequences for many policies. Having said that, I for one do not find it difficult to support the Motion before us.
7.22 p.m.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, perhaps I may say how pleased I was to hear the Minister repeat a Statement in this House which announced that a rescue package of some £122 million would be made available for our beleaguered farmers on the same day, I believe. as my noble friend Lord Palmer initiated a debate to call attention to the present state of agriculture in the United Kingdom. None of us is in any doubt whatever that the farming industry is in a state of crisis and getting worse.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, cannot be here today because as a veterinarian—in fact, the only veterinarian in this House—he would have made an invaluable contribution to the debate.
As an honorary associate of the British Veterinary Association and a joint vice-president of the RSPCA, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the effects all that has on animal welfare. The present pricing situation in the livestock sector has and will continue to have a profound effect on the animals concerned.
At the moment farmers cannot afford to seek veterinary care if the cost outweighs the eventual sale price of the animal. In the case of sheep and pigs, that is almost a certainty, and if that is so, several are not able to pay. Many members of the veterinary profession have had to face this dilemma. Fewer vaccines could be given as the loss of a lamb or two would be worth the risk versus the cost of the appropriate vaccine. The actual welfare of the animal is now not the first consideration in ever frequent cases. Often the chosen route is shooting or a call to the local hunt kennels.
There is no NHS for veterinary care and even though call-out charges vary from area to area, the cost of medicines can be high. Veterinarians are acutely aware of costs and do their best to keep them down. The saddest story I heard comes from a three-vet practice in Herefordshire. It is an extreme case but not isolated. A cow carrying a live calf was despatched to the kennels because her distraught owner simply could not afford the cost of a caesarian.
Other countries, for example the Republic of Ireland, are able to supply antibiotics and vaccines cheaper. In the case of antibiotics, these can be bought through the back-door.
In this economic climate, animal health and welfare programmes could be set back for decades and preventive medicine could also be swept away for reasons already given. What will happen when these farmers find that they are unable to maintain a steady supply of food to keep the livestock healthy through the winter? I am told that some sheep have found their way

309
to the RSPCA as a way of avoiding the problem of having to feed them. Looking through this week's veterinary record, I see that Aberdeen and Thurso both reported outbreaks of sheep scab in August. Some sheep were rejected from sales due to infection. Poor prices for lambs are apparently discouraging farmers from dipping before sales, so we could well see increasing cases of sheep scab.
An acquaintance uprooted from London and bought 50 acres of good grazing land in Pembrokeshire, which he stocked with sheep. One of those sheep broke its leg and for one reason or another, the vet was unable to visit his farm. Regulations state that it is not permitted to take sheep to the surgery unless a vet certifies that it is fit to travel, meaning that a vet would have to visit and inspect it. I agree that we cannot have animals transported in all kinds of manner from A to B, but a caring farmer could have a problem when faced with such a situation. Veterinary practices are spread out and now cover vast areas. In that case, the farmer paid a knacker man to come and humanely destroy it, but not for his own consumption.
A neighbour of his sold a pen of sheep—that is, 10—at £1 per head. Once auction costs were removed, the farmer received a cheque for 50p. To process that would have cost 98p, leaving our farmer with a deficit of 48p, should he present it for payment. When it costs more to rear to high welfare standards and transport stock to market and then receive less in payment for that animal, something somewhere has to give. It not only affects the farmer's health and well-being but it also affects his livestock. It comes as no surprise to hear that many farmers are thinking about going into organic farming.
I have heard many debates in your Lordships' House about the need for reform of the CAP and the quota system, which I believe is loaded against the UK farmers and penalises them for success in good times. Are we anywhere near to achieving a level playing field? Subsidies per head of sheep encourage over-production. There is a 15 per cent. over-production rate of pigs here and across the EU, again with disastrous results for welfare. To my way of thinking, the CAP is not particularly environmentally friendly either.
I come now to the relationship between consumers, supermarkets and the farmer who grows and rears high quality produce. The British are continually campaigning for high welfare standards to be practised. Farmers are encouraged to abide by the Farm Animal Welfare Council's five freedoms, which do come at a cost. I believe our welfare standards are higher than in many other member states and certainly than in countries outside the EU. Because of pressure from consumer groups, major retailers have insisted on these higher standards, but sometimes I wonder about their actual commitment to the British farming industry. They are buying at rock bottom prices. I would willingly continue to pay a high price for meat if only more of that cost would return to the producer. I simply cannot buy a leg of lamb knowing that the farmer was probably paid less than it cost to rear the lamb in the first place. That is morally wrong.
310
I do not believe that lowering the price at the supermarket will encourage greater consumption. What we need is a fairer share of the product returning to the source of production. We as consumers cannot have it both ways. We cannot demand high welfare standards on the one hand and then promptly scan the shelf and opt for the cheapest, probably knowing that it came from outside the UK.
While researching this debate with a veterinary friend, I learnt that most imported poultry products come from Brazil and Thailand. Why? I suppose the answer is that the cost of home produce is too high for the big bulk buyers, who prefer the cheaper imports, with their large margin of profit.
A large poultry farm in Wales has closed, with a loss of employment to local people, because it cannot produce chickens for the price the supermarkets are willing to pay. In my own shopping area I asked people whether they knew the difference between "British smoked bacon" and "smoked British bacon". Almost all said "No", or "There isn't any". "Smoked British bacon" is home grown and cured; the other is foreign and processed here. Many shoppers would not dream of buying veal yet cannot understand that calves are the by-product of the dairy trade. I could say that the customer is misled by clever marketing. Why do we not have a clear symbol on every package indicating home produce, rather like the way they do in Ireland? The Irish know what they are buying; I maintain that we do not.
Unless we at home make a determined effort to support our own agriculture industry we will witness the destruction of large areas of the countryside, as much of the uplands will revert to scrub. There will be no livestock to graze it for the farmers will have gone. We will become dependent on imports, not knowing how they were produced. By supporting our farming communities, we will also be preserving the health and welfare of our animals, our rural environment and our heritage.
7.31 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, when I was considering my contribution to the debate on the gracious Speech I wondered whether I should speak today or tomorrow because I want to talk about the economic health of the nation. I came to the view that the education portfolio of my noble friend is as essential to the health of the economy as are the briefs of her fellow Ministers dealing with industry. Education is at the centre of whether or not we succeed as a nation. I was therefore delighted to hear in the gracious Speech that this Government are keeping education as a key priority.
I should like to talk about the links between education and our economic health. It is people's skills, creativity, innovation and adaptability that depend on the kind of education that is available to them. However, I should also like to touch on the New Deal. When people talk of the New Deal one senses a kind of cynicism creeping in. I do not believe that anyone expects all the 100 young people to succeed in fully subsidised jobs.

311
However, the fact that 25 per cent. of them are in training must be progress. At least this Government are trying to make a difference to the lives of those young people.
As the chairman of the Housing Corporation I am fortunate in being able to meet young people on the New Deal as I travel around. One conversation with them puts into perspective all the statistics that one needs to think about. It has made a great difference to their lives. Many of them are living in what are now termed "foyers" which, for a whole host of reasons, are the only places where young, vulnerable people can live. Touching on the point made by my noble friend Lord Sheppard in relation to the fragility of funding of youth workers, that is also the case in regard to revenue funding of foyers. I am sure that we can make progress in that regard. The role that they are playing in the counselling of young people, in the facilitating of their training and their employability, is extremely important. To spend too much time trying to obtain funding cannot be the right way forward.
I was honoured to be appointed to the Dearing Committee whose terms of reference were established with a consensus across all parties in the other place. It is interesting that the terms of reference gave us a direct remit to look at employment, labour markets, international markets and the need for us in the UK to compete in knowledge and technology. Reference was made also to the contribution of higher education to the country's economic performance.
As many noble Lords have said, the world of work is changing. I was fascinated to listen to the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, as to where we are. It certainly hit a resonance with me and is right on the button as to where we are now. The world is changing at a faster rate than ever before and I gather that the knowledge base will double in less than five years. In many of the sectors from where we obtain our wealth creation, knowledge, information and innovation do not have boundaries as we know them. They are global businesses. They do not need to transfer people. The skills can stay where they are and the business moves across the boundaries.
We live in a global village, whether or not we like it. One of the key elements that we possess to succeed and compete is the interconnection between higher education and our workforce and how we use it. Government can help to build on the knowledge-driven economy. I understand that this evening my noble friend Lord Sainsbury is speaking on investment in our science base. I know that because I heard the interview on radio this morning, as other people may have done. He talked of some of the best ideas of partnership and how that will push us forward. I saw that myself when I was deputy chairman of University College Hospital—the partnership between the college and the hospital; the teaching; the learning and the sharing of information on drugs and new treatments.
That brought home my thoughts this weekend on the Rover deal. I regard that deal to be a positive step forward; it could have been so much worse. It is a factory company that has lacked investment over the
312
years; it needs new models. It now has a German owner, but one who appears to be prepared to invest providing the productivity increases. The productivity has already increased tremendously, but while we were increasing productivity, so were our competitors and they still remain ahead.
The number of jobs that depend on the Rover plant in the Midlands is estimated to be, both direct and indirect, coming up to nearly 100,000. That deal is therefore crucial. I visited the plant some months ago and spoke to management who were telling me about their difficulties. However, they went on voluntarily to tell me about the successful partnership they had with the Warwick Manufacturing Group, which is part of the engineering department of Warwick University. It was founded in 1980 and its first vice-chancellor is now an eminent Member of this House—the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth. He appointed Professor Battacharrye at that time, who worked with the manufacturing group. Its mission statement all those years ago was,
"To bring academic rigour to industry and industrial relevance to teaching and research".
Those are still very central to our theme and by being relevant, the group now has 1,200 post-graduate students, many working, many in part-time employment, and 5,000 industrialists a year going through their teaching and training.
The Dearing Committee came to the view that the commitment from industry to both research and training, taken as a whole, could be better. But industry wants value for money, and it is right to want that. I saw that as Salford University when they worked on health and safety with local industry. They had no problem in receiving funding for that work. The Warwick Manufacturing Group has an annual turnover of £50 million. I gather that only 10 per cent. of that comes from the Higher Education Funding Council. Much of the balance is provided by their long-term partnerships with industry.
My work in industry over the years and my privilege to serve on the Dearing Committee—the chairman of which is now an eminent Member of this House—confirmed my views that that partnership, the academic rigour of the university working with the best in industry, is crucial to our future. Therefore, I was pleased to hear of the £40 million for the university for industry announced on 21st October.
Another announcement, on 3rd November, was not heralded with as much publicity. It was in the pre-Budget Statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. On page 34, paragraph 3.25, mention is made of the establishment of a £25 million fund for a science and enterprise challenge. It is intended to hold a competition for the £25 million available to endow up to eight new institutes for enterprise. That goes right to the heart of the partnership needed between universities and industry.
That initiative will bring the teaching of entrepreneurship and business skills into the science curriculum. For too long we have had "Chinese walls". That will help to inspire our scientists and engineers to commercialise their knowledge. There is nothing wrong

313
with commercialisation, if done in the right way. The initiative will draw on the best international practice and matching world-class standards.
I understand that details of the competition are to be announced at the time of the forthcoming DTI White Paper. I know that neither of my noble friends on the Front Bench are Ministers from the DTI, but if they could give us an inkling about the timing it would be most welcome.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Bragg when he said today that we have the ideas but we let too many of them go out of the country; we do not work on them and commercialise them. I hope that the new initiative will help to bring that about.
Although £25 million is available, one of the key elements of the new fund is that each new bid will have to bring with it the involvement of significant funding from other sources. I believe that those other sources are available if universities can show that they give value for money. Some of the universities I mentioned are already doing that. It is not a new idea. In the USA—Stanford and MIT—there has been enviable success in the creation of new enterprises, new products and wealth. Let us hope that this contribution, when we receive it—and please let us know as soon as possible when that will be—will work for us.
Normally in a debate which includes education, especially as the first topic, we see Vice-Chancellors queuing up to speak. There has been a noticeable absence today. My noble friend the Minister is probably a little relieved at that. It may be felt that everything that needs to be said has been said in the past year.
Without giving away too many tales, I should like to share my view on why that is the case today. I was a member of the Dearing Committee which finished its work in the summer of last year; so it is no longer an official committee. However, you do not create a baby and walk away from it. We decided, as a committee, to track the progress on our recommendations. Therefore, we have met intermittently as a group, informally.
I was present recently at a dinner where around the table there was a consensus that the Government have moved substantially on the recommendations of the Dearing Report. They were delighted with the progress. They felt that there was a lot of scaremongering in some parts of the media and in other places too. But members of the committee, including Vice-Chancellors, felt that great progress had been made.
There were two particular areas among a number we discussed, one of which is topical this week; namely, teaching skills. We dealt only with higher education. I was astonished to find that university teachers do not need an accreditation. That was dealt with in the teaching and standards legislation passed in the past year.
One of the issues we pressed was that of pay. At the moment Sir Michael Bett is looking at the area of pay and conditions. We asked that he look at teachers' pay and rewarding teaching in the same way as we reward research and, where teaching is of a high standard to reward it more than one would normally do so. That
314
chimes in with the legislation announced by the Government this week. We need to upgrade the whole area of teaching.
The final issue we discussed was that of investors in people. Still—I would suggest almost to their disgrace—many universities do not have in place an investors in people project. That is regrettable in a sector which does nothing else but teach and train people.
7.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, we have debated farming issues three times in your Lordships House in the past month, most recently on the occasion of the announcement of additional help for farmers, and on the occasion of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. I shall try not to repeat what was usefully said on those occasions. However, I want to draw attention to a number of matters concerning agriculture and the environment and to express my regret that they received so little attention in the gracious Speech. I warmly appreciate what has been said by the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, replying to the second day's debate on the gracious Speech, reaffirmed Her Majesty's commitment to creating an inclusive society using phrases such as,
"the weave of personal, political and contractual relationships in which we all participate … the set of values—of decency, trust, tolerance"[Official Report, 25/11/98; col. 131.]
He reaffirmed the Government's commitment to resisting the tendency towards selfish individualism.
I warmly welcome that reaffirmation but the fact is that that society which we wish to see, and which this Government wish to affirm, is collapsing in many rural areas, especially the more remote upland fringes of England and Wales covered, as I know, in my diocese of Hereford. Yes, we have a number of Welsh parishes in my diocese.
There is real and increasing distress as farmers face dramatic declines in income, are forced to abandon their farms, or, in some tragic cases, to take their own lives. In communities which still depend very largely on agriculture, every job lost in farming can mean up to 15 other jobs under threat, and the whole fabric of village communities goes with those jobs. Conversations I have had with a number of farmers over the past weekend leave me in no doubt as to the seriousness of their plight.
There is, of course, a warm welcome for the additional help announced on the 16th November; for the lifting of the ban on beef exports, and for the commitment given by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, in that debate to the future of a living countryside and to the family farm—though I fear that the delay until February or March will be hard for many. There are a great many farming families for whom there will not be a Merry Christmas or a happy New Year. But there is much ground for unease beyond that. This help is short-term. Welcome as it is, it does not change the longer-term prospect particularly for livestock farmers and, as has been said, for those in hill country.

315
Sometimes I suspect that those most badly affected are those who do not receive the HLCA payments because they are on the fringe between hill land and low land.
A new and unwelcome development is the collapse of confidence in land values, something which has not been mentioned in this debate. That is the basis on which even small farmers have always felt that they could sustain their business through bad periods and managed bank borrowing.
The day before yesterday I spoke to a young farmer's wife who told me about their situation. She and her husband are trying to make a go of a farm of 200 acres: 40 acres receive a Less Favoured Area subsidy, but the rest is not particularly good land. They have been struggling with a mortgage. Each year they make a plan with their bank manager. For the past two years that plan has collapsed in ruins as prices plunged and their income plunged with them. They decided that if they could sell the 60 best acres of arable land (which has an arable subsidy, and a derelict cottage for which there might be planning permission) they could sort out their financial problems and start again. There was not a single bid for the 60 acres. A senior partner in one of our firms of land agents told me just before that time that he would not even try to sell a good deal of the farm land now being offered to him. That is a dramatic change from the fairly recent past.
Where can we find any ground for hope? Perhaps in the reform of the common agriculture policy. I hope so. Many of the proposed changes do make sense; for example, a de-coupling of support from production, especially arable production, and a greater emphasis on environmental and rural development measures. I wish that there were more help for farmers to enable them to convert to organic methods. In this we lag behind many of our European partners, and it is absurd that so much organic produce which one sees in our shops is in fact imported. It is the transition to organic farming which is so hard to manage. Many of us look to the Government for much more vigorous support for this change. Of course, the market is not unlimited, but it is certainly not being satisfied by organic produce from our own farmers at present.
Then there is the matter of modulation, which has been fiercely resisted by most of the bodies representing farmers and landowners in Britain. That is because, as practised hitherto, modulation has involved the support of very small farmers, mainly in southern Europe. It has been irrelevant to UK farmers; indeed, it has been somewhat resented by them. The issue highlights the almost impossible task of formulating a coherent common agricultural policy for a region as huge and diverse as Europe. But I believe that the reform process offers us a window of opportunity.
There is now one mechanism under discussion as part of CAP reform which would give to each member state a national maximum envelope of direct aid, with freedom for each state to decide how it should be spent. Within this national envelope, we could introduce our own system of modulation, strongly discriminating in favour of small farmers and offering no subsidy at all above a certain acreage. I believe that such a policy
316
might not be greatly welcomed, at least initially, by the CLA and the NFU, which represent mainly landowners and farmers with larger farms, not so much those with smaller farms and not at all effectively the tenant farmers. However, it would be very much in the interests of our remote rural communities. I urge the Minister to take that suggestion very seriously.
In the debate on 16th November, after expressing support for the family farm in relation to the reform of the CAP, the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said, I thought rather alarmingly, that he was not sure whether this had been fully thought through. Perhaps I may be allowed to supply a little bit of the thinking at this point: national modulation in vigorous support of the small farm within our envelope of direct aid.
I turn now to agriculture and the environment. The Countryside Stewardship scheme is valuable and welcome, but still under-funded. There are farmers waiting to join the scheme who are unable to do so for lack of money in the scheme. Much more desirable is the system of environmentally sensitive areas, which has already been mentioned. But, again, it is under-funded, unavailable in many places because many areas have simply not been designated and it is unfairly financed. Against a total sum, in round figures, of about £3.5 billion in support for production, only about £100 million is spent on environmental support. ESAs are expensive because they require specialist officers whose job is, in effect, to teach farmers how to farm environmentally extensively, which many have never done and need to learn. All the officers' time in the process is costed as an overhead to the ESA budget, when it could well be costed as technology-transfer, coming out of a different pocket.
A further worrying development in the area of ESAs is the recent decision of North West Water—a major landlord in the Lake District ESA—to take 50 per cent. of the ESA payments from new tenants, rather than allowing them to benefit from the whole package. Here is a matter which I believe requires the department's attention if the scheme is to work as intended. Farmers are much more willing to work than they were in the past in ways which embrace the task of landscape management—for environmental reasons, to encourage bio diversity and to attract visitors who can, in turn, help to sustain the rural economy. We must give them every support and encouragement in their new vocation.
Time is short, but I should like very briefly to touch on two other environmental matters. It is a cause of considerable disappointment that the gracious Speech did not provide for legislation to set up a strategic rail authority, although I acknowledge that the Deputy Prime Minister has robustly assured us on a number of occasions that it will in fact start its work in shadow form. I believe that it is an environmental priority of a very high order that we should transfer much more traffic from road to rail. The potential is still enormous and there is public good will which is considerable. But there are many critical pinch points in the rail network—for example, Rugby to Birmingham, as well as Welwyn and other points on the Great North Eastern Railway main line. No solution will be found to these acute problems without some kind of government intervention

317
and direction: a rigorous cost benefit analysis of the capital works required; the hypothecation of new transport taxes, such as road pricing taxes, as revenue for infrastructure improvements; and a strong strategic rail authority to set out coherent priorities, if necessary to knock heads together, and to stop the unseemly quarrelling which has recently broken out between Railtrack and the train operating companies.
After those technical and specific comments, noble Lords may be wondering what all this has to do with a bishop and why he should be trespassing in such areas. I must tell the House that I sometimes cannot resist the temptation. However, perhaps I may return to what I regard as the fundamental environmental question. There was one sentence at the very end of the gracious Speech about the environment and the global climate. Perhaps I may contrast that with the excellent, thorough and well-researched report of this summer's Lambeth Conference on the same subject. I was privileged to take part in the group which studied the environment. There were bishops from all over the world who told from their own personal experiences harrowing stories about what is happening in terms of climate change and the degradation of the environment. I shall not bore your Lordships with the theology, but perhaps I may read just a few sentences from the report:
"It is our contention that environmental issues are of primary importance… our relationship to the created order is fundamental to human well being. We therefore claim for environmental issues pre-eminence in time, energy and prayer. There is little time. World governments will not prioritise these issues because of perceived political cost… It is also clear that the consequences of these ecological changes fall disproportionately upon the poor of the world. Yet despite this awareness, the social and political resolve to create a more ecologically sustainable way of life has not materialised".
This Government have shown themselves prepared to embrace policies which may, I think, rightly be described as idealistic, not least in their commitment to tackling world poverty. I greatly welcome and admire that commitment. World poverty is inextricably linked with environmental issues. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, rightly referred to the Government's action in support of the conferences in Kyoto and Buenos Aires and the consultation document on climate change. I submit that the most important issues facing humanity are, as the Lambeth Conference claimed, those which concern the future of our planet. I fervently hope that they will receive a higher priority in the next gracious Speech.
7.58 p.m.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, legislation is to be introduced to create a greater London authority and the new mayor will be duty bound to produce an integrated transport strategy for London. The legislation will include new powers to introduce road user charging and a workplace parking levy, as my noble friend Lady Blackstone has already mentioned. But the key to the success of any new legislation aimed at tackling road congestion and improving the environment is the need for the policies to be seen as fair and acceptable by the public. Policies must be based on sound scientific principle, resulting in real benefits and going with the
318
grain of peoples' lives. People will not accept restrictions or charges if they cannot see the environmental sense of the policies. They will be seen simply as revenue raising measures and will lack public support.
Perhaps I might give your Lordships an example of a policy which is jeopardising the long-term acceptability of environmental legislation—roadside emission testing. The AA, among others, strongly supports the principle of roadside testing but is opposed to the way in which it is being implemented. Stopping motorists at the roadside to check that their exhaust emissions are in line with legislated levels is both sensible and worth while. However, to issue an on-the-spot fine of £60 to motorists who fail the test, with no period of grace to fix the fault and, indeed, no requirement to fix the fault at all, is unjust and makes no environmental sense. The vehicle rectification scheme gives a motorist a specified time in which correct any specific fault. Somebody failing the roadside emission test has no such period and does not have to show that the fault has been corrected.
There is also concern that people have failed the test immediately after passing an MOT or having the vehicle first serviced to the manufacturer's limits, returning to their garage straight away and then passing the emission test again. This reflects how the vehicle has been driven immediately before the test. Many vehicles will fail the test if they have been stuck in traffic but will pass the test once they have been driven on the open road.
Consequently, it would appear that the siting of the testing sites has been selected to work against the motorist. And, to make matters worse, local authorities are not even assessing the impact these tests are having on local air quality. Air quality is discussed frequently alongside global warming and the effect modern society has on it. The motor vehicle is thought to contribute to both.
It should be mentioned that when diesel powered cars are compared with their petrol equivalent, on average, the diesel vehicle can travel 50 per cent. further than a similar petrol engined car; because it uses less carbon fuel it emits less carbon dioxide; it produces less overall noxious emissions; and with the new technology for particulate traps and ultra low sulphur, diesel fuel particulates will no longer be a problem; it is simpler and more reliable; and diesel fuel, being non-volatile, is less flammable than petrol. So, overall, a diesel engine will not have the same deleterious effect on the environment and on global warming as a petrol engine. It is a matter of attitude and facing facts which will finally overcome the old fashioned views that diesel powered vehicles are slow, noisy, dirty and smoky. For those reasons, both for the environment and for minimising the use of fossil fuels, serious consideration should be given to reducing the taxation element placed on diesel fuel.
A daughter document of the integrated transport White Paper is that on road safety targets and strategy, which is due to be published in January at the earliest. Not only are the professionals eagerly awaiting the document, but they would like a clear indication of what the targets will be and which years will be taken as the

319
base line on which progress is to be measured. There is also the need for a road safety Tsar to monitor progress—but. knowing what happened to the Tsars, perhaps another name would be more appropriate. There is the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, with which I have a close working relationship, which could be well placed for filling the role of independent and impartial champion of road safety, with its wide and diverse expertise to assess progress and suggest amendments to policy. But, whichever route is taken, there has to be somebody or some organisation to monitor all activity both in place and proposed.
It was during the debate on the gracious Speech in 1996 that I tried to draw attention to the need for hypothecation of fines resulting from Gatso speed cameras. It is well known that speed cameras and those placed at traffic lights have been proved to have a beneficial effect on road safety. It is also well known that the police set the speed cameras at a higher speed than the actual speed limit because they are unable to process the number of motorists caught exceeding that limit. So we know they work. In some areas of the country motorists are seen to slow down to the actual limit in advance of it coming into effect because they know that any cameras in those areas are set at the speed limit and not one mile per hour more. If an administrative charge were levied from the fixed penalty notices the scourge of speeding inappropriately would be addressed.
I happened to be watching a television programme a couple or so days ago about crime experienced in London's Oxford Street. The final comments were that the unacceptably high crime levels had been cut by one third since the introduction of closed circuit television cameras. And here we have a problem with attitude. Everybody will praise the cameras reducing crime levels in Oxford Street, but few people will praise a few extra speed or intersection cameras being placed on their way to the shops or wherever they are going—even if lives are saved as the result.
I believe that Lancashire Constabulary is to pilot a scheme of zero tolerance towards road traffic offences, which has been shown to work in the Australian state of Victoria. In Victoria, this has effectively reduced the number of deaths and serious injuries on the road by a dramatic amount and the spin-off is the reduced cost to the community—each death and injury has a monetary value in police investigation, hospital costs, loss of earnings, home care and so forth. It is perhaps worth drawing attention to the fact that the Government's publication on road accidents in Great Britain estimates the cost of each fatality at £902,500; for serious injury £102,000; and for minor injury £7,970. The total annual cost is about £10.5 billion.
The Victorians had considerable opposition at the beginning of zero tolerance, but now it is an accepted fact of life and motorists no longer say rude things about it—either audibly or under their breath. It works in Australia and let us hope that it is given a good trial here because without doubt it will work and the road casualties will be seen to be reduced. Purely as an aside, it would be interesting to get local authorities to look critically at crashes in their areas, because it is not unusual for two
320
adjacent counties to have very different casualty levels. One wonders why this is so. Without critical analysis, how do they know what they are achieving?
We spend millions of pounds on cancer, AIDS and BSE research but are prepared to tolerate about 3,600 deaths on the road every year. Why? Large amounts of money and police personnel are used to investigate each murder and suspicious death—and this is as it should be. However, the cause of a road death is not classed to be of similar importance and does not attract the same level of resources. But in both sets of circumstances the dead person will have had a horrible death, is equally dead and leaves behind friends and relations. But because people are killed on the road every day, the effect it may have is overlooked. If road deaths were shown to be similar to a jumbo jet crashing every month or so—as indeed they are—perhaps more resources would be channelled into improving driving standards and making drivers more responsible for their actions.
Finally, I turn to the vexatious subject of vehicular taxation combined with road safety. Since the Second World War vehicles have become quieter, more economical, faster, larger, more powerful, they handle better and they crumple better in a crash. A Transport Research Laboratory report indicates that the severity of an accident tends to increase with the combined mass of two colliding cars. It also indicates that if downsizing of cars were to take place in the form of a uniform mass reduction of 5 per cent. this could lead to 3.8 per cent. fewer casualties on built-up roads and 2.9 per cent. on non-built-up roads.
This brings me back to vehicle excise duty. The keeper of a mini car pays the same excise duty as the keeper of a large Mercedes or a powerful Ferrari and probably thinks that this is unfair. It is being suggested that VED should be levied in bands according to engine size or to the form of exhaust emission gasses. I understand that the DVLA computers are somewhat elderly and out-dated and would be unable to accommodate detailed changes. But to encourage road safety and smaller, less powerful and more economical vehicles, perhaps a new form of composite banding could be introduced along the lines of fuel economy, power to weight ratio, exhaust emissions, maximum speed and overall dimensions. There are those who would not find such a system equitable, but I hope that most people would think that this formula could be fair to everybody. The average car would attract average excise duty, but the average car with a very powerful engine would attract a far higher excise duty for the benefit of road safety.
I return now to my opening remarks. If a road safety initiative is explained and understood, the motorist will eventually agree with it, even if it concerns vehicle excise duty.
8.10 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, the gracious Speech has one overriding theme—modernisation. So stated the right honourable Peter Mandelson at the start of his speech last week. He went on to say:
"We are modernising the country, its system of government, its public sector and the economy".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/11/98; col. 210.]

321
Today we have a chance to look at exactly what is proposed.
We are promised legislation to modernise local government in England and Wales; legislation to improve the regulation of financial services and markets; legislation to provide a fair basis of water charging; legislation to create a greater London authority and the establishment of regional development agencies, to name just a few. We are promised draft Bills on the freedom of information, the reform of party funding and the conduct of councils' business. We are promised consultation on the reform of the teaching profession and the promised proposals for the setting up of the Food Standards Agency, although since the gracious Speech was made I wonder whether the Government have changed their mind. This was referred to by another speaker earlier. I say this because, in answering a Written Question about the food standards agency by Mr. Corbett on 25th November, the Minister replied:
"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".
He goes on to explain:
" 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".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/11/98; col. WA10.]
Will the Minister, when he responds, enlarge upon the situation? What is meant by this reply and will we have the opportunity to discuss these matters later?
As other noble Lords have said, there was nothing in the gracious Speech about the environment. Where is the action to protect our beleaguered environment? Where is the intention to aid agriculture and allied industries? The Government say they will:
"work to secure reform of the common agricultural policy".— [Official Report, 24/11/98; col. 5.]
But what sort of promise is that? It is open-ended, non-directed, unfocused, unmeasurable and, at the moment, unlimited. For a government with a massive majority, this is a weak programme which ignores the fundamental issues facing the people of this country today in their everyday lives.
Today we are considering the Queen's Speech in regard to education, the environment and agriculture. I will begin with the last first.
We in this House are all keenly aware of the great difficulties under which our farmers have been working. The vote of the European Union Agriculture Council for the lifting of the worldwide ban on the export of British beef last week was welcome. However, I might remind your Lordships that it was only a partial lifting of the ban, as at present it does not cover beef on the bone.
Additional payments are to be made to sheep and hill stock farmers, for whom we had been lobbying. They are grateful for the additional financial help. Some might say it is too late, but it will help a section of the farming community who have been under great
322
difficulties. Some farmers were driven to consider whether to destroy their stock, as was mentioned earlier, or to go out of business altogether. Farmers are asking for a fair deal and an opportunity to compete on a level playing field. A fair deal should not mean that our farmers compete with imported produce which is grown, reared or manufactured under conditions that are no longer acceptable in this country. For years British farmers have set the standards in animal welfare, a point very well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton. They should not be penalised.
If the food standards agency is not to be established immediately, who will undertake the work, who will they be responsible to and what means will they have for putting in place scrutiny and accountability procedures? What will happen to correct labelling?
Last week, on Wednesday, 18th November, there was a debate in this House at which, unfortunately, I was not present. I took the trouble to look through the Official Report and I picked out certain themes that came forward from that excellent debate on agriculture. It was my noble friend Lord Stanley who asked the Government what were their long-term future plans and strategies for agriculture, because at the moment we are lurching from crisis management to crisis management. What are the conservation schemes? They will be totally useless unless they encourage profit within the agricultural system.
My noble friend Lord Wade raised the question of the need to establish positive policies to create rural projects. My noble friend Lord Gisborough spoke about the issue of early retirement schemes, which was talked about back in December of last year and was to be dealt with immediately. Since then we have had no further policy. My noble friend Lord Peel commented that skills are essential in maintaining the landscape of the uplands in Great Britain, which are so much enjoyed by so many people. It is interesting that the majority of those are in areas that have been designated as SSSIs. It is a testimony to the fact that the role of farmers is absolutely essential in relation to the success of those uplands.
I turn from one standard to another. The gracious Speech highlighted the Government's commitment to raising standards in our schools and, in particular, within our teaching profession. I am sure that all noble Lords would agree with this aim. But there are, at the same time, many who are concerned about the attack on academic excellence and the determination of this Government to squeeze our grammar schools, a point ably raised by my noble friends Lady Blatch and Lady Buscombe.
During the passing of the School Standards and Framework Bill earlier this year, an attack was made on the whole question of selection by academic ability. Aptitude, not ability, became the fashion. I have a question for the Minister. In bringing forward these proposals to enhance the status of teachers, how will the Government assess teachers who are achieving accepted standards? Will they be paid more on the results of their pupils? If so, how will the Government assess the important contribution made by hard-working teachers

323
who work among the less able who are unable to achieve that same level of academic excellence and among those who live in socially deprived areas? Will individual schools be allowed to pay and employ staff at differing levels, or will it be the school organisational committees which will have the overall say? Will the freedom given to schools participating within the education action zones be extended to all schools?
Lastly, I turn to local government and the environment. The gracious Speech confirms the establishment of the regional development agencies, which will have a remit for both rural and urban areas. But the Government have already cut back on their financial support for councils in rural areas. For those living and working in rural areas, this has become a double blow. It is more costly to provide many local council services in rural areas than in urban areas. With an increasingly ageing population, additional stresses will be placed upon local councils. I should like to pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Anelay, who cannot be present this evening, who, along with colleagues on these Benches, raised during the passage of the Regional Development Agencies Bill through the House the concerns felt by rural councils.
For many people our countryside is an area to which they go to enjoy themselves in their leisure time. But for others it is both their workplace and their living environment. The land is and has to be a living, working, viable business. It is not a chocolate box piece. It does not keep its vibrancy by chance but by being financially sound. Rural shops, village schools, local communities and, most of all, transport accessibility are crucial if those areas are to thrive and grow. What a shame there is nothing in the Queen's Speech about transport. Providing services for those living in rural areas is more costly, but rural social deprivation is already with us and is set to increase unless the Government give greater thought to rural needs.
This Government, in reducing financial assistance to rural councils, have shown a lack of understanding as to the needs of those areas. That is on top of a persistent attack on the country way of life, including the threat of unrestricted right to roam and the ban on traditional country pursuits.
I wish to conclude my remarks by raising a specific issue with the Minister. This is in a way a little unfair to him as he has been in the Chamber all afternoon. I wonder whether he would like to comment on the announcement made this afternoon by the Minister of Agriculture, Nick Brown. The latest government statistics, due to be released tomorrow, will show that average incomes have plummeted by a third on last year. Hill farmers and the livestock sector will be hardest hit, but Mr. Brown warned that no additional money will be given to farmers by the Treasury. Speaking at the Smithfield Show, Mr. Brown said it was unlikely that the Government would increase the terms of their recent multi-million pound rescue package for farmers. He said that the cut-backs mean that there is unlikely to be any additional cash to help promote the collaborative marketing initiative launched at the Smithfield Show on Sunday. Similarly, the Government are unlikely to help
324
the Meat and Livestock Commission get beef hack into the European market which we so badly need. These are serious and important issues.
The debate this afternoon has ranged widely but a common theme has run through it. Skill, success, excellence, preservation and renewal are all essential to the future of those working in education, the environment and agriculture.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, in my contribution to today's debate on the gracious Speech, I wish to raise three issues which are relevant to our agricultural industry. I shall mention the livestock auction system, a Royal Commission and the third world. Before I expand on those issues, I wish to declare my interest as a Celt and as a farmer.
Farmers must hold on to their livestock auction system of marketing their stock, which has been proven as the best system in the world. We must encourage stock producers to regard livestock markets as a "farmers' parliament". After all, the livestock market is still the place where they meet, usually on a weekly basis, and discuss the burning issues of the day within the agricultural industry. Many come to market from isolated farms and very often it is the only place where they can meet fellow farmers and discuss prices, purchase a variety of farm supplies and, most of all. compare mutual problems and discover solutions to them. If they do not support their local markets but continue to turn instead to dealing directly with the big supermarkets, ultimately they will have to accept the prices dictated to them by those large conglomerates.
The loss of every individual livestock market will contribute to the gradual reduction in the influence of the "farmers' parliament". I believe that the farmers will profoundly regret the day when, and if, the auctioneering system should collapse altogether. Anything we can do to stop the octopus-like domination of the supermarkets must be worth while. Auctioneers are the champions of the smaller producers. They have a very valuable place in the food production chain in keeping the smaller producer alive. The auction markets are the biggest producers of livestock—farmers are very welcome to deal with them if they have just two animals or 2,000 to sell—and they have to make the supermarkets fully aware of that. I often wonder whether the voices of producers, consumers and all those living in the countryside are being heard in Westminster. I hope that they are.
Once again I urge the Government to set up a Royal Commission forthwith. I have raised that matter three times this year. On the first occasion the Minister was not very appreciative of what I was saying. On the second occasion he was willing to consider it. On this occasion I hope he will agree to set up a Royal Commission. I say that because the Government are going to introduce a Royal Commission to solve the many problems facing your Lordships' House. I firmly believe that the farmers and others who live in the countryside should have a similar opportunity to discuss

325
and express their points of view so that the insurmountable problems facing them at the moment can be solved before a huge catastrophe occurs.
The late Mr. Tom Williams, the agriculture Minister in the 1947 Attlee government, saved the agricultural industry from disaster by introducing the guaranteed price system, which operated successfully for approximately 40 years. Unfortunately, successive governments have made tremendous mistakes by believing that there is such a thing as a cheap food policy. So-called cheap food is being paid for dearly by the farmers who produce the food. That is why I urge the Government to think again about their policies. There must be a realistic price for the end product if the farmer is to have any chance of surviving in the years to come. If the countryside fails, there will be no winners. We shall all be losers. Let us reform the common agricultural policy in a way that will not discriminate against UK agriculture. We need a fair deal for the countryside in the new EU structural funds, fair competition within Europe and the progressive removal of the milk quotas and the set-aside scheme.
I now turn to the issue which I have been raising over the 25 years in which I have been in the Houses of Parliament. I have raised it on many occasions but Ministers have taken no heed of what I have said. It is time that we should consider alternative policies to help those living in the third world instead of paying our farmers and producers in the Western world for not producing the much-needed food required in the world. The European Union is pursuing an outrageous policy.
Some 800 million people in the world are hungry and world population will double in the next 25 years. There is a need to increase food production now to help those starving millions. I hold the view that if we have a food surplus in Europe we should employ people to process the food in the proper manner so that it can be distributed to those in need in the third world. Many of us on both sides of this House believe that we must create a caring society, but are we really doing that? That is the question we must ask ourselves. Many of us on both sides of the House profess that we are Christians, but are we? It is time that we helped the world's undernourished forthwith. I urge the Government to take the appropriate action.
I welcome the Government's small handout to the sheep farmers of approximately £4 to £5 per ewe. From my understanding of the present situation, every flockmaster has made a loss of approximately £30 per ewe for the year on the hills. That is not encouraging for the young farmers living on the uplands.
To put the present crisis in perspective, the sheep valuation of my grandfather John Howells, Brynglas, Ponterwyd, Cardiganshire in 1900—nearly 100 years ago—was as follows: 200 breeding ewes at £1 each (that equals £200) and 30 ewe lambs at 25p each. In Devil's Bridge market last week, Mr. and Mrs. Charles Young who farm at Tynffordd Ponterwyd sold their breeding ewes at 9p each. That explains it all in a nutshell in my view. The majority of people living in the countryside are aware that the Government have lost control over
326
their agriculture policies and have handed them over to the supermarkets. My message to the Government is, "Prove me wrong within 12 months."
8.32 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford made a wide-ranging speech which demonstrated his expertise in many fields. He marked the Government's cards to deliver better rail services and I certainly echo his view. As we know, there was no major transport Bill in the gracious Speech. However, we have heard from the Government that all but some six out of 90 measures in the White Paper on transport do not require primary legislation. All those who are interested in seeing the White Paper adopted at the earliest possible opportunity will watch with interest to see how all these other measures are introduced without primary legislation.
Tonight I wish to talk about the integrated transport policy relating to London. The policy depends largely on the willingness of and incentive for people to leave their cars at home. But there is an obligation on government and local authorities to promote and encourage public transport to provide reasonable alternatives. Let us not forget pedestrians and cyclists and the needs of some 40 per cent. of the population who do not have access to cars at all. I believe that in Greenwich the figure is even higher; it is probably nearer 70 per cent. We should also see this measure as a move to allow pedestrians to regain some of the streets and to be protected from the fast moving steel boxes on wheels driven by people who are of course well protected themselves, as my noble friend Lord Simon told us a few moments ago.
I very much welcome the Greater London Authority Bill in the gracious Speech because it provides an opportunity to put these ideas into practice, as the GLA and the mayor will be responsible for all transport in London, including cycling and walking, allowing them to impose charges, to raise money and to spend it on public transport. The Bill will provide a framework to tackle transport problems and the mayor will have to produce an integrated transport strategy. The mayor will take over responsibility for London Underground. I am a little concerned at reports in the Evening Standard today which state that he will not gain control over London Underground until everything is signed, sealed and delivered. After all, the mayor will be elected by Londoners and it will be sad if he has no say in how London Underground will be structured in the future. The mayor will have powers of direction over Transport for London and, most important of all, he and the London boroughs will have enabling powers to introduce road user charging—or congestion charging, as it may be called—and a levy on non-residential parking.
I welcome the principle of local delivery and hope that the Government will take this opportunity to let go the reins and to allow the elected representative to deliver our transport system in accordance with the wishes of the electorate of London. Let us consider what difference the GLA and the mayor could make and what measures could be initiated now without primary

327
legislation. I see the transport objective for London as reducing the need to make journeys and encouraging greater use of public transport, cycling and walking and less use of the car. The key will be the ability of the mayor to limit traffic by imposing charges, the revenue from which he can put towards community or public transport.
The dead hand of the Treasury must not be involved. I was concerned to read reports in many newspapers last week that the Treasury had decided not to go ahead with changes to company car taxation allowances—which I think most noble Lords would agree encourage high mileage by company car owners—after representations from the motor industry that people would forsake their modern company cars for older cars which are therefore more polluting. That to me means that the motor industry fears a drop in sales. Surely the Treasury is not so naïve as to fall for that one. Is our transport policy designed to become more sustainable or is it designed to prop up the motor industry?
In this country we have the highest percentage of company cars in Europe. That phenomenon dates back many years. I believe that the answer is to scrap company car benefits completely. If people need to use a car for business they should buy their own car or obtain a loan from a company and be reimbursed for business miles travelled; otherwise, I fear that we shall perpetuate the feeling among company car owners—who I believe own the majority of new cars—that private mileage is free. I think that is a dangerous proposition to perpetuate.
What will the GLA and the mayor do with the revenue from these charges? We can get a foretaste of that from what has already been done with regard to the London parking scheme. A Written Answer in Hansard of last week stated that in 1996–97 London boroughs received £163 million in revenue from the on-street parking scheme. It cost them £91 million to administer and £72 million was fed hack into public transport. Westminster did best as it made a profit—if you can call it that—of £33 million to be reinvested. Many other local authorities, of course, did not even make a so-called profit. That is only charges for on-street parking. There is much potential for reinvesting such charges in public transport.
When legislation is introduced, what more provisions will the GLA enjoy? There may be charges for congestion and being on the road in a motor vehicle. Tests recently completed in Leicester indicate that people need to be charged about £8 to £10 a day before they leave their cars at home and take public transport. I believe the key to this is for the charge to be incurred at the point of use and not by means of a vehicle excise duty, whether or not that is different as between diesel and petrol—my noble friend Lord Simon mentioned this—paid at the beginning of the year, with a relatively low charge for mileage thereafter. I think there will be howls of anguish if a congestion charge is introduced, but the whole point is that the money raised from such a charge could be used to improve public transport and to provide reasonable alternatives, be they bus lanes, buses, underground trains, ordinary trains, or whatever.
328
It will have the added bonus of reducing road congestion so that buses and other essential service vehicles can get around.
Even now, a start has been made with last week's launch by the Minister responsible for London of 360 bus-lane cameras. That will start the process of enforcing existing regulations. Several noble Lords, including myself, have been lobbying for that for a long time. I am sad to see that the installation of 360 cameras will take five years. I believe that the money raised from the fines levied will go to the Treasury. I hope that in future the GLA Bill will provide not only more bus lanes and more cameras, but also that the GLA will be able to keep the revenue raised from the fines.
The other major measure in the Bill will be a provision to charge for non-residential off-street parking. That is the other major deterrent to the use of the company car. I have already argued that company car drivers have virtually free travel. That, and free parking at work, makes life very easy for them. If we are to reduce the number of cars on the roads, especially at peak periods, the charge should he set high enough to be a real deterrent.
I was interested to read that in the Government Response to the Environmental Audit Committee Report on the Greening Government Initiative, the Deputy Prime Minister, in pledging, to put the environment at the heart of decision-making, stated:
"I believe that Government is making great strides to ensure that we properly think through the environmental, social, and economic effects of our policies, and reduce the environmental impact of our operations"—
in other words, it starts at home.
Noble Lords may be aware that there are 3,500 private parking spaces for officials in Whitehall. There is also generous parking provision for this House and another place. I submit that the Government and Parliament have to set an example. I know that many noble Lords and officials work unsocial hours, but there are taxis. We must set an example, as must local authorities. One visits many local authority offices where there are lovely parking places for officials and members, but visitors do not get much of a look in.
With regard to setting an example, I was particularly interested in our debate on the roads review which was held on the last Sitting day in July, when the Opposition's transport spokesman, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, complained bitterly that he had been delayed getting here by car because "somebody had had the temerity to install an extra set of traffic lights at Lambeth Bridge". Having seen those traffic lights, I must say that that is one of the most difficult places for pedestrians to cross. That is why the local authority, Lambeth, had put in a pedestrian crossing. I welcomed it—he did not—but there we are. Pedestrian crossings are important.
Generally, it is becoming more socially acceptable to use public transport, to walk or to cycle, especially for younger people. They are very aware of this issue. Many of them seek in their own lives to keep the use of the car to a minimum.

329
If such measures are introduced, London will have the opportunity to set its own policy within the national framework. I sincerely hope that it will grasp the opportunity, raise the necessary charges that will reduce road congestion, improve air quality—it is frequently at danger level, especially in the summer—and spend money on creating a world-class public transport system, a world-class environment and a better quality of life for its residents, workers, and tourists, not forgetting all those millions who have no access to a car. I welcome the Bill and shall follow its progress with great interest.
8.43 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I should like to say a few basic words about the interrelationship of agriculture with the environment in our countryside. Everything that I say will be well known to the many experts in your Lordships' House who have already spoken and I fear that it will probably appear very banal to them. However, because it is so well known, it often goes unsaid and, therefore, unrecognised by those who are not such experts.
I must declare an interest in that my family and I farm. As I have also the prudence to be a barrister, I hope that it may be taken that my concern for rural poverty is not wholly self-motivated.
Today I speak about the ordinary rural countryside, not about the special areas of outstanding natural beauty or of environmental sensitivity, but about the land which is the heart of rural Britain and which most people take for granted. Most urban folk—they are the great majority of our population; and nowadays the great majority of our rulers—speak of the countryside and think of its appearance as though it had some objective, natural and permanent status; as though our landscape had always been there, looking as it looks now, or as perhaps some of the urbanites say, "As it would look now if the farmers were not busy wrecking it".
That is, of course, very far from the truth. Originally, the natural state of most of our countryside was either low, dense scrub or bare, open wasteland. The glorious patchwork of fields, hedges, woods and barns that we see now is the product of the care and thought of many generations of devoted farmers and estate owners. When one sees a nicely shaped wood on the crest of a hill, one has to remember that nature did not put it there. It is salutary to remember that it was almost certainly planted and maintained by a landowner, for either hunting or shooting.
The other fallacy at the heart of much urbanised thinking is that if only farmers would go away and stop their nasty practices, the countryside would be a lovely leisure resort, with glorious rambles among wild flowers and birds. People do not realise that if the land is not farmed, in a short time it will revert to dreary, impenetrable scrub and brambles, as was so vividly described by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, in the debate in your Lordships' House on 18th November.
People have to understand that sustainable agriculture is an essential if the environment of our countryside is to continue to exist in the way that everyone wants it to
330
exist. The diversification of the rural economy is obviously desirable and can add bits and pieces to a few people's incomes. Apart from farming, there is no other use for the bulk of our countryside. We cannot have golf courses everywhere, even if we wanted them, because there would not be enough people, fortunately, to play on them. Diversification would take up only a small part of the countryside. It has to be farmed if it is to continue to exist.
Of course, farming is a business and, as such, it has to be allowed to adopt methods that enable it to compete and to suffer the rigours of competition, in the sense that those who are not farming efficiently may fail. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, explained so vividly, farmers in this country, however efficient, cannot produce at the low prices of eastern Europe where wages are low and rules are nil.
Although farming is a business, there are two important ways in which it differs from normal industry. First, if one is in manufacturing and if there is not a good market, one can stop production, go on to a three-day week and put the cars and the widgets produced into wraps until the market recovers. Going "on hold" is not open to a farmer. You cannot put your cows into wraps and send your men home. You have to go on feeding the animals at great cost and, as was explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, that can present a farmer with enormous problems when an animal is sick and a vet is needed. Unlike a factory, you cannot shut farmland. If a factory is not viable, it can be closed. Then, it is to be hoped, it can be put to some other use: it can be re-let or re-occupied; or as a last resort it can be demolished, and houses or whatever can be built on the land. But if a farm goes out of business and no one else will take it on, there is no other use for that land. That part of the countryside and our environment will just disappear. Farmers want their land to look good and wish to look after it, but no one can maintain a pleasant countryside if his business is losing money.
Thus it is essential that government—I say advisedly "government" rather than "this Government", because it is a problem that all governments have failed to face—recognise that a long-term agricultural policy which renders good farming viable is essential if England's green and pleasant land, and indeed that of Wales and Scotland, is to continue to merit that description. It is long-term policy that is vital. Emergency measures such as the recently announced aid are of course welcome as an adjunct. But what is required is a long-term policy which will give confidence and security.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford emphasised the personal problems caused by the farming crisis. Of course those exist. I am merely putting forward the environmental aspects of the same problem.
As well as government producing this policy, it has to be explained to the electorate—in their capacity both as voters and consumers—why such a policy is needed. Most of our people nowadays do not understand farming and do not appreciate the simple facts behind my remarks. As one of the topics before the House today is

331
education, surely the right place to start the process of knowledge is in the schools. If children of the next generation do not understand this problem, we are doomed.
8.52 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, it seems an exquisite form of torture to require the maiden speakers, all of whom I congratulate, to wait for so long for their slots in a debate with so many speakers. We have covered a great deal of ground in the debate. I wish I had time to join in the fascinating discussions on the arts and consumption. I share a local shopping centre with the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, although it never occurred to me when I was a local councillor to carry out a survey of the type to which she referred.
I shall not trespass on the areas covered by my noble friends, particularly education and agriculture. But before I go into any detail, perhaps I may wonder aloud what the Queen's Speech is for. As other noble Lords have said, so much has been so widely trailed. And why not? After all, this was not a Budget with an overnight tax rate change. So much was mentioned during the previous Session which we had begun to expect and which, as my noble friend Lady Maddock said, has not been included—unless of course they are items that fall under the significant paragraph,
"Other measures will be laid before you".
There have also been some interesting developments which have been treated as something of a side dish, such as the "quality of life" indicators announced the day before. This is not an attack on tradition (or maybe it is) but I ask whether a modernising government might not mean a more seamless approach. In that context I note that this will be the first Session in which the Commons can use a procedure for carrying over Bills. Perhaps the Opposition ought to welcome the opportunity to call attention to the Government's implicit admission that they cannot do everything that has been trumpeted. But perhaps the real point is that we understand the need to leave time for some high jinks over legislation that is to come.
I have always supported a consultative and open approach to legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked what qualifies certain measures for pre-legislative scrutiny. I ask: what disqualifies any measures? Therefore I am prepared to give the benefit of the doubt—until the contrary is proved—and assume that draft legislation on local government will be a positive approach to councils' conduct of business; that it will be more than just a technical consultation; that it will not be procrastination by another name; or allow the Government more time to persuade more authorities to go for the mayoral model. I hope that one opportunity it will provide will be that of consultation and real discussion with local authority staff. I should like to take this opportunity to note that the assumption by mayors and councillors of executive powers raises issues of morale and career structure for local government staff. That is a point that we should not overlook.
One item whose omission from the Speech I most regret is the proposal that had come from the Government to give local authorities a duty to promote
332
the economic, social and environmental well-being of their areas. Given her remarks, I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, would agree with that. The Minister was much quoted as considering reform as having three pillars: best value, democratic reform and finance. It seems that we are to have at most one-and-a-half of those pillars—the half-pillar being finance.
I am no supporter of capping, but I am certainly no supporter of capping after the event; that is, after the local budget has been set. That is how capping started its career. We shall no longer have crude and universal capping—or rather we shall know if it is universal, but we shall not know whether it is crude unless we know the criteria applied by the Secretary of State. I fear that I regard the change to capping as potentially a centralising measure, more opaque than transparent. I wish I saw here more of the overturning of centralising shifts to which the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, referred.
Success in a local financial system depends on its ability to connect with its citizens. Post hoc capping, indeed any capping, makes a nonsense of the work of imaginative authorities in their dialogues with their citizens and in developments such as local tax contracts. I appreciate that none of this is straightforward. The noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, mentioned foyers, the noble Lord, Lord Clwyd, referred to the music service, and the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Liverpool, described the erosion of funding for the Youth Service. There is a dilemma here: local discretion or central direction. And we all know that a statutory basis for a service does not necessarily guarantee funding.
Topically, we have heard a statement today on social services—another service which is to be modernised, as I see from the title of the White Paper. Ensuring that standards are met is vital. But how far is that to be taken? Charges for domiciliary care are very different from dealing with, for instance, abuse in a residential establishment. Undoubtedly, spending on education in many authorities has led to a crisis in social services, moving money from social services budgets to an education budget, especially because social services are demand-led and the demand is escalating. The issues of rationing, and not rationing by the back-door, are as live in social services as they are in the health service.
It would make more sense to deal with finance and structures together. We could then see the role of finance in the new structures. I extend that to issues such as capital and borrowing. No doubt the legislation will give us the basis for reconsidering council tax banding, protesting at the thresholds for council tax benefit and the gearing effect, and much more. But real modernisation lies in autonomy in dealing with one's finance and—and noble Lords would expect us on these Benches to ensure that this point is included—an electoral system which properly reflects local votes. We are sad that the one measure that could so effectively modernise local government and increase turnout—a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, referred—has been so steadfastly ignored.

333
In London we shall have a new voting system and a new government. I have no doubt of the interest of this House in the issue, since I recall that it did not accept the abolition of the GLC with complete equanimity. I am not an "anorak" on voting reform, but, if we are to have a referendum on an alternative to first-past-the-post, and if that alternative is to be the system suggested in the report by my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead—and I am glad to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, is present—it seems to me that we should reconsider the voting system for London. It would be logical to use the system which we shall, I hope, consider in a referendum. That will be one of many aspects of the Bill, which I understand to be approaching the size of the London telephone book. But we shall not protest at that because we shall welcome London having its own strategic government. I am afraid that my noble friend Lord Tope will tell me off for that afterwards!
We shall look with constructive criticism at the balance between the mayor and the authority, at the balance of power between the mayor and central government, at the relationship with the boroughs, at issues which may not at the moment be included in the 300-clause Bill, such as the community councils for London, and at issues such as the timing of the new authority and whether there will be a shadow authority or whether decisions will be made by central government and perhaps even the appointment of officers imposed on the new authority.
We shall consider, too, the new London development agency. We should welcome the involvement of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, should he care to become involved. He referred to the boundaries of the regional development agencies. During the passage of that Bill we discussed the relationship which London should have to its hinterland.
I cannot help but applaud the DETR's cunning in giving powers to the mayor to levy congestion charging. I guess that the Government will take the credit if it works and the mayor will take the responsibility if it does not. But surely piloting congestion charging should be undertaken in a less complex city than London.
My noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned the report in the Evening Standard today that the Government will delay the transfer of control of London Underground to the mayor. The editorial in that newspaper said that this,
"casts a huge shadow over the credibility of the new mayor".
I hope that the Minister can clarify the situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, also referred to bus-lane cameras. What he did not say was that their enforcement is undertaken by the police, whose resources are sorely stretched.
I have mentioned briefly council tax benefit. The lessons from housing benefit are unhappy ones. I shall take a moment to mention just two aspects, the effect on the availability of housing stock and the effect on the tenants, both of which are reflected in a letter which I recently received from a local agency which looks
334
after single, homeless people. The issue of homelessness, as my noble friend Lady Maddock said, does not always receive the attention it deserves—and I seem now to have cleared the public gallery, but perhaps that is merely a coincidence! The letter from the accommodation scheme in Richmond says:
"I am having great difficulty finding landlords who will accommodate people on benefits. All the new landlords I approach do not want tenants on housing benefit… There is not one estate agent I know that accepts people on housing benefits".
The writer makes the point that these are not factors peculiar to the leafy borough of Richmond: Hounslow was an area where property could always be found, but that is no longer the case. She says:
"All my clients live in fear of eviction. They all know that their tenancy is precarious … These are the very people whose spiritual, mental and physical health is precarious and who need security and constancy to heal".
This is not a situation of this Government's making, but neither have they yet unmade it.
To link housing and education, in response to a point made at the start of the debate, I say to the Conservatives that, if there have been any rigged ballots, they have been in housing in the area of large-scale voluntary transfer. I do not suggest that particular ballots were rigged, but I point to the fact that tenants are deemed to have said "Yes" unless they say "No" to the proposal.
To turn to the area of environment and transport, as my noble friend Lord Ezra said, the Deputy Prime Minister has been gaining in reputation for his concerns for the environment; but I fear that they translate more into words in South America than legislation in SW1. The "tall order" of far fewer journeys by car in five years' time, to which he urged us to hold him 18 months ago, is, I believe, still as tall, and now the target is for the far more modest objective of reducing traffic growth rather than reducing traffic.
Sustainable development appears to be mentioned in the Queen's Speech only in the context of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill.
Those who are faced with rail fare rises, reported last night, must wonder about the expected time of arrival of the strategic rail authority and whether it will meet the reliability or punctuality indicators. They must also wonder at the lack of choice in the service, because the market is not between different rail operators but between rail and road. We all wonder about the date of arrival of the so-called daughter documents to the transport White Paper which are such an important component of the Government's programme.
We look forward, too, to the discussion which I hope we may have on environmental taxation, including such things as the banding of vehicle excise duty, as advocated by the noble Viscount, and, I would add—not in any spirit of not wanting to share—by these Benches for many years.
I started by asking about the role of the Queen's Speech. I end by echoing the words of my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf. It may not be the case that less legislation is more. It is certainly arguable that less legislation is better.
9.7 p.m.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I congratulate the maiden speakers in the debate this afternoon. Like my noble friend Lady Blatch I shall not name them all but that is not to suggest that the quality of their contributions is not greatly appreciated by all noble Lords.
Education has already been covered by my noble friend Lady Blatch and I do not intend to dwell upon it. As to agriculture, I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Tope. He is my friend but not my noble friend. Given our common educational background and the area from which we come, our joint experience of this matter is somewhat limited. Therefore, I am particularly grateful for the points that have been made by my noble friends Lady Byford and Lord Addison, the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford. There are major issues connected with agriculture and the countryside that must be addressed. We look forward to hearing from the Minister who is to reply to those points.
I add my voice to those who have asked about the food standards agency. We on these Benches noted the reference by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, to the proposed legislation to help those with disabilities. We welcome any proposals to help such people, but we shall look carefully at the details of that legislation.
It is of interest to note that the matters covered by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which is the responsibility of the Deputy Prime Minister, were not given any time for debate in the other place, perhaps because, as noble Lords have observed this afternoon, it is more a matter of what is not in the gracious Speech than what is. As so often with her Majesty's Government, there is more rhetoric than substance. Let us take the environment. The Labour Party manifesto stated:
"We will put concern for the environment at the heart of policy making so that it is not an add-on extra but informs the whole of government from housing and energy policy through to global warming and international agreements".
It may be at the heart of policy making, but it is not at the heart of the gracious Speech.
I am bound to remind noble Lords that all the amendments tabled by noble Lords from various Benches to the Regional Development Agencies Bill, which received a mention in the gracious Speech, to put the environment and sustainable development on the face of the Bill were rejected. The Deputy Prime Minister has stated that he wants 60 per cent. of new developments to be on brownfield sites. But have we seen new planning guidance? Have we seen that intention carried through in some of the decisions that have been made by the department that affect the green belt?
Her Majesty's Government returned from Kyoto hailing a great triumph and proposed to cut emissions of greenhouse gases by 12.5 per cent. However, they have not explained how that objective can be reconciled with their power station policy and their resolve to keep coal-burning electricity generation. I have not heard any explanation of what the Government intend to do to
336
implement Kyoto given the intransigence of the United States as seen at the recent conference in Buenos Aires. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, posed a number of difficult questions in relation to these matters to which we shall be interested to hear the answers.
As has been noted on many occasions—as it is so noticeable by its absence it is worthy of repetition—the gracious Speech is virtually silent on transport matters, apart from the proposal by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in opening the debate this afternoon, to give the new Mayor of London power to raise additional taxes from the London motorist by way of congestion charges and a workplace parking tax. Without significant proposals to improve public transport will it have the desired effect or will it just increase costs and have an adverse effect on the economy of London, the health of which is already being questioned by some commentators?
There was the White Paper entitled New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone. My Lords, not this year. The foreword to that document states:
"With our new obligations to meet targets on climate change the need for a new approach is urgent".
How urgent is "urgent"? It appears that the Government would rather take time attempting to reform your Lordships' House than to take steps to protect the world's environment. I am sure that the world will he very impressed.
The only proposal that has emerged, but merely in draft, is for a strategic rail authority. Other noble Lords have referred to its omission. But perhaps I may put a specific question to the Minister. Some speakers today suggested that a number of matters within the White Paper can be carried forward without legislation. But one item, referred to in paragraph 4.81, Reducing social exclusion, talked about introducing a national minimum standard for local authority concessionary fare schemes for elderly people with a maximum charge of £5 a year for a pass entitling the holder to travel at half fare on buses. That paragraph stated that the change will require legislation. I am sure that the House will be interested to know what is proposed in that direction.
The Deputy Prime Ministers's words at the time of publication of the White Paper on 20th July, reported at col. 794 of the Official Report were that,
"The House can be sure that the White Paper has a demand on the legislative programme".
It seems that perhaps that was wishful thinking.
Housing has been referred to by some speakers, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. It is another area of silence at a time when, although the Labour Party manifesto stated that most families want to own their own home, the Government have just completed consultation on a proposal to reduce the discount available to those who wish to buy their own homes.
Like other Members of your Lordships' House, the publication of the Bill on London government is keenly awaited. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will be able to share with your Lordships' House the thinking on what is rumoured to be an exceedingly large

337
Bill. I hope that the Bill will be published shortly because every time it is discussed it becomes longer. The sooner it is published the better.
I have posed this question previously. Do the Government see the mayor and the assembly as a new top tier local government unit for Greater London, or as a regional assembly? It is often spoken of in the same breath as the Welsh assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. I submit that it is an important question because if it is a top tier local authority, London will undergo a major local government reorganisation and the existing authorities are bound to lose rather more powers than central government are likely to yield. If it is to be viewed as a regional assembly, it will be the first of the English regional assemblies and we should know that that is what the Government seek to create. There should be total transparency in this matter—perhaps a little freedom of information. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government seek to have a strong mayor, capable of acting on his or her own account, or is the power to rest with the assembly? Alternatively, does the answer depend on who gains the Labour Party nomination for the mayoralty?
We from these Benches will wish to ensure that the authority meets the lean and mean description that has been given to it on occasions from the Benches opposite. We shall want to see that the promises that the authority will not take significant powers from the boroughs are honoured. We shall want to see that Greater London has a system of government whereby it is clear where the powers lie: with the mayor, the assembly, the London regional development agency, or the boroughs, just to mention some of the elements. I do not intend to reopen the argument about the abolition of the Greater London Council. But unclear relationships were one of the worst features of the previous arrangement under the former Greater London Council. I think that that is agreed by all parties which had dealings with the council under whatever political control it happened to be.
It is not altogether comforting to read the Government's consultation paper on the planning proposals for London where the mayor is to have the right to order certain planning applications to be refused. Do those applications have to be referred to the mayor? It is stated that there would be only a small number, perhaps a maximum of 300. But this has all the worst elements of a two tier planning system which in the past led to wasted costs and delay, to say nothing of lost opportunities. That is not the way for London to keep its world-class status—although I have to say that the wording of the gracious Speech suggested that the Government thought that London still had to attain that status.
We shall want to encourage the Bill very carefully. I suppose that the Evening Standard has been more carefully read by Members of your Lordships' House tonight than on many occasions I, too, have to ask the Minister to confirm or deny the reports which have appeared in the Evening Standard as to whether or not the Underground will pass to the mayor.
338
I turn now to local government, a subject dear to the heart of Labour when in opposition. The manifesto states that local decision-making should be less constrained by central government. However, what steps are envisaged in the legislation to bring that about? What about crude and universal capping which is to be replaced by a flexible system? Is that a euphemism for the discretion of the Secretary of State?
Legislation is promised to enable councils to choose one of three different methods of running the authority. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, expanded on that when she opened the debate. In particular, we shall consider the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark about the position of the Church in the event of a local authority undertaking the reorganisation of its committees.
But whatever the merits or otherwise of those various proposals, the Government are saying in their White Paper that while councils may produce their proposals for change based on those models, in that new free state for local government, the Government are intending to take reserve powers requiring councils to hold a referendum on one of the models if the Government consider that insufficient progress towards change is being made. That is hardly an example of less local government; more an example of central government coercion.
I wonder when we shall see consultation on the possible power to vary the local business rate. When shall we hear more about the changes to capital financing?
The proposals for a new ethical framework have objectives of high standards of conduct, openness and accountability which we all support. But the proposals are laced also with a potential for bureaucracy and central control. We need to see the evidence which justifies a standards board with a presence in each region, each of the nine established solely for RDA purposes, no doubt. Regional panels, which will hear appeals from councils' own standards committees, may order a disqualification of councillors for, perhaps, five years. Councils will have a right to appeal to a national body to be established. In addition, the standards board will have a role in issuing guidance and information on best practice for conduct in local government. What is happening to the role of the DETR? Who is paying for that? What is the position regarding the proposals for the abolition of surcharge and changes for local government under the existing regime?
The local government Bill will abolish CCT. I am well aware that local government felt that CCT was a curtailment of the right to organise the provision of services as it wished. However, it needs to be seen against the background of the time; namely, inefficient direct labour organisations which tended to run services if not for the convenience of the council then for the convenience of the employees. They provided the empires of committee chairmen who could be proud of the size of their empire, usually measured by the number of people employed. CCT swept that away and saved the country billions of pounds. Residents found that, at last, there was some point in complaining since

339
well-managed authorities ensured penalties for failure to comply. The private sector wanted to ensure that it was able to bid on the next occasion and responded. Now the Government are to take the step of abolishing CCT.
It may be argued that the climate is different, and, indeed, I agree that it is. But it may be argued also that the CCT process, while heavy in terms of bureaucracy, delivered results. We need to be certain that we do not abolish one piece of bureaucracy for another; that the benefits from best value will be at least equal to if not greater than CCT.
It was described by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, as pragmatic, proactive and participative with performance management, audit elements and measures for failure. But local government should not believe that best value is the end of the tendering process. Best value is defined in the White Paper but it is made clear also in paragraphs 7.27 and 7.28 that the Government will issue guidance which will explain factors which should be considered in making a choice where services are not to be delivered directly. Indeed, where authorities have incurred significant or sustained deficits in providing services directly the Government will not hesitate to use their powers to instruct a council to make alternative provision for its services. So it is difficult to see how many local authorities will not feel obliged to put out to tender most of their services. The Audit Commission is to draft guidance on a new system of control and audit to assist self-assessment and the Government are to intervene wherever the authorities fail to remedy performance failure. Legislation is to be brought forward to enable all that to happen.
It is interesting to note from the White Paper that to help authorities establish authority-wide objectives and performance measures, the Government will introduce a new framework of performance indicators, standards and targets. Is that an example of the Government knowing best and trying to second-guess local decisions?
Reference has been made today to the RDAs. Local decisions will be very much in name only in relation to the RDAs. We debated that at length at the time of the Bill in your Lordships' House. But since the gracious Speech has referred to them, I should say that mentioning them in terms of decentralising decision-making to the regions really gives quite the wrong impression. Indeed, it ignores the threat which those government-appointed, guided and directed bodies pose to local government, its powers and its integrity.
So there is not much in the gracious Speech for local government, the environment or transport. What is left is a promised draft Bill on the strategic rail authority, a Bill on water charging and a Bill on the national non-domestic rate. With regard to the water Bill, we welcome the proposals on metering options but have real doubts about the prohibition of disconnection at the expense of customers who pay. There must be some protection for those who cannot pay; on that we agree. But it is by no means certain that in those circumstances disconnections do take place. But are the paying customers to support those who will not pay? The idea
340
that those moneys are easily pursued as a civil debt is misconceived. Perhaps it should be put on the same basis as a council tax.
The contents of the gracious Speech—or the lack of content—will have disappointed many different interests. The lack of any real proposals in so many areas will ensure that the next deluge of glossy consultation papers, White Papers and their sons and daughters when published, and the reviews set up to produce policy, will all be treated with widespread scepticism.
9.26 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, we have had an extensive debate tonight and I shall do my best to respond to the majority of points, but we may be here some time.
My first duty is to reflect on the veritable vestal gallery that we had of maiden speeches; first came the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, who implied that he was nervous in this Chamber. I suggest that his reception proved that he had nothing to fear; it is much worse in the Church of England.
He was followed by my noble friend Lord Bragg, who indicated clearly that he is quite as able to perform in the North Bank Show as he is in the South Bank Show, and who brought some illumination to the future of our cultural industries. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, with his 30 years experience in local government, offered us a number of interesting insights. I understand that those in local government in his part of the country believe that the Kingdom of Essex has already been restored.
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, brought us her views with great clarity, so much so that I may not be able to respond because she was so eminently non-controversial. The noble Lord, Lord Clwyd, raised the profession of musical accompaniment, citing the noble Lord, Lord Menuhin, and also Plato, who, so far as I can remember, was never a Member of this House. Nevertheless, he had a good argument and we should respond to it.
The noble Lord, Lord Stafford, gave a detailed speech indicating his commitment to the environment. In relation to the points on the landfill tax credits, I shall have to write to him. Finally, I come to my noble friend Lord Sawyer. I have known Tom Sawyer—if I may engage in a bit of lèse-majestè for a moment—for many years in the life that he described. He was a trade union official for a rival trade union; he was a member of a faction of the National Executive when I was trying to control him. But the worst thing he ever did to me was one of the worst things that can happen to anyone; that is, when one's successor joins the House of Lords one feels really old. Tom's commitment to life-long learning, which I trust will be continued in this House, was notable in his speech.
This second Session of Parliament will of necessity be somewhat shorter than the first, even though in this House it will prove to be at least as exciting. Therefore,

341
some of the comments that related to things which were not in the Queen's Speech rather than things that were, were misplaced. The Government would have faced justified criticism had they put forward a programme that was clearly unmanageable in this House or the other place. The Government believe that the programme outlined in the gracious Speech is achievable and will deliver what we have promised. The proposed Bills we have discussed today are an essential part of the agenda.
Contrary to the anxiety expressed in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the key theme of the debate and the Government's policy in the areas covered by the debate is sustainability. We are talking about the medium to long term. The keys are: sustainable use of resources; sustainable agriculture and rural development; sustainable skills and creativity; sustainable infrastructure in housing, transport, water and so forth, and, not least, a sustainable system of democracy.
It is not just in the Houses of Parliament that things have to change in order to regain legitimacy and support among our people. As indicated by my noble friends Lord Bassam, Lady Goudie and others, and indeed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, local government needs to be re-legitimised in the eyes of many of our people. We believe that our measures will help to do that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, among others, raised a question as to why certain items were put forward for advance drafting purposes at a pre-legislative stage and others were not. This is an important and democratic innovation and one which I thought had considerable support on all sides of the House.
As to the question of why certain constitutional elements were not subject to pre-legislative scrutiny in the same way, I could, of course, respond that the reform of the House of Lords in terms of replacing the hereditary element has probably had 600 years of pre-legislative scrutiny and, as my noble friend Lady Jay indicated, it is about time we started to take action. However, in the area of local government it is important that we have a pre-legislative stage on the new structures of local government. The local government White Paper package contains some of the most radical changes that local government has seen in recent decades. The proposal on new political structures and the new ethical framework are some of the most complex and novel aspects of local government reform in history. They are fundamental and involve an awful lot of people. They need detailed scrutiny. I believe that an important role will be given to this House in engaging in such scrutiny.
Perhaps I may say, on the area of sustainable environment, that it is important not to dismiss what went on in Kyoto and Buenos Aires. That was a major achievement of this Government, not least by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister. Without him, it is probable that the negotiations in Kyoto would have failed and that the negotiations in Buenos Aires would have been considerably more difficult.
342
As a result of decisions made in Buenos Aires, we have an action plan agreed by 160 countries, including the United States of America and the developing countries, to cut greenhouse emissions. The political resolve has been queried. The political resolve is there—in varying degrees, I admit—among those countries, but in this Government it is clear that the UK is at the forefront in tackling the problems that threaten our planet in the next century. We are the first country to have launched a comprehensive consultation on how to meet our legally binding climate change commitments and move towards the goal, to which we reiterate our commitment, of a 20 per cent. reduction in CO2 emissions by 2010. One item in the gracious Speech which relates to that issue is the Bill on pollution prevention and control. That Bill will strengthen and streamline the regulatory regime for the most polluting processes.
Many other issues do not need primary legislation, particularly in the field of transport. An example is that of shifting road traffic away from roads and car use to other forms of transport. The vast majority of such matters do not require new legislation. They require a resolve by national and local government in partnership with the private sector and individuals. We need to involve individuals who make the choice every day of their lives as to whether or not to use their car. Seventy per cent. of households have access to a car—somewhat less than 70 per cent. of the population—and make that choice every day. We have to change the consciousness there. That does not require new legislation; it requires a resolve on behalf of national and local governments and our other political and social leaders.
The Government have recently launched a barometer of the quality of life. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to that, and others have queried it. It is important that we no longer measure the quality of life in this country by statistics of production and growth. Areas such as health, jobs, air quality, traffic, housing, educational achievement, wildlife and sustainability are vital factors.
There are a significant number of measures which the Government can bring forward in the environmental field which do not require legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was one of the few speakers who addressed this environmental field in detail, although the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, also did so in part. The noble Lord asked in particular a question in relation to energy efficiency. The new guidance from Ministers to energy regulators will ensure that regulation engages with our objectives on the environment. There will be statutory guidance to regulators on social and environmental objectives, including energy efficiency, and a new duty for the regulator to have regard to the guidance. That is all spelt out in the White Paper. The Marshall Report adds a number of measures which we will be pursuing in relation to costs in industry.
There was a specific question on the gas industry regulator and the energy efficiency standards of performance as regards translating the electricity regime into the gas regime. In responding to a recent Question,

343
the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will recall that I indicated that current standards are a matter for the regulators and that the new gas regulator will, among other matters, need to consider standards of performance in relation to the gas sector. We shall shortly have a single regulator for gas and electricity, although the latter will still be operating under separate regimes. We very much welcome the success of the electricity standards of performance since 1994 and hope to extend that. I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in relation to other aspects of energy efficiency, including combined heat and power.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, referred to a number of housing issues. I reiterate the commitment that we made to the House in the debate a few weeks ago that over the lifetime of this Parliament we shall be making available an additional £5 billion for investment in housing in the UK which will allow local authorities to tackle the estimated £10 billion backlog of renovation work in local authority stock and in other stock which is causing problems in their areas.
The noble Baroness also raised the question of leasehold reform. I can tell her that we have issued consultation documents on proposals for widespread reform. We believe that it is a flawed system and that we need to give leaseholders the same degree of security and control over their homes as other home-occupiers expect. We are introducing measures on home ownership, on improvement of local authority stock, on leasehold reform and on improvement of the private rented sector.
I move now to the area of transport. Many speakers referred to the White Paper and expressed some degree of disappointment that the White Paper is not totally translated into legislation. I repeat: much of what is in the White Paper does not require primary legislation. We are not dependent on a massive transport Bill in order to make a reality of the integrated transport strategy laid out in the White Paper. As my noble friend Lord Berkeley said, the vast majority of proposals in the White Paper do not need primary legislation.
Real progress can be made on the integrated transport front without legislation. We have already committed in the comprehensive spending review an extra £11 billion over the next three years to improve local and public transport. The Government will be investing a further £700 million in the maintenance and better use of existing road networks rather than expending it on massive new road schemes. Central to this is the strategy of reducing the growth in road transport, especially as regards the private car. That requires a carrot and a stick. It requires the carrot of improving public transport, safer streets and safer alternatives to using a private car. It also means that the cost of motoring will increase; for example, on fuel taxation, on vehicle excise duty and on company car taxation, where decisions have yet to be made. In particular, it will involve the road user charge legislation which we will be introducing in the first instance in the Greater London Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, asked about the new systems of guidance for local authorities. Those are already under way and we hope to issue the final version
344
following consultation in about February of next year. The noble Baroness also asked about road user and workplace charging. I can tell her that that will indeed be included in the London legislation. We shall shortly be consulting on the details of how the schemes might work across the country.
It is in that area that we hope to see a direct effect on reducing the pressure on our roads, particularly in our urban areas. We also hope that it will provide additional money for local authorities to spend on transport projects; in other words, in reply to my noble friend Lord Berkeley, the money will be raised locally and spent locally. It will also be earmarked—hypothecated, if I may use that term—on transport projects. In July, I announced the outcome of the roads review, which means that we will be shifting substantial resources to improving the maintenance and management of existing roads and building new ones. Therefore, very much has been done and is in the process of being done in terms of changing priorities in transport.
Nevertheless, the gracious Speech made provision for two central features of our integrated transport policy in legislative terms. We have been granted advanced drafting authority for the strategic rail authority. We are already establishing a shadow strategic rail authority to ensure that the authority proper will hit the ground running as soon as the legislation is passed. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and others referred specifically to that issue. The strategic rail authority will bring a new sense of direction to the rail industry. Passengers are sick and tired of a rail industry which fails to deliver for them.
We will be setting up the strategic rail authority as soon as the legislative timetable permits, but in the meantime the shadow authority will drive forward changes on the way in which railways are planned and regulated. That meets many of the concerns expressed by, among others, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford. I say in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, that we are appointing a new British Railways Board chairman, a new franchising director and a new rail regulator. They will engage in sweeping changes to mark an end to a very unhappy phase in our railways policy.
In the Greater London Authority Bill, not only will there be powers to introduce road-user charging and work-place parking charging, thereby giving additional resources on transport fronts for both the new Greater London Authority, the mayor and the London boroughs, but there will also be a substantial responsibility on a strong mayor tasked with producing a single integrated transport strategy for London. In that strategy the mayor will consider all forms of transport. The London boroughs will be producing implementation plans for putting the mayor's strategy into effect at local level. The mayor will be able to integrate transport policies and environment, development and planning policies because he will have the strategic responsibility in all of those areas.
To support the mayor, the Government are creating Transport for London, which will be a powerful new transport body to take over responsibility for services

345
and to implement the strategy. TFL will take over London Transport's responsibility for both buses and tubes. It will run a key network of London's most important roads. Through the mayor, it will have a strong voice concerning the capital's rail network. It will also have important responsibilities for taxis, minicabs, the river and Docklands Light Railway. Therefore, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, it is clear that we will have a strong mayor with a strong transport policy.
Many other questions were raised in relation to transport policy, but I fear that I must write to noble Lords about them. I recently met the noble Lord, Lord Brougham, and his colleagues and I shall write to him in detail on the points he raised. Likewise, I shall write to my noble friend Lord Simon, who raised a number of detailed questions on the policy in relation to motor vehicles.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, and others mentioned an article in tonight's Evening Standard dealing with the powers of the mayor in relation to London Transport and the strategy for establishing a public-private partnership in London Underground. London Underground will shortly report to Ministers on the progress of the PPP. Until then, there will be no decisions on the timing of the handover of that responsibility to the mayor. It is not true that the powers of the mayor are being diluted. The mayor will have responsibility for the rest of transport and London Underground will be transferred when the PPP is complete.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, questioned me on concessionary fares. I fear that that is one of the few areas which requires primary legislation. We will produce that at a later stage in order to ensure a minimum standard on concessionary fares across the country.
Coming closer to home, my noble friend Lord Berkeley asked me about reducing parking places within Whitehall and, by inference, Westminster. The Government are taking a lead in introducing green transport plans to reduce solo commuting by car into London. We have a clear target to have those plans in place for Whitehall headquarter buildings by March 1999. The situation with regard to this Palace is not a matter for me.
I move on from dealing with the transport side of the Greater London Bill to its wider aspects. Since the abolition of the GLC in 1986—as I think most noble Lords appreciate now, whatever position they took at the time—London has lacked strategic direction and accountable government. The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, asked me whether the new Greater London Authority and the mayor will be a regional authority or local authority. London is unique. It is neither regional nor local in the same sense as the rest of the country. The metropolis requires—and will get—special treatment. It will be a strategic authority, with powers devolved from the centre. It will also co-ordinate the activities on those strategic areas among the London local authorities. For 12 years London has had to put up with unco-ordinated and fragmented policies with
346
imposition from central government. That will end. We are pledged to bring strategic leadership and democracy to London, and the people of London approved our proposals in a referendum in May. The new Greater London Authority will be a new type of government, tailored specifically to London's needs.
When producing his strategies, however, the mayor will be under a duty to consult with relevant London organisations, including those who represent the London business community and the London boroughs. In answer to questions from the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and others, I can give an assurance that we have no intention that the GLA should duplicate the roles of London boroughs. The boroughs will retain the vast majority of their current functions, including their planning and development control functions. Key borough functions, including housing, social services and education will be specifically protected in the legislation. The GLA's role will be to co-ordinate those things which are done best on a city-wide basis. We want the boroughs and the GLA to work in partnership for the benefit of London as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, raised the question of the electoral system. I hesitate to tread in this area. All I would say is that the system was approved in the referendum. It is the same as the additional member system approved for both Scotland and Wales. I gently pass over it by saying that it is not the same as that proposed—but not accepted by this House—in relation to the European elections.
We will have a strong mayor but we will also have powerful democratic accountability through the GLA in London. The mayor will have a number of powers, which no other local authority will have, but he will also be subject to the will of the people of London through their direct election of him or her and there will also be his or her accountability to the GLA. That, incidentally, will apply to whoever is the mayor.
On the broader aspects of local government, the Queen's Speech referred to two Bills. The first to be introduced in this Session is the Local Government Bill covering the new duty of best value, which replaces compulsory competitive tendering. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bassam, and others, who welcomed the Bill in broad terms.
The White Paper package contains other measures. The most important ones are the financial messages which are contained in this Bill and the structural and ethical measures contained in the Bill for advanced drafting. They are the most important and we intend to pursue them. We said in the White Paper that we would discuss further on these issues and we are currently in discussion with the Local Government Association and local government throughout the country.
The Bill that will be before your Lordships delivers on our Manifesto commitment to introduce a new duty on local authorities to secure best value. The provisions in the Bill have been worked out in consultation with local authorities. Best value will require local authorities to deliver services to clear standards by the most economic, effective and efficient means available. Under best value, local authorities will be required to

347
challenge the purpose of the services, compare their performance with the best, consult those affected and use competition to best effect. These proposals on best value have already been acted on with enthusiasm by the 37 authorities in England and by the Welsh authorities who are running best value pilot projects. Those authorities have already demonstrated that best value works and represents the future for local government. As my noble friend Lady Goudie indicated, it will also be popular among councillors and their voters in local government. This replaces a CCT regime which was inflexible and which forced authorities to put services out to tender when there was no real need and often no real market. Compulsion has soured relations between local authorities and the private sector and caused divisions within local councils. We believe that we are moving to a better system and one which, contrary to what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, is not too bureaucratic and does not impose an unnecessary burden. Although challenging, the proposals will be simple and they will formalise effectively good practice. Indeed, it has to be said that the framework will be much less prescriptive than the CCT regime.
The Bill also covers the issue of council tax regulation. The Government are committed to getting rid of the crude capping regime that we inherited, which caused such difficulty between national government and local government. Nevertheless, we will include within the Bill reserve powers which will enable us to limit excessive council tax increases, as was stated in our manifesto. We hope that that reserve power will he used rarely, if at all. We are confident that the removal of crude capping arrangements will not encourage local authorities to engage in irresponsible and excessive spending.
Contrary to what was suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I believe that these powers will be more flexible, more discriminating and more transparent. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, has a long and honourable record in local government but he is a representative of the party which brought us capping in the first place and the whole fiasco of the poll tax. For him now to say that we are centralising by proposing new draconian powers over local authority finances I find a little rich.
The Bill on which we will be engaged in a pre-legislative process will contain potentially some of the most radical changes local government has seen in recent years. A number of noble Lords referred to that. The process is central to the modernisation of local government but it leaves a good deal of choice with the local authorities themselves and with their electors. It is true that even under the present regimes no two local authorities are run in exactly the same way. The three models with which we will come forward in the Bill will give councils everywhere greater scope to design decision taking arrangements which best suit their areas. This involves the separation of the executive functions from, if one likes, the legislative functions. The Bill will also contain references to the new ethical framework. Again, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, was excessive in his accusation of centralisation. It will
348
primarily be the councils which will have lead responsibility for their own standards and the new independent body which will be able to deal with complaints. That is not heavy-handed central government. That is allowing local authorities to sort out their own problems—and we know that there are problems of all descriptions in local government.
It has taken me 26 minutes to reach education, yet education is in many ways the central part of the debate today, though it was, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, my noble friend Lady Blackstone and I know only too well, a central feature of the previous Session of Parliament. It will be less so in this Session. Nevertheless, some important points on education were raised in the debate and we are taking some important initiatives. I would rather not re-run the arguments of last Session to any great extent and perhaps I will not even say what I was going to say about grammar schools. Since the regulations on grammar schools come in only this week, I find rather strange the accusation that we are gerrymandering the situation with regard to grammar school ballots. Most objective observers have noted that, if anything, the grammar schools regulations lean over backwards to protect the position of grammar schools. A ballot will not take place unless there is a substantial parental demand for it in terms of triggering the whole process. If, indeed, the vote goes against grammar schools changing their status, the issue will not be raised for another five years. I do not recognise the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness about the disruption of education in those grammar schools. Our approach, however, is to try to bring the majority of schools into a strategic approach to provision within their areas. We believe that the option of changing the status of grammar schools has to be available to parents. We are pursuing it in that context.
More generally, we want to give a real choice in education. The noble Baroness attacked us for restricting choice, but the opposite is true. We are giving choice to the vast majority of people, not just the few. We are all in favour of excellence but we are not in favour of elitism. We are in favour of extending equality of opportunity to everyone. The noble Baroness may say that is pure socialism. I do not particularly mind that, but I would rather refer to it as equipping the whole population of this country with skills and opportunities for the next century.
To underpin the comprehensive series of measures to raise standards, we shall have committed £1.65 billion by the year 2001–02 for better school buildings and equipment. That is more than double the investment made in the final year of the previous government. As regards the commitment on class sizes, we shall introduce our class size pledge by 2002. This year's spending of £62 million will ensure that 100,000 fewer infant school pupils are in classes with more than 30 pupils and that 600 extra classrooms are built. We have also made substantial investment in further and higher education which will see the numbers undertaking that education increase. I do not wish to rerun too many of the arguments of the previous Session, but it is notable that the number of places taken up in higher education is well above the 1996 level.

349
However, central to these measures is the role of the teaching profession. School teachers are absolutely central to our standards agenda and to create the right atmosphere in our schools in delivering the improvements in standards that we want. My noble friend Lady Blackstone referred to the Green Paper. There have been a number of queries on that but the Green Paper, which will be published shortly, will set out our proposals to modernise the teaching profession, giving teachers opportunities to develop and progress, together with the rewards they deserve. We propose an updated system of pay and rewards for good teaching to attract the best graduates to the profession. We are not advocating crude payment by results but a more sophisticated assessment measured against performance standards. We want to be able to reward good teachers, particularly those in "difficult" schools. I hope I have reassured the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, on that point. Full details, however, will be available when the Green Paper is issued shortly.
It is important that all have access to the opportunities that education provides. It is important, in particular, for disabled citizens. A Bill to establish a disabled rights commission will help to secure those rights for disabled people in education, services and employment. Central to the remit of that commission—as my noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton spelt out—will be its remit to work towards the elimination of discrimination and to promote equality of opportunities for disabled people in all spheres; in other words, to turn the rights which exist on paper into reality, as my noble friend Lady Gould requires.
The education system is central to much of our strategy. I shall briefly address some of the points which were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred to his belief in the need to establish a Minister for children. I believe that the various agencies within Whitehall are now engaged in much more "joined up' government than has previously been the case. Our local government reforms will help in that regard. The noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Liverpool, mentioned the Youth Service. We are considering the Youth Service and we aim in the medium term to put it on a stronger statutory footing. For the moment we are still consulting on that, but it is clearly our intention. We recognise the importance of the Youth Service.
My noble friend Lord Bragg referred to 30,000 media students. It is important that they help to create a vibrant and competitive entertainment industry in the 21st century. I very much welcome the support of my right honourable friend Chris Smith for the project which my noble friend Lord Bragg has described to us today. We would wish to discuss further with him how we can implement that.
Among other matters the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark raised the question of local education authorities and Church representatives as voting members of local authority education committees. I shall have to write to the right reverend Prelate on some of his other points. The local government White Paper states that there will continue to be Church and parent representatives, with voting
350
right, on those council committees which are concerned with education. The Government are aware of the Churches' concerns that they should not be side-lined in the decision-taking process, either under the proposed legislation on political management structures or in authorities experimenting within the current legislation. Government officials have already had, as the right reverend Prelate may well be aware, a positive and constructive meeting with representatives of the Churches to discuss their concerns. We shall continue that dialogue throughout the consultation on the Bill.
I fear that on other questions relating to education I shall have to write to noble Lords.
I now come to agriculture. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, was quite correct in saying that I have relatively little experience of agriculture. Therefore, I shall detain your Lordships for less time than I have on other areas. Nevertheless, even with my limited experience of rural areas, I know of the current serious state of the agricultural industry, to which my right honourable friend, Nick Brown, referred today. The full figures will be announced tomorrow. Farm incomes have suffered a serious deterioration over the past two or three years and tomorrow the figures will confirm that that situation has continued. That will have serious effects not only on the viability of agriculture, but also on the environment, animal welfare and the rural economy as a whole.
The Government are constrained, to some extent, by the CAP from taking unilateral measures to support the UK market. However, we have used the elements of freedom that we do have, and the elements of CAP support which are available to us, to try to offset the joint effects of the strengthening of the pound and of the catastrophe of the BSE crisis on much of our farming.
On 16th November my right honourable friend announced a new package of aid for farmers worth an additional £120 million, on top of the aid that has been given already because of the BSE crisis.
The aid for farmers is aimed at the short-term difficulties, to answer the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. It is not a long-term solution to the problems of British agriculture, but it will cushion it for the immediate period.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, raised the question of the reform of the CAP in relation to enlargement. That is a bigger issue, I fear, than I am able to go into at this time of night. However, our concern is that the agricultural policy will change. Enlargement will force it to change drastically, as will the World Trade Organisation negotiations. Also, there will be a growing will among many countries in the EU to change that policy. In the meantime, we have to engage in short-term measures, like the £120 million to which I have referred and the support to hill livestock compensatory payments that have been made. Although those rates were not increased, hill farmers were given extra support by an £85 million special aid budget granted earlier this year. We continue to be particularly sensitive to the needs of hill farmers.

351
The only other area that I had better touch on briefly is the food standards agency. Clearly, we have a commitment to produce a food standards agency. It is not in the programme for this Session, but we are engaging in further consultation on the matter. We also intend to take action on providing better information for consumers, better scientific information and better product-testing in the interim before the agency is set up. However, nobody should doubt that we shall bring forward legislation for a food standards agency as rapidly as possible.
I have spoken for too long. On the other hand, there are a lot of issues that I have not dealt with fully in the course of the debate. I shall read Hansard carefully and pick out those that deserve a further answer. I thank noble Lords for their patience and in particular those who made maiden speeches; and I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. It relates to a very important part of the Government's programme and we shall be delivering it for the whole of this Parliament and probably beyond. So I hope that we shall return to many of these issues in this House at a later date.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly until tomorrow.

London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees acquainted the House that pursuant to the resolution of 17 November the Bill had been deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the
352
Parliaments together with the declaration of the agent; the Bill was presented, read a first time, read a second time pro forma and reported from the Committees.

Parliamentary Privilege
A message was brought from the Commons that they have ordered:
That in accordance with the Resolution of that House of 9th July 1997 in the last session of Parliament, a Select Committee of six Members be appointed to join with a Committee to be appointed by the Lords, as the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, to review parliamentary privilege and make recommendations thereon;
That three be the Quorum of the Committee;
That the Committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; to report from time to time; and to appoint specialist advisers to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference;
That the proceedings of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee;
That the Attorney General, the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor General and the Solicitor General for Scotland, being members of either House, may attend the Committee, may take part in deliberations, may receive Committee papers and may give such other assistance to the Committee as may be appropriate, but shall not vote or make any motion or move any amendment or be counted in the quorum.
House adjourned at five minutes past ten o'clock.

  Yugoslavia: Exceptions to Arms Embargo
  Yugoslavia: Exceptions to Arms Embargo
  EU: Forthcoming Council Business
  EU: Forthcoming Council Business
  International Criminal Court
  International Criminal Court
  Argentina: Arms Embargo
  Argentina: Arms Embargo
  Rural Areas: Policy
  Rural Areas: Policy
  Cycling in Royal Parks
  Cycling in Royal Parks
  Bull Bars
  Bull Bars
  Road Safety Strategy and Targets
  Road Safety Strategy and Targets